flootch

Just a completely ridiculous attitude and an example of the article.

Very few men, especially in this day and age" get to say "I want to have 5 kids" or "let's stop at 2 kids" or "I do not want to be a parent".

You are not disadvantaged compared to men in this way, you are incredibly advantaged. Literally have authority over this in a zillion ways men do not.

And the extra decade without family responsibilities without limiting your options for spouses, I would argue, is the biggest differentiator in the workplace successes.

And that's the reason for the article. Women have been told they can have it all: 5 kids and workplace success.

na gonna happen

You make your points in this vacuum, seemingly ignorant of 40 years of bogus feminist statistics, anti-democratic feminist behavior.

I wouldn't say that. At all.

But I would say, and seriously with respect, that your writing on the subject seems curiously ignorant of the feminist demands, support, defenses of Title IX.

And though I would not say men are not harassed by sexual harassment, regardless, the statistics, all the evidence is that these sexual harassment star chambers are overwhelmingly targeting men.

institutions should consider such allegations under the "more likely than not" standard of evidence, rather than the stricter "clear and convincing" standard that some now use.

Why would the OCR do that?

Cui bono?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/sexual-h...

http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2011/04/commentary-on-yale-and-...

Looked at another way, the author of the WSJ piece, a woman, a lawyer, a feminist, tells you that underlying this is a feminist demand. What knowledge do you have to disagree with her? Is it possible your "reasonable skepticism" might actually be a "ignorance of the issue at hand and its history"? (BTW, I do agree she could have been more explicit in making the connections.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/colleges-mus...

In 2011, relying on the gender equity provisions of Title IX, the federal government issued standards for the conduct of sexual assault proceedings in virtually all American colleges. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education advised colleges that they must use the “preponderance of evidence” standard of civil court proceedings, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal trials. Within a year, almost all institutions, including UNC, had complied rather than risk the loss of federal funding.

The lower standard of proof will result in more convictions—of both guilty and innocent individuals. For some, perhaps, a few false positives are merely the collateral damage of outcomes that are more just in aggregate. But this is not a convincing argument in a society that values individual rights. The lower penalty for a conviction in a college court—a “rapist” label and career-shattering expulsion, rather than imprisonment—does not justify a lower standard of proof.

Why would the Office of Civil Rights dictate to schools they had to lower the evidentiary standard in sexual misconduct cases? Who/What was behind that agenda?

If so, do you ever attempt to "rescue" them by leaving a somewhat neutral comment of some value?

Voice is world class and there are no competitors that come close for less than $10 per month.

(please don't tell Google this.)