They have the money to attend and choose not to -- statistics show that -- so why should I give a damn?
The same reason you give a damn women don't choose to go into scientific fields? Or at least that's the reason I give a damn (about both).
The two areas I know of where men are actually denied don't bother me, because women actually are better suited for those positions. Nursing and teaching will forever be female dominated because women are better at nurturing; they just are.
See, I consider this a sexist sentiment.
My words have been poorly chosen: I shouldn't have said 'anyone'. I can indeed think of female physicists. I should have said I can't think of general counter-examples, and I can't. As to traditionally female fields, I should have said 'female dominated' as that is more what I'm talking about. There aren't too many traditionally female fields but nowadays women do dominate certain parts of college curricula.
Anywho, currently about 60% of college degrees are awarded to women. They are overrepresented (more than 60%) in Humanities, Art/Music, Communications, Education, and Psychology. They are underrepresented (less than 40%) in Business and Management, Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and CSE. Fields in between are Life Sciences and Social Sciences (both have slight male majorities overall and a more complex breakdown if one wants to get into it). The least female degree is Computer Engineering with about 9% women, the most female degree is in education or health care (they switch off every few years) with about 75% women. However, the degrees which women are a majority in are also the more common degrees overall. Only about 15% of students nationwide are scientists or engineers (which covers almost all male dominated fields).
So I would say Humanities, Art/Music, Communications, Education, Healthcare, and Psychology, and increasingly college generally. Collectively these make up the majority of degrees awarded by a good amount.
You presume I'm talking about whites only for some reason. I really don't know why, unless it's because you're searching for a way to discredit my ideas and can't without setting up a strawman. Indeed, a lot of this seems to be setting up a strawman.
I'm afraid what you say about men entering female fields is incorrect. Women are entering into male fields much faster than men are entering into female fields. Partially because female fields are not as lucrative. But once again you are off topic. I am talking about college numbers. There has indeed been a decrease in the percentage of men going to college. I am sure you already knew this and am not sure why you brought up a point about something different?
There are many that deal with women specifically, as well, and women are not a historical minority. They have always been a majority. And to say it is not needed is a completely different topic. Once again, you are talking about something wholly unrelated to what I am talking about.
The reason it relates is because equality necessarily has to be for everyone. It's not equality if it doesn't deal with both sides of the equation. The idea that equality can be achieved by only dealing with women's rights, or that because you want to argue that men are not 'as oppressed' as women they are not oppressed at all, is again another topic but I feel such an idea is foolish. As foolish as Civil Rights activists who believed that Feminism was unrelated to their own goals, or that because Blacks had it worse women's complaints were unimportant. Are you honestly going to assert female choices in regards to education are unrelated to, or more important than, male choices?
And I do not believe there is a conscious anti-white male movement any more than I believe there is a conscious anti-female movement.
This is somewhat redundant, however, you are taking a slightly different view than Trieste. To summarize:
+Workplace inequality in no way decreases the importance of inequality in college attendance.
+I would argue dramatic shifts or facts are ignored, but regardless of that fact you would have to make the argument that in all instances white males are always more privileged than other races or genders. This is not true, and since it is not, they still have areas needing to be addressed. This is one of them. I'm not suggest we devote all national resources to the problem but we are current devoting basically none (to my knowledge).
+Really? The statistics I've seen say that women do better but those statistics refer specifically to engineering where there's a dearth of females (thus raising their value relatively). I did see something as part of a campaign to get women to go to college saying payment and employment rates approached parity if both genders had degrees, but that didn't account for race.
+I would argue a college degree is important despite the current economic downturn.
+The percentage of women going to college is going up, not down, so if there is an effect related to taking on debt and seeing college students going home instead of getting jobs it appears to only affect men. Finding out why that is would be worthwhile, I think.
If you'd like to discuss general privilege, that would be another topic. Here, however, we're talking about college attendance and discrepancies.