Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do so many universities claim to promote gender equality and yet they have a women's studies major but no men's studies major? Is this not a form of gender discrimination?
This is patently absurd.
As someone else pointed out, women have often been written out of history. I don't think you could ever appreciate how much. Just as one example, many classic paintings were actually painted by women, but men put their names on it. Same thing as in the music industry- Bobbie Gentry wrote and produced most of her own stuff, but was told that she had to have a man's name on it because that's just how it was done.
SO, perhaps you can understand that trying to redress this now, after centuries, is not such a bad idea....and certainly not gender discrimination. If gender discrimination is actually your concern, perhaps you need to educate yourself on who has actually historically been oppressed before forming an opinion.
History and Gender studies are not the same thing.
Men, happen to be cited more in history simply because men HAD to work. Men HAD to be creative. Women HAD to stay home with the kids. Women HAD to manage the family - Doing so ensured the survival of our species.
There's nothing sexist about it. It's biology.
Women were property. They had no rights. That was for centuries. The fathers used them to form alliances. In other countries, women are stilled burned alive if the husband decides he doesn't want her anymore. They had so little value the family paid dowries for the other families to take them.
Doctors even would call husbands to discuss wives medical as early as the 1950s.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
As I man, I find it pathetic when other men whine and pout that their already considerable unearned advantages just aren't enough, and that they're terrified that they might have to compete one day with women on an equal basis for things like jobs.
Such men desperately need to grow up.
It's not whining, it's calling out BS
BTW women make MORE money than men in their 20's and they're selected 2 to 1 over men in tech fields.
American women need to woman up and stop whining. They are some of the most privileged people on the planet
Since men, in comparison to women, do not seem to have the same tendency to introspection, nor the same history of worldwide discrimination, there doesn't appear to be much need for it. I think you can rest assured that if there were any groundswell of demand from men, the classes would exist.
i have no idea if he's good with women. I have no idea if these 'topics' below even exist...but at the end of the day why does it matter if he's 'good with women'? Plenty of feminists are bad with men..does it mean their voices shouldn't be heard?
originally posted by rancenc view post
some of the topics involve in womens studies include "the evolution of the thong and it's empowerment of women"..."public breast feeding and it's impact on societal development" and "twerking is it really a black woman thing?"
As I noted earlier, the pitiful bleating for Men's Studies is made by those who cannot handle seeing the erosion of the entirely-unwarranted social advantages conveyed by the accident of their birth.
It's made by the same sort of people who uphold the old organization founded by David Duke - the National Association for the Advancement of White People - as no different than the NAACP. But it was completely different, for the odious NAAWP led by the odious Duke sought to maintain white privilege and domination over non-whites, whereas the NAACP sought to elevate African-Americans to a position of equality and parity
with whites. One was blatantly racist, the other egalitarian.
So it is with the ridiculous notion of Men's Studies compared to Women's Studies.
As I man, I find it pathetic when other men whine and pout that their already considerable unearned advantages just aren't enough, and that they're terrified that they might have to compete one day with women on an equal basis for things like jobs.
Such men desperately need to grow up.
I always found it humorous how deep down in the american subconscience, man = white man. Minority men are implicitly omitted from the definition of "man" (not omitted from the definition of "oppressor" since they must retain their status as part of the collective oppressors in order for feminists to rally minority women to their cause)
But truthfully you cant say "generic men" oppressed "generic women" when there was a time not too long ago that many white women themselves very willingly owned men (who happened to be minorities) as slaves. To this day white women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action; not minority men of any race. The only way the female oppression narrative even works is if you, by default, omit the fact that minorities males in america are "men" too.
For to acknowledge that these minority males are men too, is to acknowledge that many times women themselves were active oppressors of men themselves, and benefited from the systematic oppression of men; albeit minority men. Thus white feminists in particular must define the default "man" and "the patriarchy" as white man. It certainly wasnt minority males systematically denying women the right to vote in america (as thise minority men possessed no power themselves); anymore than it was minority males who were complicit in a system in which young boys like emmit till or jesse washington were lynched for being falsely accused of rape, by none other than - you guessed it women.
Of course any individual household can have a man of any race/ethnicity who abuse the women in those households; and vice versa. But that is an issue of the abused choosing the right spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend etc in which to enter into a relationship with or choosing to leave those abusive partners.
Now if you want to talk about systematic oppression of women vs men in other countries and cultures thats a different issue, as one must then also acknowlege that multiculturalism may not be all its cracked up to be. But american women, particularly white american women, have slyly slid under the coat tails of truly oppressed women of other nations & cultures, when in reality white women mightve had the best gig of all (including men) from day one.
But in america, the advancement of this whole narrative of "generic women" having been oppressed by "generic men", is done by deliberately omitting the acknowlegement of the men who were actively oppressed by the ruling class of women. Yet dismissing the manhood of those minority males in order to distance women themselves (as a collective) from being viewed with the oppressors (as a collective), and to preserve the notion that no women were oppressors themselves, is the only way the feminist narrative will truly work.
The more accurate description would probably be to say that SOME women were oppressed by some men, and SOME men were oppressed by some women. But we must first all accept that "white male" is not, and has never been, the only definition of a man. But, for all their bluster about equality and equal rights and so forth, its apparent that the vast majority of american feminists (including male feminists) have never been willing to accept that fact.
I have no idea if he's good with women. I have no idea if these 'topics' below even exist...but at the end of the day why does it matter if he's 'good with women'? Plenty of feminists are bad with men..does it mean their voices shouldn't be heard?
Originally Posted by rancenc View Post
Some of the topics involve in womens studies include "The Evolution Of the Thong and It's Empowerment of Women"..."Public Breast Feeding and it's Impact on Societal Development" and "Twerking is it really a Black Woman Thing?"
He's not very good with women or black people. And nut jobs who hate others in general should be ignored.
History and Gender studies are not the same thing.
Men, happen to be cited more in history simply because men HAD to work. Men HAD to be creative. Women HAD to stay home with the kids. Women HAD to manage the family - Doing so ensured the survival of our species.
There's nothing sexist about it. It's biology.
Have you ever thought that men wanted or forced women to stay home with the kids? Or manage the family whether they wanted to or not?
Well things change for a reason. Unsettomati is right, you have an ax to grind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
