<p>Forget sewing!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.howtomakeatoga.info/%5B/url%5D">http://www.howtomakeatoga.info/</a></p>
<p>Yeah, but togas are for Romans. We are a Greek chorus.</p>
<p>"Where do you get your robes? Go to the bedding thread on the Parents Cafe, then check out this link:"</p>
<p>Maybe we can make 'em out of Parcheesis. ;)</p>
<p>And here is a completely different take from Men's News Daily about "The real reason why MIT Dean Marilee Jones was fired."</p>
<p>I may have a platform-translating problem here, but the above article appeared truncated to me. Did I miss something? I don't see how Marilee Jones is "not a feminist" or did/said something un-PC.</p>
<p>I'm guessing the idea is that, because women have been successful, they are "displacing" men and boys-- a rather backward view and a little reminiscent of women who successfuly worked during WWII, when all the men were off to war. When they returned, the women had to quit working (lost their jobs), so the men could be employed. </p>
<p>Her comments and ideas are somewhat convoluted. She, at once, acknowledges women are smart and successful, yet she also blames them for the "lost boys." Blaming women for their success AND for "displacing" men/boys (undermining them, in a sense?) seems to be an outdated and backwards concept, and a real slap in the face for successful women everywhere, it seems to me. </p>
<p>This is how I read it. Think about this if a man said it, instead of a woman. She really does take away the achievements of the girls/women here, I think.</p>
<p>I'll just add that she's crediting (and blaming) the educational system for successful women and girls-- suggesting the schools are rigged, in a way, spearheaded by feminists. Again, just my take.</p>
<p>hey jack you read it wrong man. the real point of the article was how educational establishments (middle school/high school) fit girl's innate abilities better than guys. i agree with her, even if i think she is scum</p>
<p>Finally some useful information on this thread.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link to the robe instructions marite :)</p>
<p>slickhitter: Yes, I think you're right, in part. Either way, she blames feminists for structuring the schools in that way and, at the same time, also discounts the achievements of girls/women in so doing (in my opinion). Again, just my read.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The focus of this thread, for me, is on one woman's hypocrisy and lies
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For me, the focus includes MIT's so-called 'blind' complicity; allowing and perpetuating the charade.</p>
<p>Thanks for the sidenote about the divorce. </p>
<p>Who is kicking herself for not listening to her attorney and giving hubby what he wanted? Heaven hath no fury like a.....</p>
<p>Total agreement she wanted it both ways. I concur that MIT was complicit. Part of their complicity was in allowing her to resign.</p>
<p>Just like in a murder; it's usually the spouse that is the prime suspect.</p>
<p>We all decided a couple of hundred posts ago that the Husband had to know her secret, </p>
<p>Guess that was one person too many.</p>
<p>787 was how I <em>thought</em> the message was meant to read, also, but I wasn't sure that was communicated in the referenced article.</p>
<p>If the theory of this writer is correct, (and that's a big "if" -- does he have evidence of a feminist backlash?), then the female anti-MJ'ers have it all wrong. It is so evident, has always been so evident, to me as a teacher, including recently, that the classroom day and the structure of classroom activiites benefits, <em>overall</em> females rather than males. And anyone who is half-way openminded and has taught boys in non-traditional environments knows exactly what I'm talking about. MJ didn't say, btw, that females are docile. She said the females, overall, adapt better to the long periods of (physically) quiet activity required in a classroom. Sorry, ladies, this is verifiable. </p>
<p>Why did one of the formerly all-male colleges in my region have an alternating schedule (way back when) for men, consisting of classes evenly alternating with regular physical activity? They realized it worked better, and the guys needed it. Now, fast forward to modern brain science: little did they know then that there's a brain-related reason for that, pertaining to hormone release benefiting cognitive function.</p>
<p>Every year in every classroom I see some girls needing more physical activity (& more breaks) than is the "norm" for their gender; they tend to be the kinesthetic learners. Similarly, I see a few boys (the minority) who can sustain long "passive" periods as well as most girls can. This merely verifies the studies conducted many years ago and summarized in the book Brain Sex, which discusses the <em>spectrum</em> of male/female tendencies and the reasons therefor.</p>
<p>This is also one of the primary reasons that boys, more than girls, seek out homeschooling as an alternative: the family is in control of the schedule & the learning style and the pacing.</p>
<p>But perhaps I'm completing misunderstanding the anti-MJ argument. If it's about the structure of the schools, those were male+female decisions. I also don't think that such orientation has much to do with any progress or lack of it in math+science for females. It's the opportunities, the assumptions, the <em>expectations</em> which has led to lack of commitment to that, for females, & which has been picked up by teachers of math/science who "assumed" that boys were capable, girls weren't, or shouldn't be, etc. One of the pluses of all-girls' high schools is that it can often be a place for girls to shine in those fields without direct male competition, which thus reduces any socially-based inhibitions against performance.</p>
<p>I have also wondered about what kind of message it sent that the university allowed Jones to resign rather than fire her. Even tenured professors can be fired over something like this, can't they?</p>
<p>I want to know why there apparently hasn't been a follow-up story on Jones, a story that describes her complete background. If she spoke the truth about her hometown -- Albany, N.Y. -- and about being a former torch singer in that area, it shouldn't be hard to learn about her. That area, which is where I grew up, is basically a small town.</p>
<p>Of course, there's always the possibility that Jones wasn't from Albany, wasn't a torch singer, and wasn't even initially named Marilee or Jones. Still, I would think that the Boston Globe or some similar paper would have done an interesting follow-up by now, including a story about whether her colleagues had any clue.</p>
<p>Certainly the Globe won't do a follow-up, judging by this glowing editorial:</p>
<p>A Telling Admission Boston Globe Editorial April 28, 2007</p>
<p>
[quote]
Still she deserves credit for her straightforward apology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to MIT 28 years ago...and did not have the courage to correct my resume when I applied for my current job or at any time since.
[/quote]
says Jones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admitting to that lack of courage means being brave enough to be oneself, even if one is short on credentials but long on potential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The forthright admission stands in contrast to others who have denied, delayed, or justified...{i.e. Dave Edmonson, CEO, RadioShack.}
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people argue that applicants have to lie to get first jobs or to go back to work after months or years of being unemployed...A better solution would be an aggressive national public policy that crates many more programs for working adults to earn college degrees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although this is a sad final chapter for Jones's MIT career, she leaves a positive legacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ms. Jones has had to face her own messy truths. She has done so in a commendable way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't get the link to work, but this editorial has to be read to be believed.</p>
<p>I agree NSM. Why the white glove treatment? Women scientists can't take hard criticism?</p>
<p>MIT spin machine at work? </p>
<p>Knock knock, MIT? You are making the fallout that much WORSE.</p>
<p>Here's the link to which hereshoping referred. I agree it's sick-making.</p>
<p>Judging by what you posted, the Globe's editorial was nauseating.</p>
<p>Clearly, after someone turned her in, Jones had no choice but to finally tell the truth after 28 years. It's not as if she voluntarily was honest about her background. It's very obvious that MIT told her that she had a choice of being fired or resigning while giving a truthful public explanation of the reason for her resignation.</p>
<p>I agree with others that she shouldn't have had the option of resignation. </p>
<p>I'd also be interested in what MIT's policy is for students whose application lies are discovered after they have matriculated at MIT. Are they allowed to quietly transfer? To get their diplomas or are they kicked out because of their lies?</p>
<p>And the Boston Globe needs to think long and hard about how journalists are treated when it's found out that they've lied about their credentials: They are fired, which is the correct thing to do with people who obviously lack ethics. I don't understand why the Globe is treating Jones as if she's some kind of hero.Certainly, she did some very good work at MIT, but there's nothing exemplary about the fact that she finally told the truth about lying for 28 years about her academic background.</p>
<p>I never thought highly of Marilee Jones' pronouncements about college admissions. What she said did not fit what was happening at college where she was head of admissions, which made it even more ridiculous. It seemed to me that she was just saying what many people felt, instead of what the situation is these days. Kids are not as likely to get into the top schools like MIT without doing quadruple loops in all areas. It's just a fact of life, given the competitiveness of admissions to such school and the number of applicants who are so stellar. If MIT or any school truly wanted to give this system a break, they could have a 10% or whatever percent "wild card" admission where they accept interesting, real kid types that do not fit the over-the-top applicant profile. THis would increase applications even more, selectivity even more, but would also give the type of student Jones SAID she likes a shot to get into schools like MIT.</p>