Actually it would appear im not paying anything back at all as I don't earn enough. :/

I used to pay 40 when I earnt 22500

That really is the government betting on you getting a highish paying job

My loan is only like 22000

Yup. There losing that bet atm

@InsaneCaterpilla I did not know this. Interesting

So the UK really is doing the whole socialized post-secondary education

Given that I suppose I am a tad surprised the UK male rate of university attendance is still only low-40s%

Though that depends on the difference of utility between college and university

But anyway

Back to the debate.

Losing men at university does mean losing men in important fields that require a degree to enter. Like stem and medicine.

Only if those particular fields have declined

Attendance of uni /=/ attendance of specific degree

Medicine definitely counts then

I don't think it really does there, James. Remember that with affirmative action we're talking about people who are barely capable of entering the fields in the first place

Many university degrees do not find employment in their degree

these things are not unrelated

But if we're to go but oppression logic

They have the ability not the opportunity or the right background

The background being as men they were never given all the "women in stem* days

One of the keys behind the oppression logic is that they do in fact have the capability, but discrimination is stopping them. That claim couldn't really be made for affirmative action for women, and certainly not for men

Because even if the problem was systemic (some of it, much of it isn't), it isn't a matter of discrimination

And therefore affirmative action has no real power to fix it

You forget that the other half of oppression logic acknowledges that even if the selection isn't discriminatory it doesn't mean the sum of all of the differences leading up to it don't need to be righted

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here

Right, there is that half, but that half doesn't lend itself to affirmative action

it does lend itself to other solutions

even though I agree with you that the sum of all the differences don't need to be righted, not addressing that half was more or less deliberate.

Oh absolutely like TREAT EVERYONE WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

😉

Actually I'm not against righting differences.. to an extent. If it means removing those differences. But I don't know if there should be Lee way given to those effected

For instance class differences

Well perhaps a situation that would be more likely to generate real differences between us would be the earnings gap.

For instance, the earnings gap is largely a difference between mothers and fathers, not between men and women, once one accounts for hours worked

..

Now this related to mother's choices to be available to her children

However

Michael Kimmel might say that the inequality of those choices compared to father's choices to support those children financially ought to be addressed. Recognizing fully that those choices are not made in a vacuum, but rather made to conform to greater social realities.

To an extent I agree (of course, unlike Kimmel I would not categorize that difference as being a form of oppression, but meh)

do you?

One argument I've seen brought up is that more women are needed in certain fields because women bring a different perspective to the field than men do. So obviously that specific claim doesn't cling to oppression to justify affirmitive action, but rather to improving the field through 'diversity'