brad bauerly wrote:
>
> >"So, if you grow up knowing that you're going to have to work, you try to
> get as
> >good a job as you can by getting a good education."
>
> Why would this only apply to women?
Indeed. This was one of the suggestions that led to my suggestion that this was an inappropriate question for addressing in a speculative manner. Query: Which 'fact' constitutes the problem: That so many women are going to college? Or that fewer men are going? I would say the second is the problem. More women is anatural result of (a) women's movement and (b) a general increase in college enrollment. But why didn't the increase in male enrollment keep up? But my contribution to is a bit silly. This really is a question for aademic research, not for speculation merely by thinking.
It still does not address the disparity
> nor does your assertion (obvious) that women are intelligent and capable...
> This was the problem with shags argument also. All of the things she
> mentioned about the need to get a good job because women could no longer (if
> ever) rely on men to provide for them and the need to support themselves and
> their families has applied to men for just about ever. Why does this lead
> to more women going to and getting college degrees? I don't see your point.
>
> Also, your point about how 'women had to work' (as if they did'nt before)
> can also be seen as being really good for capitalism.
_All_ the arguments that this or that is or isn't good for capitalism are false and empty -- really empty.
One of the distinctive features of capitalism is that EVERYTHING and evdrything's opposite are good for capitalism. It is the never-ending fantasy of "progressives" that there exist social changes which in and of themselves are somehow "bad" for capitalism. A really long boom (such as the post-war boom) creates conditions within which opposition to capitalism _may_ arise, but unless that opposition actually kills the beast, it ends up only strenghening it. Of course the achievements of the '60s were and are desirable: they made life more livable for quite a few people, but they did not weaken capitalismm, they immensely strngthened it. They were 100% desireable for themselves, and any implicit grouching at them is quite cretinish; but they did turn out to be good for capitalism as well.
Mor emen go to college. Good for capitalism. Fewer men gol Good for capitalism. All women go. Wonderful for capitalism. More women drop out. Also good for capitalism. This endless fuss over what is and isn't good for capitalism is really obstructive to clear political thought. It prevents asking the right questions.
Carrol