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?
Well, actually, there is a major: history,.
It is extremely biased towards males and their struggles.
To the men who don't understand this: you'd embarrassed if you knew how you sounded. Honestly, the concept is not difficult. One group dominates culture (such as the presidents, or the Congress)...in this case the men. People in an opposing group begin to question why such dominance...in this case the women. Thus they begin studying the phenomenon.
What happens is that some of the people in the oppressed group (the women) would have, if not for the oppression, been able to make a much larger difference than they did. Other women have beat the odds and managed to do great things despite being marginalized by the prevailing norms of the place and time.
If you put the women that have made the accomplishments on a pedestal simply because they made the accomplishments and were women, this discriminates against the men that would still have been able to do great things even if they had been oppressed, and it ALSO fails to alleviate the collateral damage of discrimination against the women that simply never even became known to begin with due to the oppression. In other words, it shifts the inequality around, but it doesn't actually make it go away. In effect instead of the women being under-recognized, it becomes a combination of some of the women and some of the men. But in either case the lack of recognition is through no fault of the non-recognized persons.
For instance, suppose for the sake of discussion that 1% of women and 1% of men would, in the absence of gender prejudice, become well known as part of history. But due to gender prejudice, it ends up being that 2% of men but only 0.1% of women make their names known. Now you include these 0.1% in history *and* in Women's Studies. What happens now? You have double recognition of 0.1% of women, and no corresponding double recognition of the 0.1% of men that would have been part of history had the prejudice been reversed. But you also have *no* recognition of the 0.9% of women that didn't even get a chance at all, but would have had a chance under a fair system without gender-prejudice. In other words, the difference between the actual 0.1% and the fair 1%.
Thus, we actually have effectively discriminated against 0.5% of the population - 0.9% of women and 0.1% of men.
But under the system with no Women's Studies, the discrimination effectively harms 0.45% of the population (0.9% of the women and 0% of the men).
Thus we have actually increased the unfairness - from 0.45% to 0.5%!
(Note: You could say that Women's Studies might be able to recognize the accomplishments of some women that would otherwise be completely unknown. While a very fair point, the same could be accomplished by just including them in History.)
What happens is that some of the people in the oppressed group (the women) would have, if not for the oppression, been able to make a much larger difference than they did. Other women have beat the odds and managed to do great things despite being marginalized by the prevailing norms of the place and time.
If you put the women that have made the accomplishments on a pedestal simply because they made the accomplishments and were women, this discriminates against the men that would still have been able to do great things even if they had been oppressed, and it ALSO fails to alleviate the collateral damage of discrimination against the women that simply never even became known to begin with due to the oppression. In other words, it shifts the inequality around, but it doesn't actually make it go away. In effect instead of the women being under-recognized, it becomes a combination of some of the women and some of the men. But in either case the lack of recognition is through no fault of the non-recognized persons.
For instance, suppose for the sake of discussion that 1% of women and 1% of men would, in the absence of gender prejudice, become well known as part of history. But due to gender prejudice, it ends up being that 2% of men but only 0.1% of women make their names known. Now you include these 0.1% in history *and* in Women's Studies. What happens now? You have double recognition of 0.1% of women, and no corresponding double recognition of the 0.1% of men that would have been part of history had the prejudice been reversed. But you also have *no* recognition of the 0.9% of women that didn't even get a chance at all, but would have had a chance under a fair system without gender-prejudice. In other words, the difference between the actual 0.1% and the fair 1%.
Thus, we actually have effectively discriminated against 0.5% of the population - 0.9% of women and 0.1% of men.
But under the system with no Women's Studies, the discrimination effectively harms 0.45% of the population (0.9% of the women and 0% of the men).
Thus we have actually increased the unfairness - from 0.45% to 0.5%!
(Note: You could say that Women's Studies might be able to recognize the accomplishments of some women that would otherwise be completely unknown. While a very fair point, the same could be accomplished by just including them in History.)
How long did it take you to come up with this amazingly complicated debacle of an argument, and in so doing your example still shows only a pitiful -.05% - difference? At least come up with a reasonable magnitude to make your case plausible. If you think that THIS is enough to negate the need for "recognition" that seeks to undo some of the lack of recognition over the millennia then you are mistaken. Maybe in a few hundred years...I dunno when I read some of the stuff on here. <smh>
How long did it take you to come up with this amazingly complicated debacle of an argument, and in so doing your example still shows only a pitiful -.05% - difference? At least come up with a reasonable magnitude to make your case plausible. If you think that THIS is enough to negate the need for "recognition" that seeks to undo some of the lack of recognition over the millennia then you are mistaken. Maybe in a few hundred years...I dunno when I read some of the stuff on here. <smh>
The point is that the lack of recognition is NOT "undone". Or that if it is, the same could be done by simply having a panel of feminists critique History textbooks to make sure they are not improperly excluding women.
"Separate but equal" does not work, is another way of looking at it.
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?
Asking why there are no "men's studies" major is like asking why there is no "white History" major.
If you are asking, then you are either disingenuous or clueless.
Asking why there are no "men's studies" major is like asking why there is no "white History" major.
If you are asking, then you are either disingenuous or clueless.
I'll let you decide which.
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.
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.
Except that there were always SOME women who for whatever reason were able to escape, or get around these expectations - either because they didn't marry or didn't have kids, or had some supportive people, or just fought like hell to do whatever. Do you really think that the handful we happen to read about in mainstream sources were the ONLY women who did anything notable?
Except that there were always SOME women who for whatever reason were able to escape, or get around these expectations - either because they didn't marry or didn't have kids, or had some supportive people, or just fought like hell to do whatever. Do you really think that the handful we happen to read about in mainstream sources were the ONLY women who did anything notable?
Nope, but the EXACT same thing could be said about men. Stay at home Dads exist but they're few and far between
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Except that there were always SOME women who for whatever reason were able to escape, or get around these expectations - either because they didn't marry or didn't have kids, or had some supportive people, or just fought like hell to do whatever. Do you really think that the handful we happen to read about in mainstream sources were the ONLY women who did anything notable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame22
Nope, but the EXACT same thing could be said about men. Stay at home Dads exist but they're few and far between
I didn't say it couldn't be said about men....(but how DARE they go against BIOLOGY! ). However, that IS infrequent and it is relatively a recent occurrence when it does happen. I'm not sure that they are any more hindered than other men or from women who are working with families. I'm talking about historically and the magnitude of the effect of both not having opportunities and then being overlooked or ignored after making contributions.
Asking why there are no "men's studies" major is like asking why there is no "white History" major.
If you are asking, then you are either disingenuous or clueless.
Or both.
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.
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.