The importance of female education (1 Viewer)

[Scucca]

I simply understand the point that she is making.

Given the "excessively educated" comment merely showed she hadn't considered the nature of the evidence, you're in a parallel universe obviously. I do hope beige is employed less over there.

True, nobody can actually be excessively educated, but that was not her point, she was talking about certain individuals in this case, not about excessive education.

She twinned a hatred of education with a twisted used of feminism. At best, your support for her argument shows that you have too much time on your hands

 

[Bodi]

I am not hostile, or at not any more than Felicity is along with her irrelevance.
As to being shallow, I have been a lot worse from time to time, but at least I try to be sincere.
Actually she did not.
That was not the point she tried to make.

As Grannie mentioned, now you are referring to job qualifications, entirely different.

There was no opinion to dismiss, but I agree, it was without any semblance of logic as usual from her.

Everybody is a friend. As far as her deepness, I am simply not willing to take out a shovel and dig that deep. I can be as superficial at least as Jerry.
Show me a person who is never a hypocrite and I'll show you and infant or a dead person. My intent was not to attach significance to or boast about my travels, but to point out the rarity of such a position. Any reasonable person would see that.

Perhaps I am stepping into a point that I am not fully embracing then...
And perhaps I should just shut the hell up then! :2razz:

I don't know, I seem to get what she is saying, and it is not a great point, but it still makes sense to me, but I will not interject into your guys debate again without hearing her better explain herself so that I can formulate a more concrete assessment.

I can be wrong, and maybe... just maybe I am this time.

Felicity... make it good baby!

 

[Scucca]

Here's a possible explanation for the education/attitudes findings:

Carlton et al (2000, College Student's Attitudes Toward Abortion and Commitment to the Issue, Social Science Journal, Vol 37, pp 619-626) note the following:

"Researchers have found that pro-life individuals tend to have more unified attitude structures than pro-choice individuals (Stets and Leik, 1993), one possible explanation for the success of the pro-life movement. Here, the term "unified" indicated monolithic and less complex attitudes toward abortion. Stets and Leik found that not only did pro-life respondents have a more unified attitude structure than pro-choice respondents regarding the issue of abortion, but they also tended to have more unified attitudes relative to politics, religion, and social issues."

We can therefore argue that the pro-life movement tends to be more homogeneous. At the same time, education encourages diversity in experience and this is likely to also increase second-hand experience with abortion. The empirical evidence suggests that this is likely to significantly increase liberalism in abortion attitudes (e.g. Hollis and Morris, 1992, Attitudes Toward Abortion in Female Undergraduates, College Student Journal, Vol 26, pp70-74). We therefore have a rather positive argument about the repercussions of education: the support of heterogeneous experiences and behaviour, ensuring a positive spillover effect on abortion attitudes

 

[Felicity]

Felicity... make it good baby!

I have no idea what it is that they are taking issue with. Scucca seems to have a pre-formed conclusion he wants everyone to surmise having to do with homogeny and stupidity for PLCers and diversity and intellectualism for PACers, but he ignoresthe definitions of both. And, prometeus is the yipping dog slobbering all over the bulldog from the old LoonyTunes show.

We've already established that there are pro and anti contraception PLCers. Likewise, there are PACers that very much limit their view concerning abortion to those who do not. When one decides he is pro-life, it's a very definitive stance. Of course there is more "diversity" in a broad definition of "choice"--Pro-lifers are defined in the negative. They are against abortion. Jerry doesn't even bother with the term pro-life and prefers the term anti-abortion. That's accurate.

Nonetheless--if one accepts elective abortion on any level, then that person is considered pro-choice--even if they are personally against abortion or want to limit elective abortion to the earliest stages. A pro-life person is against all elective abortions, though there is some variation of views concerning such things as contraception and incest/rape (although I would personally call the view in favor of abortion in the case of incest/rape a pro-choice stance).

The pro-life crowd is a smaller contingency because of its being defined as against abortion. You are undoubtedly going to find similar views among those who have similar values that led them to be against a specific act/procedure. Just as you are going to find that those who are not against abortion and who tend to value personal development over family development seeking education...to (no duh!)... develop themselves personally. People who hold values that are common among PLCers spend their time and life DIFFERENTLY. It has nothing to do with gaining intelligence or being more intelligent--it has to do with what an individual values and whether or not one wants to subject oneself to propaganda that reinforces that self-focused perspective.

And, I don't need a journal article to verify what is common sense.:doh Only the pseudo-intellectuals need to have that sort of validation.


As for the "excessively educated" comment--if they don't get that "more than necessary" education is "excessive"--I don't know what to tell them. I will never use much of the education I have been required to obtain. Furthermore--before my position on abortion (and other positions on issues that my PLCer fellows would likely share) became very clear to me, I sought education for my "fulfillment" and again, will unlikely use much of that formal education. People seek fulfilment. Some find it in education and some find it in family. Some, like me, sought it one place and found it wanting, and then sought it in another place.

 

[Scucca]

More empty whinge'n'whine I'm afraid! Can we have a pro-life person that actually refers to the purpose of the thread: providing a worthwhile hypothesis that can be potentially used to explain the empirical findings?

 

[prometeus]

Perhaps I am stepping into a point that I am not fully embracing then...
And perhaps I should just shut the hell up then! :2razz:

I don't know, I seem to get what she is saying, and it is not a great point, but it still makes sense to me, but I will not interject into your guys debate again without hearing her better explain herself so that I can formulate a more concrete assessment.

I can be wrong, and maybe... just maybe I am this time.

Felicity... make it good baby!

No, no I think you should say whatever you feel, because I think that it will be a sincere statement. We all can be wrong and are from time to time, well, with some exceptions

 

[prometeus]

I have no idea what it is that they are taking issue with.

What is at issue is not the fact that you believe differently, but rather that you dismiss any and all stances, opinions and data that is counter to your belief. You do not offer anything that even remotely resembles reasoning, but instead refer to your education and number of posts on this board, as the qualifications for your truths and you belittle other people.
While your life is entirely your affair, your assertion that intellectual pursuits are only to feed a machine with a liberal agenda can only substantiate that your education was in fact not excessive but sadly a waste.

 

[Scucca]

prometeus,

It would be nice if the thread wasn't hijacked by those with an interest to hide from content. Why do you think education and pro-choice attitudes are linked?

 

[Felicity]

What is at issue is not the fact that you believe differently, but rather that you dismiss any and all stances, opinions and data that is counter to your belief.

I'm agreeing with the findings--just not with the conclusion your mentor is claiming and you--the protege--are lapping up. :doh

You do not offer anything that even remotely resembles reasoning, but instead refer to your education and number of posts on this board, as the qualifications for your truths and you belittle other people.

Hello--who is belittling? What hypocrisy! And again, you reference the post count:rofl I mentioned that to you only after you assumed I hadn't ever given cogent responses to your recycled points and belittled my intelligence as a newb to the forum. You assumed much and I pointed you to some of what occurred in the past. Dang! You sure do carry grudges along with the coal you carry for Scucca.

While your life is entirely your affair, your assertion that intellectual pursuits are only to feed a machine with a liberal agenda can only substantiate that your education was in fact not excessive but sadly a waste.

Again--like your mentor--reading comprehension issues...that is not at all what I said. I said FOR ME (and for all teachers who are amply educated but must continue a time sensitive pursuit of nothing in particular)--WE are "excessively educated" in order to feed the machine at the university level. :roll:

 

[Felicity]

prometeus,

It would be nice if the thread wasn't hijacked by those with an interest to hide from content. Why do you think education and pro-choice attitudes are linked?

Yea!!! Finally! And if the dear protege agrees with your preconceived notions, it will be well received. However, if one should DISAGREE, well...then that person is off topic and hijacking.

...wait....Isn't that the question Jerry and I have addressed?


C'mon, prometeus--the mentor has asked you to step to the podium. Be sure to link to some peer reviewed journal article that requires a subscription or a book by a liberal sociologist. You have to meet the standard:2rofll:

 

[Scucca]

Yea!!! Finally! And if the dear protege agrees with your preconceived notions, it will be well received. However, if one should DISAGREE, well...then that person is off topic and hijacking.

I'm interested in any opinion except for tosh. You failed. Get over it.

I'd prefer that, instead of showing yourself up as non-excessively educated, you actually thought about your error and eliminated it. Go on, be a devil!

 

[Bodi]

Well Done Felicity... as usual. :2razz:

 

[prometeus]

C'mon, prometeus--the mentor has asked you to step to the podium. Be sure to link to some peer reviewed journal article that requires a subscription or a book by a liberal sociologist. You have to meet the standard:2rofll:

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you Felicity for the kind introduction. I will try my best to explain the mystery of this nearly impossible to understand topic.

As with much important material that is prepared in academia it is important to familiarize ourselves with other pertinent data. For this purpose I bring to your attention to page 15987 of the fifth volume of Professor Liberal’s monumental work about the correlation between relations of differing nature of the unexplained events against the backdrop of the overstated underestimated variables and their effects on the unknown factors that are so essential.
As the good professor points out, the important aspect is the relevance of the data taken in context of the unusual circumstances which provide the many derivatives that are not readily observable.
Overlooking this essential aspect of the issue is the main cause for not seeing the other pertinent factors and numerous available choices.
There are numerous other instances where similar events are coupled with alike attitudes creating diverging points that radiate inward to multiple focal points. It is not enough to evaluate these quantities simply on a logarithmic scale, it is essential to quantify them on a human scale paralleled by metaphysical notions.

I am sorry, but this is all the time I have today for this. Please familiarize yourselves with the referenced material and we will continue next time.

 

[prometeus]

prometeus,

It would be nice if the thread wasn't hijacked by those with an interest to hide from content. Why do you think education and pro-choice attitudes are linked?

I think that it is important to differentiate between "attitudes" and the willingness to use means that are at one's disposal.
I have no doubt that education is a great contributing factor to understanding the world that surrounds us, of the principles that govern our lives and our personal philosophies. Education equips people, women in this case with the tools to challenge perceptions and valued that we are given in life but not explained, but rather like a dogma. When the unsupported aspects are peeled away with the aid of better understanding through education, attitudes can and are quickly changed to reflect the rationale that the acquired knowledge brings. This is not different with abortion. At the end of all arguments and reasonings, it becomes clear that opponents of abortion have nothing to support their opposition with , but their personal morality or a dogmatic classification of life as sacred. That while it is more than sufficient for a personal attitude in life, is not nearly sufficient for adopting laws.
Today, when new laws are passed, people with a better understanding through education are more apt to challenge them and if they have no merit have them overturned.
As Felicity point out, it is an undeniable fact that a large number of abortions are performed on women who for various reasons are less educated and on the lower end of the economic scale. I do not think that that aspect has anything to do with education, although it seems to contradict the study, but rather with the simple instinct of "survival" by that meaning that people will use all that is at their disposal to make life better for themselves. Abortion is just one of those things that some choose to use.

 

[Erudite]

it is an undeniable fact that a large number of abortions are performed on women who for various reasons are less educated and on the lower end of the economic scale. I do not think that that aspect has anything to do with education, although it seems to contradict the study, but rather with the simple instinct of "survival" by that meaning that people will use all that is at their disposal to make life better for themselves.

Futher, we must discern the disparate domains of willingness and necessity.
To reiterate your opinions, abortion shall, and should, remain an individual conviction that has no effect external to the individual herself.
However, the seemingly disproportionate quantity of abortions performed on women of lesser income can be attributed to education and lack thereof. It is fair to assume that dispositions towards having an abortion would be reasonably distributed throughout the classes; however, there is undoubtedly a divergence in necessity. It is facile to define links between sexual education and pregnancy rates; people with lower incomes historically have been more prolific, for want of education. Thus, it is not that education changes one's perspective on such procedures, but that it can lead to ignorance regarding birth control and other preventative measures, which creates a greater necessity for the service, and therefore increases the rate of abortions.

 

[Scucca]

At the end of all arguments and reasonings, it becomes clear that opponents of abortion have nothing to support their opposition with , but their personal morality or a dogmatic classification of life as sacred.

I did think that the education findings might actually reflect religious dogma. Thus, we could argue that the education/perception links reflect an endogeneity problem in the empirical analysis. We'd have a variation of the secularistion thesis, with education resulting in declining religiosity. The less educated are then only more likely to be pro-life because religious preferences play a greater role. Further research, however, shows this thinking is flawed. For example, Uecker et al (2007, Losing My Religion: The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood, Social Forces, Vol 85, pp 1667-1692) find that “emerging adults that avoid college exhibit the most extensive patterns of religious decline”.

I'm also not happy with just referring to the enlightenment achieved by education. The abortion rate amongst the lower income deciles demonstrate the importance of economic constraints. I'm therefore unsure over the differentiation of 'attitudes' and 'willingness'. Both reflect economic effects. The only difference is the blunt reality of economic constraints, rather than the positive psychological impact of economic opportunities.

 

[1069]

It is facile to define links between sexual education and pregnancy rates; people with lower incomes historically have been more prolific, for want of education.

Not that simple.
They are prolific for many other reasons, all beginning and ending with a dearth of hope and opportunity. They don't believe life can get worse. They also don't believe it can get better. They don't believe anything they do will make much of a difference, and they're correct.
It should be noted that "prolific" means "fruitful" (ie, having a lot of offspring, not aborting them), but perhaps you meant profligate or promiscuous or something.
Which is also applicable to the poor. They have more indiscriminate sex than the rich. They have more kids than the rich. They also have more abortions than the rich.
All the reasons come back to the same thing.
Not "lack of education". Lack of opportunity. Some grow up in such a mentally, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually impoverished environment that they would not be able to utilize an opportunity even if it were handed to them. They would not be able to use, for instance, a full scholarship to college, if they are functionally illiterate.
There is little about the world that they understand, some of them. They don't understand how things work, and aren't capable of learning, because they have no foundation and no context for such knowledge. They are very isolated, alienated, and disenfranchised from the larger world, although aware of it.
They do understand sex, and children, and families, however, no matter how disadvantaged and underprivileged they are.
They understand these things as positive, and within their grasp, unlike much of anything else.

 

[new coup for you]

I'm not convinced the poor have more sex then the rich; they may just use less protection and so the evidence of their sex is more obvious.

 

[1069]

I'm not convinced the poor have more sex then the rich; they may just use less protection and so the evidence of their sex is more obvious.

I don't know about "more sex".
"More indiscriminate sex"- more partners, etc- is pretty much beyond question.

 

[new coup for you]

I dunno I've seen quite some ****ing at my private Northeastern college.

I suspect a great many of the girls at Cancun on "Girl's Gone Wild" are from pretty reasonable means, I mean otherwise how would they be able to afford expensive spring break trips?

The difference may be that the wealthy peak at youth and then hit a plateau (or even valley) for the rest of their lives while the poor continue at a steady rate.

 

[talloulou]

I don't know about "more sex".
"More indiscriminate sex"- more partners, etc- is pretty much beyond question.

Maybe in large cities where the poor are living in ghetto type settings. But your average hillbilly midwestern type that isn't very well off is far more likely to marry a high school sweet heart and have very little if any indiscriminate sex compared to most college kids.

 

[1069]

Maybe in large cities where the poor are living in ghetto type settings. But your average hillbilly midwestern type that isn't very well off is far more likely to marry a high school sweet heart and have very little if any indiscriminate sex compared to most college kids.

The correlation between poverty and becoming sexually active at a younger age and having a larger number of sex partners is well documented.
If you have data or statistics from a reputable source that indicate otherwise or that somehow exclude underprivileged whites in midwestern locales from this equation, I'd be happy to look at it.

 

[prometeus]

Futher, we must discern the disparate domains of willingness and necessity.
To reiterate your opinions, abortion shall, and should, remain an individual conviction that has no effect external to the individual herself.

I agree entirely.

However, the seemingly disproportionate quantity of abortions performed on women of lesser income can be attributed to education and lack thereof.

Also true, but I prefer to split hairs here a bit. The lack of sex education, which beyond a doubt is a large contributor to unwanted pregnancies among women on the lower economic scale, I consider not lack of education, but rather a deprivation of basic life necessity. Higher education in this day and age ,in my opinion, should be that which is above the minimum to survive and sex ed belongs to the minimum. Understanding how one's body works does not lend to an opinion on abortion as readily as more in depth knowledge attained through higher education. Lets face it, as it stands today , high school education in the US is barely above reading ability.

It is fair to assume that dispositions towards having an abortion would be reasonably distributed throughout the classes; however, there is undoubtedly a divergence in necessity. It is facile to define links between sexual education and pregnancy rates; people with lower incomes historically have been more prolific, for want of education. Thus, it is not that education changes one's perspective on such procedures, but that it can lead to ignorance regarding birth control and other preventative measures, which creates a greater necessity for the service, and therefore increases the rate of abortions.

Again, in essence you are correct if we do not draw a minimum level as just basic living skills and what is above that as education.

 

[1069]

Here, see if you can get this file open and see what it says:

http://fipa.aers.psu.edu/ppt/Teen Pregnancy and Rural Poverty.ppt


(Teen Pregnancy, Rural Poverty and Youth Well-Being Outcomes)

 

[1069]

"Despite the popular belief that rural families conform to the traditional family structure, recent studies have found higher levels of divorce, teen pregnancy, and unmarried cohabitation in rural areas. (51) Indeed, families headed by females are almost proportionately represented in rural areas. (52) As of 1999, about 42% of rural, female-headed families were living in poverty, and half of those had incomes that were less than half of the poverty threshold. (53) As of 2003, the percentage of people in rural, female-headed families who were poor had dropped to 36.2%, but this was still more than 7% higher than urban female-headed families, at 28.9%. (54) A study of the risks of poverty for female-headed families shows the risks are significantly higher for those living in non-metro areas than for others. (55) Female-headed families with children are the most likely to be poor, and they are twice as likely to be living in poverty as their suburban counterparts. (56)"

Missing the mark: welfare reform and rural poverty. | Journal of Gender, Race and Justice (March, 2007)


It's a myth that the rural poor are more like you because they're white.
Actually, they're more like them- like underprivileged minority inner-city dwellers- than they are like you or me or anyone here.
Their behavior, their prospects, their motivations, their outcomes.
There is not much difference between the urban and rural poor, beneath the skin.
It is a myth that they are "better off" than the urban poor, or simply *better* than them, or significantly different than them in any meaningful way.
Statistics tell a different story.