[punchfunk4lyte]

Women were marginalized for millenia. Your mother/grandmother wasn't allowed to open her own bank account until 1974. It will take a long time to correct for that. It's a ratchet from the perspective of our very brief lives.

What's the theory of harm here? If we continue educating women they may gain too much social mobility?

[klipt]

> Your mother/grandmother wasn't allowed to open her own bank account until 1974.

And your father/grandfather was enslaved by the government to fight in the Vietnam war until 1975.

> What's the theory of harm here? If we continue educating women they may gain too much social mobility?

Blatant hypocrisy, you think 60% of college students being women is good, but consider it horrible sexism that at one time 60% of college students were men.

You don't want equality, you just want everything to be female dominated.

[punchfunk4lyte]

I actually don't care what the makeup of college students is. It's useful to encourage women to pursue education in order to promote equity. But there isn't some magic proportion of men to women graduates that I think we should be pursuing.

I don't want everything dominated by women, I just recognize that the work of undoing their marginalization is not complete.

[kelnos]

Wow, way to make up words that the person you're replying to never said, and then arguing with them.

Bad-faith arguments seem to be your shtick, given your comment history on this post.

[klipt]

This is a bad faith argument: "What's the theory of harm here? If we continue educating women they may gain too much social mobility?"

[punchfunk4lyte]

If that's not your position, clarify what it is. You're complaining about efforts to encourage women to seek an education. What is the theory of harm, if not that women shouldn't be educated? Perhaps what I said was too snarky of inflammatory, but I genuinely don't understand what else it would be.