[Godstud]

So you just admitted that you like stupid women, @Albert.

The majority of most thinking men do NOT want stupid women, and I agree with equality of opportunity.

[Suntzu]

There is a difference between stupid and uneducated.

[Godstud]

No. Education makes you smarter. If you want dumb women then just keep hunting for dates in your high school, like Roy Moore did.

Study: More Education Increases IQ Score
https://www.voanews.com/a/study-more-ed ... 69492.html

[Suntzu]

No. Education makes you smarter. If you want dumb women then just keep hunting for dates in your high school, like Roy Moore did.

Study: More Education Increases IQ Score
https://www.voanews.com/a/study-more-ed ... 69492.html

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. Were they smarter because they didn't drop out of school or smarter because they received two more years of education? If education makes one smarter we could just keep retards in school longer.

[Godstud]

Even "retards" can learn things(albeit at a far slower rate), so your argument, is non-existent. We are also not talking about the exceptions, but in general.

Go back to school.

[Stormsmith]

The majority of most thinking men do NOT want stupid women, and I agree with equality of opportunity.

Thanks Godstud. Most thinking men, I think, want an educated, thinking woman. Why are some men afraid of smart women, do you think?

[Godstud]

Why are some men afraid of smart women, do you think?

They intimidate them, because they are weak, or stupid, and can't stand the thought of someone they deem inferior being smarter than them. Mostly just the misogynists think like this.

[Hindsite]

Even "retards" can learn things(albeit at a far slower rate), so your argument, is non-existent. We are also not talking about the exceptions, but in general.

Go back to school.

In general, those retards become educated fools and liberal Democrats.
However, that is how the Democrats like it.

[Godstud]

It's actually the opposite. The less educated prefer to become Republican. Nice try, though.

Better an educated fool(Democrat) than an uneducated one(Republican).

[Albert]

It depends what you want educate a woman for?

1) On one hand you can be a progressive and prepare women for a life of that of workforce, academia and every other life and career possible under the spectrum of our society.

2) The other possible scenario is one where women is prepared for life of marriage and rearing for children.

You can not have both.

[Godstud]

Yes, you can have both. That you can't see that has more to do with your failings than with anything else.

Raising a child can take a long time, but not the whole life of a person. 15 years and then the child's primary care-giver can start their career. Also, lots of married women continue to have careers. Your take on this is very misogynist.

[Albert]

One of the main reasons I believe population has been falling in western societies is because of renouncing of traditional family. Allowing women to participate outside of their traditional role has depreciate the state of our societies. Instead how has society benefited from allowing women to leave their traditional roles? If one will observe women's performance in workforce or academia it has been unremarkable.

[Godstud]

Instead how has society benefited from allowing women to leave their traditional roles?

The role of women in society has been constantly changing throughout history. Change is good, even if Conservatives whine like babies about it.

Facts and Figures: Economic Empowerment
Benefits of economic empowerment
When more women work, economies grow.An increase in female labour force participation—or a reduction in the gap between women’s and men’s labour force participation—results in faster economic growth [1].

Evidence from a range of countries shows that increasing the share of household income controlled by women, either through their own earnings or cash transfers, changes spending in ways that benefit children[2].

Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth. Increased educational attainment accounts for about 50 per cent of the economic growth in OECD countries over the past 50 years [3], of which over half is due to girls having had access to higher levels of education and achieving greater equality in the number of years spent in education between men and women [4]. But, for the majority of women, significant gains in education have not translated into better labour market outcomes [5]
A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for every one additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 per cent [6].

Women and the Workplace: The benefits of gender diversity put to the test
https://www.ft.com/content/1fc8a3dc-0d6 ... 144feabdc0

Five Ways Men Benefit from Women’s Empowerment
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/william- ... 23889.html

Quit whinging about it, and deal with it. There are still many women who have no problem with traditional gender roles. You can either learn to understand it, and accept it, or get left behind like a caveman wishing we still lived in caves. Just because you don't see value in it, does not mean it does not have value.

[Sivad]

What are the principal reasons for not giving people great educations?

The principle reason is to prevent a crisis of democracy.

[alethea]

One of thousands of articles on the topic:

"GREEN BAY - Black students in the Green Bay School District have been suspended at a rate five times greater than white students and four times more than Hispanic students.

During the 2015-16 school year, 356 of the 1,212 students suspended from Green Bay schools were black. They accounted for 29 percent of the total suspensions, yet black students make up only 9 percent of the student body, according to data submitted to the state Department of Public Instruction."

Link:https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/education/2018/01/14/green-bay-schools-struggle-disproportionate-suspensions-black-students/950401001/

This is reflected later in life as a much higher crime rate for Blacks, Blacks accounting for roughly half of the U.S. prison population.

You have not responded to what you believe is the reason as I asked you. There are two possibilities one being that black people do not get the same opportunities and the other being that black people are inherently inferior, inherently violent etc. This seems to be the one you go by.

Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups.

As it is I can provide you with the reason which was in the article I gave you and it is very related to the continuous tries to sell the erroneous view that blacks are genetically inferior. You kept blacks as slaves and have never made proper restitution for that. Unfortunately many of you have never psychologically understood what you did and rather try to find new reasons to continue this. This is American's White Nationalism. Given that America is losing its position in the world, that white working class people are losing the advantages they always had as the majority to have the opportunity of a job with an increasingly good standard of living it seems to be open door to use inherent racism in the US to harm those who have always been harmed the most.

Although race science has been repeatedly debunked by scholarly research, in recent years it has made a comeback. Many of the keenest promoters of race science today are stars of the “alt-right”, who like to use pseudoscience to lend intellectual justification to ethno-nationalist politics. If you believe that poor people are poor because they are inherently less intelligent, then it is easy to leap to the conclusion that liberal remedies, such as affirmative action or foreign aid, are doomed to fail.

There are scores of recent examples of rightwingers banging the drum for race science. In July 2016, for example, Steve Bannon, who was then Breitbart boss and would go on to be Donald Trump’s chief strategist, wrote an article in which he suggested that some black people who had been shot by the police might have deserved it. “There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent,” Bannon wrote, evoking one of scientific racism’s ugliest contentions: that black people are more genetically predisposed to violence than others.

Now again, we know that the poorest children by the age of 5 are one year behind those of the richest on ability and that this is due to them having a poorer diet as well as less educational toys and books, less ability to visit and learn about different things, go on holidays and so on as well as the extra stress there most certainly is when living in abject poverty. It doesn't matter what colour people are. That is true of all colours. That is the reason why it is essential to give such children a 'head start' in order to give them the same start as other children particularly in the US where you have the greatest inequality in the developed world. 'Race Scientists' try to influence people that it is not due to social and economic conditions it is due to 'race' in order to keep black people down.

The subject of race and IQ was similarly politicised in the US, where Jensen’s paper was used to oppose welfare schemes, such as the Head Start programme, which were designed to lift children out of poverty.

In the past, race science has shaped not only political discourse, but also public policy. The year after The Bell Curve was published, in the lead-up to a Republican congress slashing benefits for poorer Americans, Murray gave expert testimony before a Senate committee on welfare reform; more recently, congressman Paul Ryan, who helped push the Republicans’ latest tax cuts for the wealthy, has claimed Murray as an expert on poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... ce-science


In all societies the poorest are always the ones that goes against the law the most though in the US this is aggravated by the reality that you no longer have a proper justice system. People are told that if they do not agree they have committed such a crime they will get three times as long in jail and that the court will prove it. Most of them agree to plead guilty regardless of whether they have committed the crime knowing all the odds are against them.

In order to prove people are intrinsically something - to you blacks been disruptive and undisciplined as children you would need to show that blacks living in all different kinds of communities have the same problem and that they differ from whites living under the same conditions. You can't do that. You are simply choosing to use the various tenets the white supremacists, now race scientists, use to keep blacks down and White Supremacy Up and given your current difficult economic position ,white supremacists are certainly exploiting this to allow whites to take on an false victim attitude to justify their racism.

[Suntzu]

About half the poor in the U.S. are White. Poverty is not the reason Blacks account for half the prison population and half the school discipline problems.

[alethea]

About half the poor in the U.S. are White.

I don't believe that. Show statistics to prove it. Also show statistics to illustrate how well the whites in poor neighbourhoods perform.

Poverty is not the reason Blacks account for half the prison population and half the school discipline problems.

Discrimination of which poverty is a part is. Unless you can show that blacks are always disruptive in class then you are completely wrong that this is a genetic component of being black. We know perfectly well this is not true.

Your' race science' has been proved to be wrong. It is racism, trying to show that whites are better than blacks to condone bad sometimes inhuman treatment towards them. It is simply White Supremacy.

[Suntzu]

Number below the official poverty line:

White 17,494,800
Black 8,719,100
Hispanic 11,251,700

[alethea]

Number below the official poverty line:

White 17,494,800
Black 8,719,100
Hispanic 11,251,700

OK I have found some statistics for poverty

Only 9% of whites in the US live in poverty as opposed to 22% of blacks and 20% of hispanics

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... 2asc%22%7D


at the beginning of this is a graph of the statistics for poverty for all the different ethnicities in the US

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

American Indians and Alaska Natives have marginally more poverty than blacks and Whites have marginally less that Asians.

Whites and Asians have less than half the percentage of people living in poverty than Blacks, Indigenous people and Hispanics.

I did do a little more research on this and discovered that the single thing which makes the difference on poor outcome from school is whether the children go to a school where the majority of children are living in poverty. Three quarters of black children go to these schools whereas only one third of white children do. Clearly this gives white children a big advantage of blacks.

Even more concerning I noticed that segregation is coming back into schools and that when children were going to mixed schools black children's attainment improved and what is more so did that of white children.

The US appears to be becoming increasingly racist and this is mirrored in the educational system.

Nationally, the achievement gap between black and white students, which greatly narrowed during the era in which schools grew more integrated, widened as they became less so.

In recent years, a new term, apartheid schools—meaning schools whose white population is 1 percent or less, schools like Central—has entered the scholarly lexicon. While most of these schools are in the Northeast and Midwest, some 12 percent of black students in the South now attend such schools—a figure likely to rise as court oversight continues to wane. In 1972, due to strong federal enforcement, only about 25 percent of black students in the South attended schools in which at least nine out of 10 students were racial minorities. In districts released from desegregation orders between 1990 and 2011, 53 percent of black students now attend such schools, according to an analysis by ProPublica.

“We must look instead,” Warren wrote, “to the effect of segregation itself.” He wrote that to separate black children “from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” The justices noted that education was “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments” and that the integration of schools was essential to the integration of black citizens into society as a whole

-snip-

The curriculum pushed students toward learning a trade instead of preparing for college.

Now look at the change when desegregated schools came in in the US

-snip-

In the fall of 1979, Central High School opened to serve all public-high-school students in the district—no matter their race, no matter whether they lived in the city’s public-housing projects or in one of the mansions along the meandering Black Warrior River. The mega-school, a creative solution to a complex problem, resulted from many hours of argument and negotiation in McFadden’s chambers. It was spread across two campuses—ninth- and 10th-graders at the former black high school, now called Central West; 11th- and 12th-graders at the old white high school, called Central East. (The judge’s order also created three single-grade middle schools.)

All traces of the segregated system, from the mascots to the school colors of the two former schools, were discarded. All of Tuscaloosa’s public-high-school students would now unite under the red-and-white banner of the Falcons. As one of the biggest schools in the state, Central would offer classes in subjects ranging from Latin to forensics.

Over the years, Central racked up debate-team championships. Its math team dominated at state competitions. The cheerleaders tumbled their way to nationals, and the Falcons football team trounced local competitors so badly, some refused to play against it. Central students were regularly named National Merit Scholars. In 2001, the state found Central’s projected dropout rate to be less than half Alabama’s average.

“Central and its resources could reach any child,” said Robert Coates, a former principal of the school.
The school was hardly perfect. Black students were disproportionately funneled into vocational classes, and white students into honors classes. Some parents complained that competitive opportunities were limited to just the very best students and athletes because the school, at 2,300 students, was so large. And the white flight that had begun when the courts first ordered the district to desegregate continued, slowly, after the formation of the mega-school. But despite these challenges, large numbers of black students studied the same robust curriculum as white students, and students of both races mixed peacefully and thrived.

Desegregation had been wrenching and complicated, but in Tuscaloosa and across the country, it achieved undeniable results. During the 1970s and ’80s, the achievement gap between black and white 13-year-olds was cut roughly in half nationwide. Some scholars argue that desegregation had a negligible effect on overall academic achievement. But the overwhelming body of research shows that once black children were given access to advanced courses, well-trained teachers, and all the other resources that tend to follow white, middle-income children, they began to catch up.

A 2014 study conducted by Rucker Johnson, a public-policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found desegregation’s impact on racial equality to be deep, wide, and long-lasting. Johnson examined data on a representative sample of 8,258 American adults born between 1945 and 1968, whom he followed through 2011. He found that black Americans who attended schools integrated by court order were more likely to graduate, go on to college, and earn a degree than black Americans who attended segregated schools. They made more money: five years of integrated schooling increased the earnings of black adults by 15 percent. They were significantly less likely to spend time in jail. They were healthier.


Notably, Rucker also found that black progress did not come at the expense of white Americans—white students in integrated schools did just as well academically as those in segregated schools. Other studies have found that attending integrated schools m made white students more likely to later live in integrated neighborhoods and send their own children to racially diverse schools

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ow/359813/

However you are now as the beginning of the article says returning to segregated schools.

My daughter started her schooling in central London. This was in the 80's. I had told her about racism before she went to school and she could not believe it - that would be like being like that towards - she mentioned a couple of friends. It certainly was not for her. She came home from school one day and told me one of the black boys had told her he was going to wash all the black off his skin. That is the psychological effect racism has on children.

[Hindsite]

What are the principal reasons for not giving people great educations?

The main one that comes to my mind is so they can be propagandized to vote for the Democrats.