I am really tired of the phrase "I have no agency."

I have a pretend travel agency.

SomethIng about this doesn't sound right to me. I was an engineering student at an Ivy in the mid nineties. Even nerds like me had to take writing seminars, most of which had a strong minority cultural component. I also found myself in a history class crosslisted with the women's studies department. Almost everything else I did was math.

And I wasn't particularly liberal.

It's hard to believe that 20 years later minorities and women don't have more influence over the curriculum.

It's not that minorities and women aren't represented in the curriculum. It's that they're not 100% of it.

I would posit that the hordes of inventors and explorers you speak of merely had better PR. There were other hordes whose accomplishments were not allowed into the culture you regard as default. So that's not exactly fact. That's supremacy.

(Disclosure: Duped comment from other source)

The reality is, much of modern civilization was created by men and much by white men.
_______________________________

And the common argument is that a great deal of that was due to discrimination against women and minorities. I have no idea just how often that was true, but it's no secret that plenty of modern computer geniuses, etc., come from India, for one. Plus the fact that American women now take all sorts of opportunities and careers that they didn't used to have, because girls were very often discouraged by their families from getting whatever was the most common form of highest education available (usually to save the family's money for the boys' tuition), whether it was college in the pre-WWII era or elementary school in colonial times.

Of course, we can't change the past and anyone who can get into college in the first place should be mature enough to accept that, but it's also hardly fair for a school to teach as though ONLY white men ever did anything historic before the 20th century. (If any secular college actually does that, these days.)

BTW, if modern women aren't doing their "share" of dangerous jobs - high-paying ones, that is - it's likely because, just as plenty of unhappy blue-collar men would rather have studied harder in school and avoided taking jobs where they have to risk life and limb just to stay out of poverty, women have an extra incentive to get into college and avoid that deadly scene; they know perfectly well that men don't usually give a warm welcome to women who try to get into high-paying, male-dominated jobs - as if women should be happy with minimum-wage jobs that are (sometimes) less dangerous.

She's getting what she really wants - lots of attention. Lap it up Nissy, it won't last long.

Bullshit!

Education is a platform that should be used as a springboard for you to explore ON YOUR OWN further into your major and minor interests.

It's only the very basic information. If you want to learn you have to put in the time. No one earns their "agency" on school time. It's extra effort (sprints, miles, reps, sets, hours).

Fucking idiots! Goggle gives you such a head start on us old white guys that I feel like I'm picking on kittens.

...but it's also hardly fair for a school to teach as though ONLY white men ever did anything historic before the 20th century. (If any secular college actually does that, these days.) ~ Posted by: lenona at November 21, 2015 9:50 AM

I don't know of any school (at any level) that teaches that only white men did anything historic before the 20th century.

In middle and high school, we read female- and minority-authored novels and poems. We read about female scientists, explorers, and historical figures.

In college (in the '80s, no less), it was practically required that any class highlight women and minority historical figures in their fields and call out their status as women or minorities.

It was impossible to graduate high school then thinking that only white men ever did anything noteworthy throughout history. I imagine that holds true even more these days.

I will concede, that women and minority figures did have to be called out - the general backdrop of history was white and male. Since there were no black kings or queens of England or France, European history (which then was heavily tilted to Western Europe) was mostly pale. Asian history, however, was not. Nor was African history - which, admittedly, was included in the curriculum then more for its impact on European history than as a subject unto itself.

And since women were required then by social norms (in every society, not just white society) to take a back seat to men, women authors were restricted to "women" areas of writing or took male names to break free (e.g., George Elliot).

Last year, The San Francisco Chronicle featured front page snippets of African-American figures for Black History Month. All of the figures they cited were rappers, musicians, dancers, actors, and singers. No wonder African-Americans don't gravitate to sciences and engineering. We don't give them heroes in those fields.

Marie Curie and George Washington Carver have become so cliched as representative figures that they're practically ignored these days. But their stories are fascinating and deserve to be studied.

"And the common argument is that a great deal of that was due to discrimination against women and minorities. I have no idea just how often that was true ..."

As for minorities, it is 100% false. There were plenty of nations where there were no white people. China developed gun powder and most likely discovered America long before the Europeans. Even the concept of white is fairly new. Read up on what the English did to the Scots and the Irish. All 'white' and heavily discriminated against.

"... they know perfectly well that men don't usually give a warm welcome to women who try to get into high-paying, male-dominated jobs ..."

Once again a statement without a point. How many men are welcome in female dominated fields. I'll give you a hint, the answer is pretty close to nil. Women are far more welcome in made dominated fields today than men are welcome in female dominated ones. Also, for truly equal work women make more money than men. Women are hardly discriminated against in the US. The last few articles Amy presented show that if anything men are the more discriminated against sex.

... Aya said that the the Core Curriculum further silences students of color by requiring students to read texts that ignore the existence of marginalized people and their histories.

What I'd really like to know is, how exactly is the student being "silenced?" Just as Bob in Texas above is annoyed by the phrase "I have no agency," I cast a gimlet eye on those who insist they're being silenced when nobody's shushed them a single time in their lives.

OMG, are these people for real? I feel like I'm stuck on a planet created by The Onion. What is little miss "I have no agency" going to do out in the real world?

Daghain,
She'll only be playing w/the 'big boys' if there's a big curve.

Feel free to give examples. Hordes? I don't think so.

And for good reason. Men need to be successful to get mates. Women do not. Example: Men, generally speaking, will date the hot barista. Women will not.

Men are success objects in a way women are not.

" All of the figures they cited were rappers, musicians, dancers, actors, and singers. No wonder African-Americans don't gravitate to sciences and engineering. We don't give them heroes in those fields."
None mentioned the President?
That is more society worships actors and performers. Ask people to name 10 scientists, and you'll probably get Al Gore, and Tony Stark in the mix.
"Marie Curie and George Washington Carver have become so cliched as representative figures that they're practically ignored these days."

Which would apply to Einstein and Edison too, and pretty much any famous scientist.

Its not only just about discovery and invention, but getting it out to the rest of the world.

There is a reason white people from europe took over the world.

They lived far enough north that they had to develop farming practices to grow a lot of food in the short season, and storage practices to keep it over the winter.

As is it easier to steal others labor than work yourself this started an arms race of weapons as well.

As technologies become more advanced more specialization is required requiring larger populations and civilization meaning war between cultures, not just neighbors, leading to more leaps forward in technology.

When you live in an area with abundant life and a fairly stable year round climate and all you only have to WORK is ten to fifteen hours a week to feed you family, advancing technology to make your life easier is a waste of time.

Which means even though your lifestyle may be superior and preferable, you are going to lose to the people with better tech whos lives suck

She'd really be traumatized if she realized the language that offends her is English, another creation of the traumatizing class...

She was accepted into the class of 2014; yet won't get a degree until 2016 - two years later!

So, it MUST be someone else's fault; it cannot possibly be her own.

How many men are welcome in female dominated fields.
_______________________________________

Um, female dominated fields tend not to pay well, for the most part. Which could easily be the MAIN reason men don't work harder to increase their numbers in those fields. I think it's safe to say that when men have to choose between decent money and physical safety, they typically go for the money.

If they're worried at all about cold treatment from women in jobs like nursing or sewing, I'm guessing it isn't anything as extreme as sexual harassment, abusive language, threats, stalking or intimidation - you know, such as what female miners had to endure in Minnesota.

Um, female dominated fields tend not to pay well, for the most part. ~ Posted by: lenona at November 22, 2015 11:23 AM

Feminists keep arguing this, so I looked up average salaries for some female-dominated fields and compared them to male-dominated fields.

• Nurses make on average $68,910 for an RN and $42,910 for an LPN.
  
• Teaching, despite what the NEA will tell you, pays reasonably well ($58,600).
  
• Hairdressers tend to be at the lower end of the scale and make on average $27,530.

Male-dominated fields requiring similar levels of education/training don't actually pay better.

• A Welder I makes $36,667 on average. A Welder II averages $41,426.
  
• A plumber averages $50,180.
  
• An electrician averages $50,510.
  
• A carpenter averages $40,500.
  
• A barber averages $25,410.

If they're worried at all about cold treatment from women in jobs like nursing or sewing, I'm guessing it isn't anything as extreme as sexual harassment, abusive language, threats, stalking or intimidation - you know, such as what female miners had to endure in Minnesota. ~ Posted by: lenona at November 22, 2015 11:23 AM

Probably not as extreme as what the women at the EVTAC mine faced.

Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. was about an extreme case of sexual harassment. Harassment that was company-spceific and not institutionalized in the industry, unlike the kind of sexism male nursing students and male nurses face on a daily basis.

One nursing blog reports:

"The proportion of women in medicine has been profoundly altered in the past generation, but not so that of men in nursing. The 2004 federal survey of the RN population found that only 5.8% of RNs were men. This results from the profession’s use of caring philosophies that perpetuate the stereotype of women being more caring than men, as well as from the use of language that isn’t gender neutral and the failure to recruit men. As a member of an undergraduate admissions committee, I see an unconscious preference being given to younger women applicants to nursing programs, with recruiting efforts being directed primarily at undergraduate women."

On another nursing blog, the author writes:

“Recently I received an e-mail from a gentleman attending a college for nursing,” says Lucas, “telling me that because he was paying for school, he wanted the same education as everyone else. However, one of his instructors set up a clinical site at a battered woman’s shelter. The policy of the shelter was that no males could enter. Even though this young man was supposed to go to the site and was paying for the project, they weren’t going to let him in."

"He approached the clinical instructor about the bias, and she said, ‘It’s because of people like you that my breast cancer came back.’ Nursing is a tough world for men. There are female nurses that just don’t want them there.”

Lenona,

As Conan points out, female dominated fields with the same education requirements actually pay more than male dominated fields. The entire reason for 'men make more money' is because men work more hours. This is entirely voluntary.

As for Minnesota, as Conan points out that is one event. The same can be said for anyone anywhere. Some people have had it better and some have had it worse. So what! You don't even need the stalking or physical intimidation if you can't get a job to start with.

To Conan:

I said "for the most part." You didn't list even half a dozen for either sex.

I'm well aware that, say, full-time modeling tends to pay well. But that's hardly typical when it comes to jobs that don't require college degrees. Plus, of course, even being perpetually skinny isn't enough to get a woman that job if she wasn't born with a reasonably attractive face.

You didn't list even half a dozen for either sex.

To tell you the truth, after nursing, teaching, plumbing, electrician, carpentry, and hair cutting, I ran out of ideas for single gender dominated fields. Working at Walmart is pretty much unisex, as is waiting tables and bartending.

I tried to stick to fields that required a similar degree of training and/or education, so I wouldn't compare teaching to trash clean-up.

I said "for the most part."

You may have said, "Fro the most part," but you message was that men's work is valued and women's work isn't.

Feminists have been plying that trope for years. When they started with it, it was mostly true as teachers and nurses didn't make much but machinists did. Men's work paid more since men were presumed to have a family to support and women were presumed to be searching for a husband so they could quit and have kids.

Today, the line is much less true but just as often repeated.

I have a pretend travel agency. Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 21, 2015 8:08 AM

You should open a pretend detective agency. It's much more fun since you get to be Philip Marlowe.

"When they started with it, it was mostly true as teachers and nurses didn't make much but machinists did. "

Y'know, in regard to teachers, I'm not sure that was ever as true as people made it out to be. Why? Because there used to be male teachers. Not a whole lot, but when I was in elementary school, about 15% of primary school teachers in the U.S. were male. I went through several elementary schools (grades 1-6 in this area), and there were typically two male teachers out of a total faculty of 18 or so (usually teaching the upper grade levels). Were those male teachers making gobs more money than female teachers with the same education and experience, teaching the same grade levels? I don't know for sure, but I tend to doubt it -- I don't think the teachers' unions would have let school districts get away with underpaying any teachers, male or female.

As for the machinists... that used to be a pretty dangerous job.

I don't want to seem critical here, but I don't understand why people like this shouldn't be napalmed. They are the very model of hateful people.