University offers female students extra credit for not shaving their armpits

So once they "defy social norms" then what?....they go right back to the gender norms, that's what.

It's like Beyonce trying to say she a feminist and women should be valued for anything besides sexuality, yet she continually sells herself based on her sexuality.

Who checks for compliance? What if it was a male teacher asking female students to shave from the neck down. He would be called a "perv".

they will at the very least smell like they are fighting a war (on women).

it should also help identify those women already contaminated by the feminist dogma. sitting home w/o a date all weekend can also give them more time for meditation and self improvement. win-win. too bad there is no easy way to identify males who have abandoned what made them men.

gosh, its hard to imagine how much more the fem's will ramp up this hatred of males once the heroine hitlery actually prepares to be appointed the next prez.
somebody break out the popcorn, this promises to be a very long and nasty 10 rounds.

Matt, may I suggest that this IS a Men's Rights issue?

From 1990 to 2005, there was a huge financial run up. The government made money, and made money available.

It was SO EASY for any academician to get his or her research funded.

When a university professor gets a grant, the university takes 51% as overhead. And it uses it to fund other things. And that is, in part, one reason for the huge numbers of Women's Studies Departments - a totally useless department to help women become professors. They all grew due to lavish spending which was not thought out.

That is why you hear such ridiculous research. These projects come from people who never should have become professors. They only became faculty due to the pathological economic conditions in which there was so much money, no one cared.

(It was actually funny around 2000 to hear feminists disparaging those male engineering professors funded by DARPA, when the overhead went to Women's Centers. One of them criticized me for my military research, but her department took the overhead. But this is the first of a few tangents. Back to the point.)

So now the government has drastically cut funding to NSF, NIH, DUE, FIPSE and D/ARPA. There is no more money and the cash cow has become hamburger.

So the clock is ticking on these Women's Studies Departments. And they know it. It is only time now.

And not only because there is no research funding. The pathology is fascinating. Many schools invested their endowment in real estate. Harvard's 30 billion endowment is paper money (the vast percentage in over assessed real estate). And the chickens are coming home to roost.

And this, at a time, when two things are happening.

First, the number of college students is dropping. This is why some Women's Colleges are faced with having to accept men. They are in huge financial bind and female students alone can no longer help them.

Then there is the result of No Child Left Behind. Many schools have actually begun hiring therapists to prepare for a flood of students who have NEVER solved a problem - they only circle bubbles. And the schools are preparing for the stress. But there is no money to help this transition. So the only funding must come from closing departments.

And this is coming at a time of increased competition from World wide universities that can now challenge American superiority. The fact is that American schools depended on foreign students for the tuition and that is now drying up. Foreign students are not coming as they used to.

More complexity? After the first tier (Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech) we get the State Schools. But now that Community Colleges are now bucking to offer the BA degree (no longer stopping at the associate degree) those State schools are in trouble. This will sink MANY State Universities.

It is a HUGE MESS coming. Moody's has begun downgrading many American schools. Library school will close, Law schools will close, Journalism schools will close (and these are all the schools to which women flocked).

Here is where it gets interesting. The engineering schools will grow. And that is where men dominate. And it gets more interesting. What are they doing?

Feminists are now urging we teach engineering in the K12. But just look at:
http://www.egfi-k12.org/

These are all K12 lesson plans. But it is not ANALYTICAL engineering. It is DESIGN engineering (collaborate, powerpoint, dress for success, communicate: the essence of design engineering). The feminists are now poised to screw engineering for girls by sending them down the track of DESIGN in an era of new machines, bio-machines, quantum computing (all of which requires ANALYTICAL engineering) where the men still dominate.

So the technical schools will remain male dominant while most of the schools that house women's studies will face crisis: men are not attending.

Women do NOT apply to schools when the male population is less than 40% (these are stats from my service on admissions committees).

Men do not yet realize the power they have. Men are 40% of the campus. Discounting gays and lesbians (I take no issue with the life style but recognize that more men are gay than women), this leaves two women for every one man on campus. Men will soon start to see that they hold the trump card, the way women did 40 years ago.

The times are changing. And it is not so bad for men.

But it will fascinating to watch the feminist beast die. What you see here, in Women and Gender Studies Professor Breanne Fahs, is the dying of the beast. There is nothing to research: her research is crap. And it is only time before she collapses.

Yeah this is an MRA issue for the reasons Thomas pointed out. I agree with your comment, Thomas, but I am not as optimistic as you are about it crumbling soon. I see the funding for this type of crap going on and on and the academic standards in my country getting lower and lower.

Those with a political agenda want to take over our educational system and they seem to be successful at it. The adage is true "the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world".

I clicked on the bio for this professor. I assume she is a lesbian (nothing wrong with that) but I also notice her focus is taking morality out of sexual activity. I tend to have a biological perspective on things, and while 'no morality' attached to sex may work for homosexuals, who cannot produce children from their sexual activity, it does not work for heterosexuals. 'No morality' attached to heterosexual activity gives us fatherless children and poorly cared for children. In typical heterosexual relationships women are the gatekeepers to sex, pregnancy and birth so this responsibility is on women. I realize some women don't like this, but it is what it is. It is nature, and this nature creates social norms. (insert "lock and key" analogy here)

Men and women have equal total value, but we are not equal in every category or for the same reasons. I feel like people are brainwashed and ignoring biology in their quest for "equality". Social norms are formed because of our different values. This is why people normally fall back on them. These women who have not shaved their armpits for a year will think they have contributes some greatness to the world of gender studies, but if they are heterosexual and want to attract a man, they will go back to the social norms including shaving armpits or they will remain childless until their 40's and then need fertility drugs.

I'm sure the most efficient and therefore successful societies are ones which encourage sexual morality and are patriarchal, so I hate to see colleges teaching and encouraging the opposite. If anyone thinks I am wrong, feel free to provide an example of a successful matriarchal or a successful society which encouraged their daughters to be free of sexual morals.