Loric

People don't live identical lives - no one is "equally qualified."

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. Effort != Quality. My statement was that if the candidates were capable of producing "meaningful" work in the field then there would be more positions in the field and more slots for everyone. A small portion of the candidates are capable of producing meaningful work and the available positions reflect that. The schools do not throw names into a hat and pick out ones at random. They pick people based on whatever reasons they choose. The candidates are not equal in their eyes. Someone giving 110% will not yield the same output as someone else giving 110% due to sheer individualism.. but one of those two people will produce more at 110% than the other. That person is admitted, the other is not.

Then what is the difference between the accept and not-accepted? C'mon, not everyone is doing the right thing and there had to be something different between the accept and not-accepted. Like I said, there is no lottery.

If they knew the right thing to do wouldn't they be getting in..? Because obviously the applicant who did the right thing is the one who gets in.. which cannot be the same thing as done by the other applicants. They don't throw the names in a hat and pick one at random. It's not a lottery.

As many as you feel you'd actually be happy attending.

But that's not true as there are repeatedly world cultures which are not based on a patriarchal system and no "systematic" oppression of women exists, therefor by your own definition they can't be misogynistic or sexist.

And making many up too! 8000 years ago western culture did not exist in any comparable manner to what it is today.

And you honestly think not a single claim of misandry is legitimate? Again, you're speaking politically and ignoring facts as it's convenient to you.

And if we're going to talk matters of "degree" when it comes to hatred and attack.. More men are killed in homicides than women, and more commonly injured in assaults, yet special legislation exists to protect women with harsher punishments for crimes against women.

So we go to matriarchal society in Albania, China, Africa.. and suddenly the point is valid?

Well, if the academic standard "is the standard" regardless of circumstance.. academically "he" is the gender neutral pronoun.

As for misandry not being.. "a coherent system of beliefs, practices and values, historically founded on religious and social institutions" Marilyn French called men "the enemy." Germaine Greer wrote that that: "women have no idea how much men hate them." Betty Friedan, amazingly, referred to suburban domestic life as a "comfortable concentration camp" for women, and to their husbands a SS prison guards. Rosalind Miles described men as "the death sex." Valerie Solanas wrote "The SCUM Manifesto", the Society for Cutting Up Men, and Robin Morgan obligingly publicized this hate literature. These are people with power and status who have taught this ideology to others.

But your "right definition" is not the original nor the common. Even in your example of what a statement "really means" is trying to change the intent of the author as no one would say that to a mass audience outside of academia and mean the second definition instead of the first. The second definition is the political construct. It is the invalid definition.

And which point you're admitting it has nothing to do with what is or isn't, but rather politics..

See? Immediately downvoted. Google the debate on misandry and it will all suddenly make sense.

Loneliness has a negative connotation and really is seem as meaning "the desire to not be alone." Alone is alone. Lonely and loneliness are the desire to not be. Regardless, pinkster is just codependent.

Oy.. The reason "they" wont allow there to be discussion of "reverse-racism" and "reverse-sexism" as just simply racism and sexism is because you'd have to accept misandry as the counterpoint to misogyny. "They" refuse to allow that.. primarily because acknowledging the existence of misandry weakens many concepts that are at the core of feminism.

Again, how do you know it's bad advice..? Exactly what bad advice are you thinking I gave..?

So what you're saying is that you're upset you were possibly given bad advice on how to get into a program that you readily admit serves no purpose..?

Like I said - if enough people were capable of meaningful work the market would support it. There is not an over abundance of brilliance.

If the 300 people applying were, even a majority thereof, actually qualified to do higher level meaningful work wouldn't there be positions and programs to support them?

I feel like you're saying the KKK isn't racist because they're a minority who is unable to oppress people as effectively as they'd like.

Come to think of it - doesn't the fact that most of you aren't going to get in mean that most of you are wrong in your interpretation of what to do, what's important, etc...?

Yikes. I tapped out but there's a gross misunderstanding of "fit" that needs to be addressed. It is never meant to be about how you are a perfect fit for a program - but rather how the program is a perfect fit for you. Obviously the majority of the think-alike brigade are going to have nearly identical backgrounds. And those who focus on the sameness and never think for themselves are going to be struck down. That should be very apparent to anyone who has taken two seconds to think about the process for themselves. So it's not that the "fit" aspect that other fields talk about doesn't apply to you - it's that the fit has nothing to do with being the assimilated drone the rest of your training has prepared you to be. Most of you will fail this test and will not be accepted because of it. I can take solace in that.

Yeah, don't talk to him. I made that mistake. It is a mistake. Just keep that in mind - no matter how emotional you get that will make things worse.