To refrain from importuning and manipulating in such matters is to admit that taste and aptitude influence one's life course, which in turn is to admit that men-in-general may have a legitimate advantage in some fields of human endeavour where you compete on a level playing field. Which is a no-no.

Hell, I'd find it a step forward if anyone was encouraged to study science or math these days. Way too many people regard science and engineering as just being one more thing we can import. Eventually we're going to run out of natural resources to pay for all of these imports.

But yes, although young children should be given a broad grounding, as they age they should be allowed to puruse their interests, with appropriate guidance (preferably from their parents). This will result in some politically incorrect outcomes. Tough noogies. If you want an efficient economy, you have to let people make their own choices about vocation. It's the colectivits that view people as interchangable parts.

I agree that true feminism means allowing women to choose what they want, but I also think people underestimate how quickly people step from "women in general don't want to do science" to "women in general can't do science" and then create an environment where it's hard enough for women to get involved that they prove their point.

I am in a hard science field, one that has had substantial female contributions for over a century. The percentage of women is not parity but it has increased as barriers to participation have been recognized and addressed. There are plenty of women, of whom I am one, who are in fact more energized by analytical thinking than "narrative." I was not pressured into engineering and then science but I probably wouldn't have even considered the path if not for an example in my own family (dad is an engineer). So yes, let's not pressure women to pursue fields they aren't interested in, but let's also not smugly insist that all women want to be caregivers and teachers when for so long those were the only paths open to them.

let's also not smugly insist that all women want to be caregivers and teachers when for so long those were the only paths open to them.

But we're not talking historically; we're talking about what many women are interested in doing.

My daughter is at a science camp this week and she is one of eight girls in her group. She also won first prize for a rocket launch competition put on by her science teacher this past school year. She has never been made to feel bad or weird about it, but as Astra notes my husband does have a PhD in a hard science and we value that type of learning in our house.

Which gets to Amy's other point about people shying away from these topics in school. What I see all the time in this white, middle class area that I live in is a reluctance by parents to do some of the heavy lifting of educating their children at home as well as in school. The same parents who would not let their child play soccer with no practice, think that the tiny little bit of math homework the kids get is too much. The feeling seems to be that you are either good at math or you are not and if not, "Oh, well that's life." The school can only do so much. As a parent you it is your responsibility to make sure that your child succeeds. The bar for success is set low in elementary school so lots of families think their child is good at math. When that child hits middle school it is a whole new world and those who can do and those who can't fall behind. Parents who fear these topics themselves, are more than happy to let the matter rest right there and that is why Anglo kids no longer succeed in these areas. This cycle repeats with each generation.

We saw some little issues starting in about the third grade that made us realize our daughter didn't have enough practice in the basics. We stepped up and now she does math almost EVERY day, especially in the summer. Math is a skill and you need to practice it to have the skills to succeed. She will be a freshman this year and will be able to handle AP Geometry without extensive tutoring. She wants to be a scientist and we, her parents, are helping her to get there. But there are no parades or medals for that. All the parents I speak with can talk endlessly about their child's sports achievements, but no one wants to hear how your kid only missed one question on the End Of Course AP Algebra exam. That's bragging.... Ugh..

Amy, I think you missed the point Astra was trying to make, that role models have a lot of influence. So we *are* talking historically, to some degree. If your mama and your grandmama were schoolteachers, and you admire them, that's going to have some influence on how you see that as a career. Even if secretly grandmama wanted to be a chemist instead.

But we're not talking historically; we're talking about what many women are interested in doing.

Understood, but it also hasn't been that long. There are still female faculty in my field who were alive when they had to sneak up to the observatory to do their research because the facility didn't allow women to stay overnight. There are still women who never got faculty jobs because their husbands were given them and the universities knew they had a captive audience who couldn't leave. There are still active male faculty who don't believe women can be good scientists and treat their students accordingly. (They have generally learned to keep this quiet in front of women, but they still say this in front of my 65 year old Ph.D advisor, which is how I know.)

None of this is to sound whiny (cause life ain't fair all around), but to point out that it's still early days to be deciding that women aren't interested in science because of innate preferences. Things are changing rapidly. I work in an area (building instruments) that is particularly male-dominated. Last decade, I would sometimes look up halfway through some NASA meeting that I was in a room with 80 people and was the only women. Now, I go to instrumentation meetings and see more and more women at all levels of seniority. Is it really true that women don't like to build stuff or has the atmosphere changed?

"Amy, I think you missed the point Astra was trying to make, that role models have a lot of influence. "

The counter-counter argument is two-fold: (1) Inevitably, any such discussion eventually cycles around to becoming a demand for quotas: "How are children of group X going to be inspired to go into profession Y if we don't let more people of group X into profession Y? The government needs to do something!" (2) The post-modern conceit that someone can't be a role model to me unless that person is of the same tribal affiliation as me. One of my role models is Admiral Grace Hopper; in terms of gender and ethinc / life background we have little in common. But that has nothing to do with why I admire her.

"The feeling seems to be that you are either good at math or you are not and if not, 'Oh, well that's life.' The school can only do so much." - Sheep Mom

This is actually true of a lot of parents today. Keep in mind that a large number of students never really "get" math. Today's parents were likely ridiculed by their teachers for not understanding simple problems and were punished by their parents for not doing better in math. They got out in the real world and realized that they didn't really need math that much and wonder why there was so much emphasis on it in the first place. These are the parents who are now saying, "Oh, well. That's life," because they don't want to put their kids through the same ordeal.

I actually approached this issue in my blog entry today. Click on my name below to read it.

Luvyoo, Flb, but:

> Amy, I think you missed the point Astra was
> trying to make, that role models have a lot
> of influence.

"Role models" is a pretty silly way of looking at the world. Yeah, sure... The most powerful force in the composition of human character is example. But it's not simplistic and convenient and manageable, which is what people think when they use like words like "role model"... 'Young Junior is spending too much time watching hooligans on television instead of reading about noble US presidents.'

> If your mama and your grandmama were
> schoolteachers, and you admire them, that's
> going to have some influence on how you see
> that as a career. Even if secretly grandmama
> wanted to be a chemist instead.

What difference could that make? Which generation are you concerned with? Are we all supposed to go back in time and execute the last aspirations of the dead, while ignoring our own enthusiasms?





The brother asks his twin:

How come you're an alcoholic?

Because our father was an alcoholic. Why aren't you an alcoholic?

Because our father was an alcoholic.

We don't push boys to be kindergarten teachers because it is low-status and badly paid.

I think I've mentioned here that Margaret Mead noted it is almost universally true that mens' work is more valued than female work... no matter what the work is. If net-weaving is men's work in one tribe, it is high status. If it is womens' work in another tribe, it is low status.

Feminism thought by encouraging women to join high-status professions, their status would go up. Thing is, once lots of women join profession X, it stops being high-status. So it really only works if you're one of a few women in that profession. Then it is impressive. There are a few exceptions, but by and large that's the way it goes.

The only way to have women and their work get equal respect would be to fundamentally re-evaluate everything, and to question *why* a fundamentally necessary job like kindergarten teacher (or other job) isn't valued in our culture. But that's a big task. And hard in the current climate of "Mommy wars" and other female-on-female tearing down.

> We don't push boys to be kindergarten teachers
> because it is low-status and badly paid.

AYFKM?

Say it again... I dare you.

Sure there's narrative in science, but much of it - at least what makes it into the mainstream press - is bogus storytelling.

For instance, I read an article about cat and dog owners. Cat owners were said to be more empathetic. The narrative part said it might be because the introspective nature of cats (itself an assumption) cause their owners to be introspective.

These narrative often attempt to explain causality where, scientifically speaking, all we have is correlation. For instance, having higher empathy might cause people to buy cats instead of dogs, rather than cats causing people to become more empathetic.

Or maybe empathy correlates with dog allergies...

I think I've mentioned here that Margaret Mead noted it is almost universally true that mens' work is more valued than female work

Historically yes, but only because a man was expected to provide everything for his spouse and children and sometimes parents.

Unmarried, childless men make less than any other adult demographc

I agree that we shouldn't try to force anyone into anything they don't prefer. I am a gal and I like science and math... and it would drive me nuts if I had to deal with all the girly-girls at, say, a science seminar.

Similarly, I have no place at a fashion-related event. Why torture everyone with my attempts in that area?

Expose everyone to a wide variety of subjects and areas and let talent and interest drive the rest. What do we, as a society, gain from pushing people into things that are NOT what they are best at or what they naturally enjoy?

Imagine swapping all the medical doctors with all the veterinary doctors. Both sets are capable at medical procedures, note-taking, etc. Both are capable of intense medical learning including chemistry, etc. But, would you want somebody operating on you who would rather take care of a dog or horse - even if he were to be highly capable as a surgeon?? Would you want somebody to care for your pet who wasn't into animals?

Really, Crid? You think that if a guy says, "I'm a kindergarten teacher" people are going to be like, "Wow, I'm so impressed"? And that he's gonna be able to support a family on his salary?

lujlp, is that "childless" or "childfree"?

I'm guessing you're lumping them together, but according to the recent definition, a childless man WANTS children. So chances are he'd be working harder to make more money than a man who doesn't ever plan on having kids - and does not want to risk attracting a woman who might want kids. Or who has them already.

What difference could that make? Which generation are you concerned with? Are we all supposed to go back in time and execute the last aspirations of the dead, while ignoring our own enthusiasms?

Absolutely not. That's not what Astra said or what I reiterated. But if someone decides at an impressionable age (remember, college degree choices are made by 20-year-olds, largely) that they want to do something because someone they admire did it, without understanding the *why*, then that is also a mistake.

True meme: Mom cooks a ham for a holiday dinner by cutting it in half and baking it. Her daughter does, as well. It tastes delicious. Grandmother asks why, and they say, that's how *you* did it. And Grandmother laughs and says, I only did that because my pans weren't big enough to hold the whole ham.

People do things, sometimes, simply because. If those role models were teachers, then maybe you have the interest and ability to be a teacher too. And it wouldn't be a bad fit. But maybe, if someone nudges you, you might like chemistry even more.

And another food analogy: How is this different than a parent making a child eat just one bite of broccoli before they get their fill of mashed potatoes?

Nobody is saying everyone has to eat plates of broccoli (a la Cousin Dave's extreme jump to quotas). Just that it might be a good idea to give 'em all a taste.

Astra said:
Understood, but it also hasn't been that long. There are still female faculty in my field who were alive when they had to sneak up to the observatory to do their research because the facility didn't allow women to stay overnight.
____________________________

Reminds me of Frances Hodgson Burnett's classic: "A Little Princess."

What I don't get is why the critics NEVER seem to talk about the message in the book that's obvious to any adult reader. Namely, that education is very important for girls - even when the adults aren't supportive, or even when the girls can't see the importance of education. Or, that you can't take your educational opportunities for granted, even if the only time you can study is at night, after the teachers have left, and you're cold, exhausted and hungry, as Sara was - or whether you're a backward dunce like the preteen Ermengarde, who (understandably) feels unloved by all the relatives who are always picking on her to improve herself; she doesn't understand why they want her to do her best when all she wants (maybe) is to drop out of school and stop reading altogether.

Not to mention that when Sara keeps studying after she loses her father and money, it's in SPITE of her embarrassing sugar daddy's upbringing, not because of it! In the same vein, Ermengarde clearly NEEDS her fiercely academic father if she's ever going to be a dignified adult - after all, she doesn't even have any motherly qualities the way Sara does, so without an education, she'd be truly a nobody.

(Unfortunately, neither Sara or Burnett seemed to think that education was important for working-class girls like Becky - there's no hint that she'll ever go to school.)

"Expose everyone to a wide variety of subjects and areas-" ShannonMH

This.

Many, esp. media and politicians, are looking through the telescope backwards... 'not only do we need more engineers and scientists, we need more girls doing that!'

Do we really? there are any number of articles that think this refrain is overblown in sheer numbers, and the 'girl' component is just because:equality and nothing else.

ex: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/06/13/no-america-does-not-need-more-scientists-and-engineers/#.U8bTdhBNHgE

But they make good money! Yeah? So do underwater welders. So who is pushing to get more women into what is a very dangerous profession? Nobody.

Finding what a person is good at, is a long journey, and maybe never ending... But as parents there are ways of engaging your children... in curiosity, in the bigger picture, so that they know that there are possibilities out there.

My own don't have much of a pattern, since I'm a jack of all trades kinda guy, but they know that I know a bunch different things, and I've pushed them to have a good base, that allows movement in many different directions.

Figuring out how to take what life throws at you both good and bad, is more important than any other skill, IMHO.

Somehow, I think there's a big difference between not being attracted to a job because it's hard work - mentally or physically - and not being attracted because it's dangerous. No one blames young men for wanting jobs that are both safe AND that pay well - and those who do blame them - including their fathers - are often jealous of their mental skills.

Both boys and girls are guilty of wanting jobs that pay well AND are not that hard to do. This will not do. It's laziness. Such rare jobs are often the result of luck or being born with at least some talent, such as being famous for being famous - and knowing how to manage it.

Lenona, love the ham example!

I, too, tried to cut a ham in half once -- only to discover that chasing Al Pacino with a chainsaw is "illegal", and "disturbing", and "not to be mocked with finger quotes in the courtroom."

Er, that was flbeachmom.

But thanks. Personally, I like the broccoli example better - I've heard the ham story too many times.

Forgot to say: In "A Little Princess," there are two factors, not mentioned, that would have made Ermengarde easier to sympathize with:

1) Books for children weren't nearly as common then as now, so when Sara, who's getting a lavishly dressed doll for her 11th birthday, says she's also gotten (unnamed) books, they were likely written for adults, which sort of explains why "the little children broke into a rueful murmur, and Ermengarde looked aghast."

2) In 1905, IIRC, even rich British girls typically didn't go to college, so Ermengarde's father may well have been exceptional in his academic demands on his daughter - he could easily have said to himself "oh well, what's the use? She's only a girl. I'll just concentrate on making her lose some weight instead and finding her a husband later on."

I.e., in the book, he was practically a suffragist - and his daughter wasn't smart enough to appreciate the possibility of going to college when the other girls wouldn't be going.

And another food analogy: How is this different than a parent making a child eat just one bite of broccoli before they get their fill of mashed potatoes?

Good question. Also how is a 4yr old different than a 20r old?

We don't push boys to be kindergarten teachers because it is low-status and badly paid.

Schoolteachers are not badly paid and work as a kindergarten teacher is not 'low-status' either, all things considered. Without a doubt, men who taught in elementary schools have long been thought odd-balls who eschewed more demanding trades and the share of men so employed - never high in living memory - has declined further in the last generation (in part due to the general assumption that men congenial with the company of small children are paedophiles).

Really, Crid? You think that if a guy says, "I'm a kindergarten teacher" people are going to be like, "Wow, I'm so impressed"? And that he's gonna be able to support a family on his salary?

Yes, he will be able to support a family. No, people will not be impressed.

Thing is, once lots of women join profession X, it stops being high-status.

The medical profession, the legal profession, and college teaching remain high status in spite of the influx of women.

The only way to have women and their work get equal respect would be to fundamentally re-evaluate everything, and to question *why* a fundamentally necessary job like kindergarten teacher (or other job) isn't valued in our culture.

It is valued, just not valued in a way NicoleK prefers. The job is not 'fundamentally necessary' if the pedagogy is null (as it sometimes is). It's not likely to be 'valued' in the way you would prefer because it lacks robust operational measures of competence, it lacks like measures of productivity, and the skill set which it incorporates is not all that unusual in the population at large. It might be valued more if teachers' colleges were not sinkholes of silliness.

Cat owners were said to be more empathetic.

Oh? Your moderatrix told me I'm an 'unsocialized asshole' (among other things).

In 1905, IIRC, even rich British girls typically didn't go to college, so Ermengarde's father may well have been exceptional in his academic demands on his daughter - he could easily have said to himself "oh well, what's the use? She's only a girl. I'll just concentrate on making her lose some weight instead and finding her a husband later on."

As late as 1965, the share of a given British cohort to attend university was about 5%. It would have been smaller in 1905. Britain had fewer than 20 universities in 1905.

A remark that John Derbyshire offered on the incident in which Virginia Woolf was refused admission to the Bodlein Library: if his grandfather had shown up ad the Bodlein with his lantern and moccassins, he would not have been admitted either.

Both boys and girls are guilty of wanting jobs that pay well AND are not that hard to do. This will not do. It's laziness. Such rare jobs are often the result of luck or being born with at least some talent, such as being famous for being famous - and knowing how to manage it.

Michelle Robinson Obama, lapsed lawyer and former head diversicrat for the University of Chicago Hospitals (salary $300,000 per annum) was not famous for being famous prior to 2007.

"Yes, [a male kindergarten teacher] will be able to support a family."

At least until he's accused of diddling a kid.

dee nile; I believe that is exactly why many men do NOT go into elementary school teaching. Just one kid needs to say something and the male teacher will go to jail, or in the very least have his career and his reputation ruined.

"Imagine swapping all the medical doctors with all the veterinary doctors. Both sets are capable at medical procedures, note-taking, etc. Both are capable of intense medical learning including chemistry, etc. But, would you want somebody operating on you who would rather take care of a dog or horse - even if he were to be highly capable as a surgeon?"

Dunno about attitude - but this is the guy qualified to work on more than one species!

Dunno about attitude - but this is the guy qualified to work on more than one species! ~ Posted by: Radwaste at July 16, 2014 6:29 PM

Yeah, but the he makes you wear a cone after surgery.

Art Deco, I was reiterating what the article said, not agreeing with it.

(I, for one, like and have both cats and dogs. Clearly I've got a split personality.)

Radwaste, the attitude is important. Veterinarians aren't used to speaking with their patients. Do you think you're going to get to ask any questions of a doctor whose first step is to muzzle you? :)

"Nobody is saying everyone has to eat plates of broccoli (a la Cousin Dave's extreme jump to quotas). "

Well, let's see... a big emphasis point for organized feminism today is using Title IX to eviscerate univerity STEM programs, with the explicit goal of limiting opportunities for male students. Because, y'know, girls need role models.

(Unfortunately, neither Sara or Burnett seemed to think that education was important for working-class girls like Becky - there's no hint that she'll ever go to school.)

Posted by: lenona at July 16, 2014 1:02 PM

Perhaps the Victorians recognized the truth of education, which our modern society has become too pc to acknowledge.

An advanced education is wasted on those of low and average IQ.

These people need training in jobs that they can handle, not to be prepared to become something they don't have the intellectual tools to do.

While working class girls were not educated, neither were working class boys, except in extremely rare cases.

As late as 1965, the share of a given British cohort to attend university was about 5%. It would have been smaller in 1905. Britain had fewer than 20 universities in 1905.

A remark that John Derbyshire offered on the incident in which Virginia Woolf was refused admission to the Bodlein Library: if his grandfather had shown up ad the Bodlein with his lantern and moccassins, he would not have been admitted either.
_____________________________________

Um, that's why I said RICH British girls. As opposed to rich British boys. Wearing moccasins does not make you look rich, clearly.
_____________________________________

Michelle Robinson Obama, lapsed lawyer and former head diversicrat for the University of Chicago Hospitals (salary $300,000 per annum) was not famous for being famous prior to 2007.

Posted by: Art Deco at July 16, 2014 3:35 PM
______________________________________

Your point being?

That's why I said "boys and girls are guilty" not "adults are guilty."

Future presidents, as a rule, do not marry people who never went to college - and at the same time, no one aims for (or gets) the positions that Michelle Obama held in the HOPE of getting a much easier "job" later, IMO.

BTW, here's a 2006 Amy Dickinson column about how adults sometimes overreact to immature teens:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-03-05/features/0603050448_1_pastor-communion-school-counselor

Dear Amy: In a recent column you printed the story of a young girl who was helped by her school counselor. I applaud that counselor and am glad to hear that she received the help she needed.

Early in my senior year of high school, I was summoned to my counselor's office to discuss my future. She asked me what type of job I'd like.

I had no idea. I told her that I wanted to work at night (I'm not a morning person), have fun and make good money.

In what appeared to be all seriousness, she told me I was an ideal candidate to become a prostitute. I sat there in shock.

Perhaps she was using sarcasm (lost on a 17-year-old), but after a minute of silence, she ushered me out of her office and welcomed in the next student eager for her "advice."

Twenty years have passed and I've never forgotten her words. I am so thankful to hear that there are counselors who not only take their job seriously but who even go out of their way to help students.

--Teacher in Va.

Dear Teacher: Oh. My. God.

By my reckoning, every single 17-year-old on the planet wants what you say you wanted at that age.

Goodness knows how many young prostitutes that one counselor unleashed onto the streets.

I notice that you chose to become a teacher.

It seems that that 17-year-old who likes to sleep in, have fun and make lots of money really grew up.

"Early in my senior year of high school, I was summoned to my counselor's office to discuss my future. She asked me what type of job I'd like.

I had no idea. I told her that I wanted to work at night (I'm not a morning person), have fun and make good money.

In what appeared to be all seriousness, she told me I was an ideal candidate to become a prostitute. I sat there in shock."

And you take everything you read or see on film as the gospel truth don't you Lenona?

Even made for TV movies.

While working class girls were not educated, neither were working class boys, except in extremely rare cases.

Posted by: Isab at July 17, 2014 6:45 AM
_________________________________

Yes, well, my point was, Sara, for all her brains and social background, was automatically treated as unworthy of education just because she couldn't pay for it - something Burnett clearly didn't approve of. Also, I don't know whether rich dunces like Ermengarde were commonly allowed by their parents to drop out of school once they reached 15 or so just because they didn't see the point of graduating, but Burnett clearly wouldn't have approved of that either. So why couldn't Burnett take it a step further, with Becky, who can barely spell? It's not as if the overall novel is realistic, after all.

What makes you think that counselor story didn't happen?

I was only trying to point out that while laziness in teens shouldn't be tolerated, there's no need for adults to be rude about it either.

Well, let's see... a big emphasis point for organized feminism today is using Title IX to eviscerate university STEM programs, with the explicit goal of limiting opportunities for male students. Because, y'know, girls need role models.

OK, I must have been wearing my rose-colored glasses yesterday.

Agree this is the way it turned out. My point tho, was, it would be great if...

and, re the school counselor

Two short stories.

Mine HS counselor was great - a true life changer. She saw some glimmer in me, walked me through college applications, scholarship applications, and high school club memberships (ones that look good on apps). I skated into college and just kept going from there.

A HS freshman I know, vehemently dislikes children. Everyone, within minutes of meeting her, knows that of her. They are dirty, needy, loud, and generally useless. Her HS counselor took one look at her aptitude scores, and without even discussing them with her, signed her up on the teacher/childcare track. Basic math, social science stuff. Wha?

So, my point again yesterday, is/was... If someone along the way listened to what she liked, and somehow connected it to a STEM field, then maybe she'd be headed towards that. (No quotas, Cousin Dave! promise!) I mean, if they're gonna send her into a psychology class without asking her, why can't they send her into a drafting class without asking her? Anyone get a gut feel that if a boy came up with similar aptitude scores, that's where he'd be headed?

What makes you think that counselor story didn't happen? ~ Posted by: lenona at July 17, 2014 7:06 AM

What we're lacking here is context.

Did the counselor perceive you as being sarcastic, so she shot back a sarcastic response and when you didn't walk back what she saw as your flippant response to her question, she left her reply hanging out there?

Were you a problem child in high school that she was tired of dealing with?

I was only trying to point out that while laziness in teens shouldn't be tolerated, there's no need for adults to be rude about it either. ~ Posted by: lenona at July 17, 2014 7:06 AM

True, but by seventeen, some ability to think about things seriously should have crept into one's makeup.

Adults should tolerate a great many things from the young, but there are limits.

Yes, well, my point was, Sara, for all her brains and social background, was automatically treated as unworthy of education just because she couldn't pay for it - something Burnett clearly didn't approve of.

--

And you're not getting anyone else's point. Tertiary schooling in 1905 in Britain was exceedingly unusual for men, for women, and for people of all classes bar slices of the patriciate. It did not matter how smart you were. In a hard-scrabble world, people started work young and getting a full complement of secondary education was atypical, much less tertiary schooling.

Here in America, s late as 1929 most youngsters between the ages of 14 and 18 were not enrolled in high school. The town I grew up in had a population of about 150,000 in 1900 and just one high-school which enrolled perhaps 15% of the age cohorts in question; I spent a number of years in a suburban township southeast of there which handed out its first high school diploma in 1893. Pres. Harry Truman, who had considerable interest in literature all his life, received a high school diploma in 1902. His brother left school at age 12, as was then common.

All of my great-grandparents grew up in bourgeois homes of varying degrees of prosperity (sometimes considerable). One had a mess of tertiary schooling and a tour as a college teacher and another may have (his uncle certainly did). The rest stopped with high school if not earlier. My great-grandmother and her sister were privately schooled at a ladies' seminary because there was no public high school in that section of Genesee County, N.Y. when they were adolescents. Read Peter Drucker's account of his youth. He completed high school, told his father he did not care to attend college, and his father found him a job in an import-export firm; that was in 1927. Even professional people often lacked tertiary schooling. Again, where I grew up, it was only after the 1st World War that the majority of superior court judges had attended law school and as late as 1944 the chief appellate judge was a man who had finished high school and then learned the law in an office apprenticeship.

Did the counselor perceive you as being sarcastic,

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2014 8:03 AM
______________________________________

Why are you saying "you"? I didn't write the letter to Amy Dickinson.

To Art Deco: As I said, the novel wasn't that realistic in the first place; Sara was stripped of her right to teachers at age 11, but: "So long as she was too young to be used as a regular teacher, she would be used as an errand girl and servant and yet expected to remember what she had learned and in some mysterious way to learn more (so she could become an official drudge/teacher later)."

In short, it's a romance of sorts. Burnett obviously wasn't focusing on tertiary schooling (and I never said she was), just girls' right - and, presumably, boys' right - to secondary schooling.

So what's your point?

What makes you think that counselor story didn't happen?

I was only trying to point out that while laziness in teens shouldn't be tolerated, there's no need for adults to be rude about it either.

Posted by: lenona at July 17, 2014 7:06 AM

This isn't how proof works. What makes you think that it did happen?
Anything that makes good copy without an actual witness, or a video recording, is just heresay. 90 percent of what makes it into magazine articles, has been made up or embellished to bolster some kind of social outrage narrative.

I can see a counselor saying this in jest, but that would make this incident fit for the Readers Digest joke pages, not as evidence for the War On Women....

Lenona, you said this:

2) In 1905, IIRC, even rich British girls typically didn't go to college, so Ermengarde's father may well have been exceptional in his academic demands on his daughter - he could easily have said to himself "oh well, what's the use? She's only a girl. I'll just concentrate on making her lose some weight instead and finding her a husband later on."

Your words, not anyone else's.

--

Burnett obviously wasn't focusing on tertiary schooling (and I never said she was), just girls' right - and, presumably, boys' right - to secondary schooling.

Whether they had a 'right' to it or not, economic circumstances in most households precluded it in 1905 and large numbers of youth were not interested. In Harry Truman's high school, 2/3 of the enrolled students were girls, and attending school for that length of time somewhat 'feminine'. Improved production and income in the economy permit households to avail themselves of consumption goods they could not before, and that includes keeping their children out of the labor force for longer periods.

"My point tho, was, it would be great if..."

I know, I know. That's the problem with engaging in any discussion of morals or principles with a leftist: it's pointless because their only reason for engaging is tactical; they are trying to use your morals as a weakness by which to exploit you. They themselves have none, because they think of other human beings strictly in terms of utilitarian value to themselves. If tomorrow they find it politically advantageous to advocate that women be prohibited from pursuing education, their position will turn on a dime. And they will sleep soundly afterwards.

flbeachmom,

You asked if a boy would get the same bad advice from a councilor as the girl in your example did. I am here to tell you YES!

I am an engineer. Every single councilor I had tried their hardest to get me out of engineering. Every single male friend I had in engineering had the exact same experience. This applies to both the high school and college levels.

The only reason any of us became engineers was because we wanted it. I had to tell each councilor that while they seemed very nice, just sign the damn paper and let me take my classes. Same as every other person in those classes.

I haven't read this whole thread but:

> Really, Crid? You think that if a guy says, "I'm a kindergarten teacher" people are going to be like, "Wow, I'm so impressed"? And that he's gonna be able to support a family on his salary?

Supposedly, "In May 2012, the median annual wage for kindergarten teachers was $50,120" ... am I that out of touch or is it really totally 'impossible to support a family' on that?