|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:49 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
There's not really much to be said about this fop's foppery. (And old Brit term, but accurate!)
"Have there been any negative responses to the course? "Feminists at our university are OK about it," says Wild. (the "professor...")
"If it was a diploma on 'Finding the Warrior Within', I think there would be uproar."
One more tenured lap-poodle for feminism, laughing all the way to his pension!
I never actually worry about female feminists much. They are transparent.
But the fellow travellers, well....
Some back alley conversations may be eventually required to deal with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 11:55 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This men's studies course seems to be a feminist inspired study of males. My guess is that it focuses heavily on male power and privilege and ignores or downplays male vulnerability, powerlessness and sacrifice. It also ignores or minimizes female power and privilege, in both historical and modern contexts. If the academic feminists (male or female) have their way, the course will be of little value in bringing about any worthwhile evolution. It will simply reinforce the feminist victimology attitude that males are privileged oppressors and only they need to change.
The common criticism from feminists and their friends is that men's studies courses/programs are unnecessary because history is men's studies. The difference , of course, is that women's studies teach women to question traditional female roles and reject stereotypes. Traditional history does the opposite for men -- it teaches traditional sexual roles with their restricted options. History is not men's studies because traditional history courses reinforce the traditional male role of performer. Women's studies courses teach women to celebrate women who have deviated from the traditional role.
We need men's studies now more than women's studies because men's role has been less questioned. More importantly, without men's studies (taught from a pro-masculist, not feminist perspective) the universities are teaching young people that men have always had options and that women haven't. The truth is that both sexes historically have had few options but mostly obligations.
(I've paraphrased some of Warren Farrell's excellent insights from his book "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:18 AM May 31st, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Have there been any negative responses to the course? "Feminists at our university are OK about it," says Wild. (the "professor...")
(Sorry about yet another long comment. I was feeling "wordy").
Another fool in academia is really of no consequence, given the decay which has taken hold there in the past 50 years. It's not as if we didn't foresee our enemies trying to strong-arm any attempts to create gender studies courses for or about men into the abyssal black hole that is feminist "reasoning" or "logic". Expecting academia to achieve any sort of balance or to assist men in their struggles at this point would be a foolish mistake. Those people are lost, and have signed up with the enemy to avoid prosecution or dismissal for "insensitivity" to our enemy's feelings. Statistics, science, logic, reasoning, philosophy and history have all been sacrificed on the altar of feminist cognitive dissonance, and academia is now part of the problem, not the solution. Expecting the tatters that remain of our intelligentsia to help men achieve standing in their own societies would be like expecting a sheepdog to perform long division. Today's academics are hobbled, decrepit and useless, and will sell out to the highest bidder, or anyone who has the ability to affect their tenure and pension.
Socrates, Plato, Voltaire, Descartes and the other great names of science and philosophy would be ashamed of the whole bloody lot of them. Intellectual castration? That's too mild a description for what has happened to these people. They've become an embarrassment to anyone who can think for themselves, and aren't worth the breath it takes to curse their ignorance, laziness and stupidity.
But this raises another issue: what is this sickness that drives all academics and most average people to see halos over the heads of all women while simultaneously condemning all men as brutes and abusers, when the available evidence clearly demonstrates that women are as or more likely to be violent in the home and elsewhere, and are more likely to abuse children? How does it survive in a culture containing so many immature, malformed human beings pretending to be what we might once have called "young women" who proudly announce their antisocial behavior and who delight in assaulting men or using them for their own profit and gratification in full view of the public? In fact, these people are frequently praised and rewarded for their narcissism and antisocial behavior.
Even when women are clearly exploiting, raping, robbing, defrauding or murdering men for their own gain, or gleefully utilizing the most disgusting of double standards, these disordered patterns of thinking persist even in many men, and men are inevitably blamed by both genders for whatever reprehensible, shameful acts this minority of women have committed (or which men have committed to appease them), all to serve the apparently insatiable greed, bloodlust and hate of the tatters remaining of the original "women's movement". At this late date, it appears as if adherents of the deformed carcass of the "women's movement" won't be happy until all men are in their graves, at which point those same misandric adherents will promptly blame men for being "deadbeats" as a way to continue avoiding the unpleasant task of facing what some women have become, what they're doing to men, and worst of all, their own psychological and personal problems.
Calling this sickness in many men and women "feminism" is a convenient answer, but I think it runs much deeper than that. Feminism is a symptom of a much larger problem: without the foundation of misandry that seems to underwrite our civilization, feminism would be laughed out of existence, not used as the basis of laws calculated to destroy half the population, laws which are frequently approved by men. This objectification of men doesn't differ in the slightest from the objectification of blacks by a white lynch mob, or Jews by Nazis and anti-Semites, or natives by colonists, or spouses by those who commit domestic violence, or rape victims by rapists, whether they're male or female.
It's not narcissism either, although that's certainly a driving force behind feminism. Members of both genders are busy marginalizing, deriding and eradicating masculinity (i.e. objectifying men), so if it were truly a sort of collective "mob" narcissism, men would reject feminist initiatives as not being in their own self interest. There certainly seems to be a strong correlation between narcissism and feminism, but again, I'm trying to figure out what it is about humanity that's leading us to destroy men, when men are such a huge part of the reason our civilization evolved and why it continues to exist. That much is in evidence: societies where the females hold most power never advance beyond the bronze age. Without the qualities of men, that's where our society would be today.
Is this constant and delusional campaign of misandry and the objectification of men by both genders nothing more than an unwillingness by its proponents to face their own weaknesses, shortcomings, problems and failures, or to try and find answers to the questions and problems in their own lives? Are we seen as being more able to "take it", resulting in men being used as the universal scapegoat for that reason? Or is it just greed? All of the above?
It occurs to me that if we can determine why feminism is acceptable in our societies, and why it is acceptable to objectify only men, when it is clear to anyone who bothers to look that modern feminism is nothing more sophisticated than a campaign of hatred, state-sanctioned violence, persecution and objectification waged against men, that we might be able to destroy its roots. Cut off the food and water to starve it to death, if you will.
Why has it become acceptable to many members of both genders to objectify men to an extent far greater than society ever dreamed of objectifying women (I don't deny that women are also objectified for various reasons, but that's not the issue here)? How did this destructive and suicidal (on a population level) meme ever evolve? Society doesn't draft and send women off to die on foreign battlefields, it doesn't expect women to die in mining disasters to feed their families, it grants women protection and support paid for by men, yet it openly approves of the hatred and objectification of men. Can anyone offer some insight into why this is the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:50 PM May 31st, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm trying to figure out what it is about humanity that's leading us to destroy men..."
What a great inquiry!
I googled it and here's a few keywords that popped up ---
sexism
desire
greed
politics
religion
capitalism
socialism
communism
infantilism
media bias
Angelina Jolie
raunch culture
Jennifer Aniston
poorly trained dogs
dog trainers
circumcision
oral sex
puritanism
orally-fixated puritans
MBA degrees
feminism
anti-feminism
i-feminism
metaphors
allegories
street slang
rap music
rock music
any organized religion
(see "rap music")
deceased religions
(see "rock music")
old parents
old prophets
anything old
HISTORY?
"F-ING HERSTORY?"
...
it would be masochistic (and futile) to continue.
My basic point was that men cannot ever be destroyed.
Because we don't believe in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:32 AM June 1st, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
poorly trained dogs
dog trainers ?
Dogs? Dog trainers??
Angelina "fishlips" Jolie I can see: she's about the worst thing to happen to entertainment and the media since disco, but poorly trained DOGS?
Here I thought they were man's best friend.
;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 01:25 PM June 4th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"poorly trained dogs
dog trainers ? "
It was a reference to what we can anticipate when Hillary runs for Prezodent.
I thought it was obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 09:54 PM May 31st, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Because we are raised by women. We are tought to value them over men, since they are around more, and responsible for our social programing.
In the 'olden' days, men were still valued within the family unit. Families honestly did need the man's work (hunting food, then growing food) to survive. Women, while raising children, were responsible for their upkeep of the family unit. Once society progressed to the point where "money" was the upkeep of the family, rather than hard labor, respect for the father figure went down. I feel this accelerated once modern conveniences allowed women to do their upkeep in half, or less, of the former time required. Once a family could receive guarenteed goverment assitance to feed themselves, rather than the charity of society which was not guarenteed, the women raising the children realized that men were no longer a necesity for survival, and devalued them to the point we have today: walking wallets.
In today's socio-ecnomic reality, until men are the primary cargivers to children, the social programing will not reverse.
Unlike you, I'm feeling rather turse tonight ;)
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Paul Parmenter on 02:56 PM June 1st, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi folks. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Jimmy Livid and I am bursting to tell you about the exciting new course I am starting at Nottingham Trent University in the UK. It's on the neglected subject of men's studies. It will be informed by feminism. I have studied violent men for 20 years, so I am an expert on male violence. Or, if you like, I am just an expert on men.
I intend the course to cover every conceivable aspect of men's life, experiences and behaviour. Everything from the sources of men's violence and the triggers of their violent behaviour, right the way through to understanding the politics of male violence and what we can do to end men's violent abuse of every living thing that comes within the range of their violence. Using feminist techniques and the deep insight into the violent nature of men that only feminism can provide, I will open up scholarly debate on men's violence and work to bring this most important subject into the mainstream of our educational thought.
I believe now is the right time for this course. We know that men's violent behaviour has grown worse in recent years; indeed it has increased exponentially every year since the stone age, as has been proved by any number of brilliant studies and irrefutable research by feminists. If we do not get to the bottom of men's violence and work together with feminists to eradicate it from its pre-eminent position in men's psychological make-up, it will threaten to engulf us all in a gigantic violencefest of rampant testosterone, the violence hormone unique to men that drives them relentlessly to violent behaviour every second of their lives.
I can call upon my feminist colleagues to help me in this work, which is totally necessary as it takes the victims of men's violence to really understand just how and why the male psyche is so entwined in violent conduct. I am sure you will agree that this is the best recommendation possible for the course.
The course is aimed at anyone who has an interest in men and their violence. It is important that students come from completely varied and diverse backgrounds, as everyone needs to learn more about violent men. Everyone is welcome, be they feminist social workers, feminist teachers, feminist counsellors or feminist psychotherapists.
I know the course will be immensely popular because a wide circle of academic feminists, who have given me the benefit of their many years of experience and study of male violence, have already given it their approval.
I look forward to welcoming you all on the course. Sorry, I forgot to mention that it will be all about men's violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 07:13 PM June 1st, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, another troll who's a bigot and a sexist. Oh, sorry, "women's studies professor". It's so difficult to remember which is which!
Now, would someone with the ability to do so please ban this troll and assign an appropriate score to their comment? Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:25 AM June 2nd, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I considered the humor angle too, Dittohd, and the phony name, but I was erring on the side of caution, since there have certainly been issues with trolls around here in the past, and no attempt was made by the author to indicate that his post was a joke aside from the silly name. Of course, someone trolling would probably not use their real name, now would they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:28 AM June 2nd, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know what "livid" means?
Do I sound stupid to you? I'm not, but thanks for suggesting otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:51 PM June 2nd, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"Livid" -- (1) discolored by bruising; black-and-blue (2) ashen, pallid (3) reddish (4) very angry; enraged.
Methinks the poster is a jokester.
Though his suggested course outline could be found on any campus in the Gender Studies department.
My tired old rant about academic feminism is just this ---
"define the terms of acceptable discourse... then all advantage will follow."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:50 AM June 3rd, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I still haven't figured out how the hell I missed the fact that the author was doing a parody of that male feminist toady in the UK. A severe and potentially terminal brainfart on my part, to say the least. An evening of heavy drinking while watching women take their clothes off seems to have solved the problem nicely, whatever the hell it was :)
Anyhow, my apologies for my earlier hypersensitivity, Dittohd. I realize you weren't insulting me. Like I said, "stupid is as stupid does", and I stupidly mistook a clever parody for the real deal. I dunno why, something just didn't "click" when I read it the other day, but it is funny as hell when viewed as a parody. Sorry for any confusion/fuss, guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by PPaul on 03:02 AM June 3rd, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Lighten up, guys. I posted the comment as a spoof, a joke, a lampoon on the original story. This Jim Wild character has obviously spent too much time around feminists and has been indoctrinated by them. He has no good intents towards men at all. He just wants to focus on the worst aspects of men's characters and paint them as typical. So I just wanted to show him up as blinkered and incapable of understanding his own bigotry.
I can't believe anyone would take my post literally, but there you go. Perhaps we have a language problem here. I am in the UK where Livid commonly means the same as Wild (in the sense of Angry).
It's staggering to realise that things are so bad that some of you thought the lampoon was close enough to reality to have to debate whether it was actually real. Frightening! These universities need a real clean-out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:21 AM June 3rd, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
It was definitely a consequence of beer deprivation and a language gap, PPaul. "Livid" over here usually means angry, but wouldn't likely be seen as a synonym for "wild" by someone raised with American or Canadian English. As a result, I totally missed it. Again, several pints of the dark stuff, and I'm TOTALLY getting it now. Must've been down a quart or something...
Sorry about my entirely unfounded suggestion that you were a troll. Read in context, it was most certainly funny as hell. And you're right: it IS scary that I thought it could quite possibly be on the level. It was eerily familiar, based on my years in academia, so that's another reason why I read it the way I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:47 AM June 3rd, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
(RM) - "Like I said, "stupid is as stupid does", and I stupidly mistook a clever parody for the real deal."
Now take a look at how this thread evolved into mutual respect and men talking "to each other" instead of "at each other."
What do you think would have happened at feministing.com or (oh lord) SYG?
Parody is not very far from reality in these daze, eh?
Personally, I like to blame women.
They are all narcissists, privileged infants masquerading as adults, raunch culture whores, and really bad at managing anything except dirty diapers.
Was that a parody or just speaking the truth?
Lovely salon hereabouts, excellent chat!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 09:18 AM May 31st, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This class is defined in such a was as to guarantee lack of attendance, and therefore its ultimate demise. Hopefully, it will be the end of the professor as well.
What is so disappointing is that there is not a class that details, for male students, the horrific challenges they have before them in dating, marriage, divorce, alimoney, dating violence, domestic violence and the coerrsion that women use against men's inate sensibilities.
These are the college and high school level courses that are so desperately needed today.
Warn the young men before they make stupid mistakes that the women have been educated on (in their women's studies courses) and use to their advantages.
When will we have "masculine jurisprudence" courses in our law schools???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 02:00 PM May 31st, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
In my last semester of college, I took a course entitled “Men and Masculinity.” On the surface, it appeared to be a non-political examination of men’s issues in contemporary society. The textbook was another story; it was a compilation of 47 essays authored by-and-large by feminists. The theme that ran throughout the book was male-bad/female-victim, men need to change, blah, blah, blah… Needless to say, the course was mainly attended by females; I was one of five males. The women easily bought into the rhetoric of the textbook. Everyday that I attended the course, I brought research to the class (journal articles, news, etc.) that argued females can be predators; males are often disadvantaged, etc. No matter how credible my research was, most of the females were unwilling or unable to accept information that was contrary to the politically correct thinking. This course convinced me most college-aged females have had their minds made-up for them by years of feminist programming to the point of not being able to process any information that is contrary to the status quo. It would be funny if it weren’t for one thing; these women have the power of the vote! Even courses that are not clearly labeled with feminist agendas may be wolves in sheep’s clothing! The most powerful and persuasive courses are the ones that program minds under the cloth of stealth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They can study whatever, whenever and whereever they want, and whether they call it men's studies or women's studies or whatever studies, if a bitch gets in my way I kick her ass, period.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:59 AM June 3rd, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Bert, man... calm down just a bit!
No bitch can "get in your way" unless you see her, and give her the power, to be an obstacle!
And what exactly how when what why who would that occur?
(Deliberate bad grammar.)
-ly ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
A