Fall 2010 Course Offerings in the Men’s Studies Department

25 Apr

Reader Elizabeth tipped me off last week to a podcast of some DaHarb named Lionel Tiger (no, seriously) who has had the blisteringly original idea that universities, if they’re going to offer Women’s Studies courses, ought to be required – in the name of equality – to offer Men’s Studies courses. As someone who has spent the last eight years on college campuses futzing around various humanities and social sciences departments, I would like to reassure Mr. Tiger that he needn’t worry about men’s curricular under-representation. Men’s Studies actually already exists. I don’t know what they call it at Rutgers where he teaches, but at the two universities I’ve attended, they call it Literature, History, Art History, Political Science, Economics, and Area Studies. Really, nearly every course taught in every humanities or social science department on Earth could be considered Men’s Studies were it not for the token textbook chapter here and there on “women’s history” or “women’s literature.” Or maybe Tiger is concerned when he looks at the course catalog and sees a section for African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Chicano Studies, Women’s Studies, etc. but doesn’t see a White Men’s Studies, an omission that would imply that white men aren’t oppressed enough to warrant a department dedicated to the study of their suffering. I mean, just imagine.*

Let’s pretend for a minute that the majority of Women’s Studies departments haven’t already been rebranded and ideologically reworked as Gender Studies departments and think about what kinds of courses might fall under the rubric of Men’s Studies. Davetavius and I have designed for your perusal a hypothetical grouping of course offerings for the Fall 2010 semester for the Men’s Studies department at Alternate Universe State (I’m guessing that it might be possible that in some alternate universe there exists a shortage of college courses about men and their concerns, though I still doubt it).

Undergraduate Course Offerings

MNST 101 Introduction to Chicks – Required for all Men’s Studies majors. Introduces basic concepts in the study of chicks, how to get them to get naked, and what’s wrong with them. Concepts that will be covered include basic sexual coercion techniques, creative avoidance of privilege examination, and basic victim-blaming.

MNST 110 Strip Club Etiquette  — This course will give students a thorough grounding in the behavior expected at strip clubs. Topics will include avoiding contact with bouncers, how to discreetly inquire about the availability of intercourse or fellatio, how to maximize the amount of attention one can get per tip dollar, how to avoid ingesting pubic hairs at free strip club lunch buffets, the parameters of lap dances, advanced glitter removal laundry techniques, and basic alibi formation.

MNST 123 Intermediate Automobile Appreciation – Building on the fundamentals taught in MNST 122, this course will take students beyond a basic understanding and appreciation of horsepower and will prepare them to classify American vehicles by year and to detect and precisely identify common vehicle modifications. Prerequisite: MNST 122 Basic Automobile Appreciation or proof of ownership of a classic vehicle as defined by department guidelines. May be taken concurrently with MNST 124 Introduction to Drifting.

MNST 209 Intermediate NFL Theory – This course will build upon the basic knowledge of the NFL taught in MNST 109 to prepare students to call sports talk radio shows and discuss coaching strategies and to assemble a viable fantasy football team. Intended to prepare students for MNST 210 Applied NFL Theory: Fantasy Football. Prerequisite: MNST 109 Basic NFL Theory To Prevent Sounding Like A Faggot or permission of the coach.

MNST 212 Applied Fart Science – This course will allow students to put what they have learned in the course of our two-semester fart theory sequence into practice. Topics to be covered include public flatulence strategies, mind control techniques that will allow one to maintain a straight face while others attempt to detect the source of a fart, complex “pull my finger” sequences, the scientific principles of rectal methane combustion, and rhetorical strategies for smelt it/dealt it disputes. Prerequisite: MNST 211 Intermediate Fart Theory or department placement exam.

MNST 323 Directed Research in Mammarian Theory – Senior seminar intended for MNST majors. This course will allow students to move beyond basic breast appreciation and to formulate an individualized mammarian taxonomy in preparation for the senior thesis (required for all MNST majors, a 25,000-word essay on who has/had the world’s greatest tits). Students work with an advisor to identify three individual areas of interest (e.g., 80s boob comedies, silicon implants versus saline implants, tactile versus visual breast appreciation, etc.) and to examine relevant research data. Intended as preparation for MNST 324 Senior Thesis Seminar in Advanced Mammarian Studies. Prerequisite: at least four courses in the MNST 310-319 range of upper-division Mammarian Theory courses.

Graduate Course Offerings

MNST 412 Computer Science for Men: Advanced Pornography Perusal Techniques – This course will prepare students to develop complex Boolean search sequences for the efficient and precise acquisition of highly specific pornographic content. Final exam to consist of a timed search for a minimum of five free video clips matching at least 7 of 10 of the criteria outlined in a randomly chosen description of a 4Chan member’s preferred masturbatory fantasy. Intended for MA students as preparation for the MA thesis in the Erotic Arts sub-field. Prerequisite: MNST 380 Intermediate Pornography Perusal Techniques: Moving Beyond Basic Anal.

MNST 465 Directed Research in Microbrews – This course builds on the MNST 460-464 series of courses in microbrew appreciation to prepare MA students to write the MA thesis in the Fermented Beverages sub-field. Students work with an advisor to identify three breweries (either domestic, European, or a combination of the two) and to sample and analyze the products of each before writing a comparative thesis in the field. Students seeking entry into the PhD program with a focus in Fermented Beverages are encouraged to complete MNST 466 Applied Microbrew Theory: Home Brewing and/or MNST 467 Applied Microbrew Theory: Advanced Punning for Beer Naming in preparation for their doctoral research. Prerequisite: MNST 464 Advanced Microbrew Appreciation: Boulder vs. Belgium.

MNST 501 Advanced Men’s Rhetoric for PhD Students – This multidisciplinary course is intended to help doctoral students to prepare for their oral qualifying examinations by introducing them to advanced rhetorical strategies for the defense of male privilege and the male-supremacist status quo. Topics to be covered include creative interpretation and misrepresentation of rape and domestic violence statistics, the utilization of historical precedent as a rationalization for the continued subjugation of women and/or people of color, the deployment of basic evolutionary psychology/biology to excuse sociopathic behavior on the part of men, advanced applied false analogy theory for use in situations in which it is advantageous to compare the white male heterosexual experience to that of groups of people who have actually been oppressed, and advanced men’s ultramicro-economic theory, which will prepare students to appear to refute the claims of Marxist and anarchist feminists about men’s systemic misappropriation of women’s labor by producing anecdotal evidence that a woman once took advantage of a man for monetary gain. Having completed this course, students will have the opportunity to earn extra credit for participation in a debate with students from the university’s Women’s Studies department at which everyone will be required to give both sides’ arguments equal weight regardless of the quantity and quality of thought and knowledge that underlies each, as to do otherwise would unfairly disadvantage the Men’s Studies students. This event, like our department, will be funded with monies taken from the Women’s Studies budget.

Should you have a class title or description to suggest, please do so in comments. The department will surely expand.

* Since I know everyone really wants to know my opinion on the organization of university curricula: in short, ____ Studies departments only serve to create the illusion of commonalities that are at best crude and misleading and to further ghettoize the study of women, non-heterosexuals, and people of color. A wiser tack to take would be to quit judging all people against a white male heterosexual yardstick and require that the professors of regular ol’ history/literature/etc. courses quit pretending dead white men were the only people who ever did anything noteworthy.

Bookmark and Share

124 Responses to “Fall 2010 Course Offerings in the Men’s Studies Department”

  1. Dominique Millette April 25, 2010 at 5:58 PM #

    You had me at “individualized mammarian taxonomy” – though seriously, MNST 501 Men’s Rhetoric for PhD Students is already offered in every university cafeteria and classroom debate, at every network and in every convo ever. For free. You’ll have a tough time charging your students for stuff that gets vomited out all the time for nothing. Absolutely excellent summary though. Kudos!

  2. Imaginary April 25, 2010 at 6:24 PM #

    Awesome. Never been to university, because I like the idea of NOT blowing my own brains out after one blisteringly idiotic conversation with a 20-something male, but based on my own data, and the data gathered by countless womin over the years, no man within the ages of 6-125 can possibly be tolerable in an academic setting.

  3. lizor April 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM #

    Wicked post.

    How much you want to bet this guy’s last name was “Wiener” or “Weasel” before he changed it to “Tiger”?

  4. aquarianrabbit April 25, 2010 at 7:04 PM #

    You are my favorite person and it’s true, men who are in academia are about ten times worse than those who aren’t.

  5. wiggles April 25, 2010 at 8:53 PM #

    My little brother, when he was like 7 years old, would point out cars he thought were bitchin’ and what their make and model was. Like “Ooo! Killer ’72 Chevelle!” He was a big Hotwheels aficionado though. I guess that’s where he got it.

  6. Rachael April 25, 2010 at 8:55 PM #

    MNST 131 Introduction to Lesbianology – The study of those baffling chicks, some of whom are hot, who don’t want to suck our dicks. The professor will be inviting several important speakers, such as men who have been rejected by lesbians and men who enjoy lesbian porn, into the classroom. The objectives of this class are to understand and apply ways to convince strange women who sleep with other women that “it’s just a fad” and to get your hot lesbian friends to let you watch. Those who can get permission to join and videotape the event will get extra credit. The final exam will include a 10-page research paper on applying hatred of “butch” lesbians into your everyday life.

  7. veganprimate April 25, 2010 at 10:05 PM #

    For the class on Applied Fart Science, you left out lighting farts with a match or a lighter. Dudes think that’s hilarious for some reason.

    • Nine Deuce April 25, 2010 at 10:12 PM #

      I rectified that situation. Get it? Rectified?

  8. JetGirl April 25, 2010 at 11:37 PM #

    MNST 200: No More Mr. Nice Guy
    This course will introduce the taxonomy of the unfortunate Nice Guy(TM) and identify why he is so unsuccessful with the females. Guest lecturers will include Mystery “The Art of the Neg,” Tucker Max “Being a proud asshole gets me poon.” Course will also include panel of “Hot Women” to advise on strategy. “Iron John” weekend required; students must bring own drum.
    MNST 201: Selective blindness
    (Pre-requisite: MNST 200) Course objectives include honing the skills of completely ignoring women around you who do not meet your beauty standards, while mastering the fine art of complaining to friends about why the “hot women” are such bitches for ignoring you.

  9. Eirwen April 26, 2010 at 12:25 AM #

    Lol awesome! This post had me cracking up!

    It never ceases to amaze/repulse/disgust me how douchey guys can be.

    Great post!

  10. Miss Andrist April 26, 2010 at 10:00 AM #

    MNST 457 / MGMT 483 – Capstone project / Internship. Departmental approval. Competitive placement** combining lab theory and lecture with field experience in which selected candidates will be partnered with an on-the-job mentor in an executive position. Students will gain hands-on experience assisting their mentor with day-to-day tasks applying principles and practices of androcentricism in the workplace. Students will assist mentors in the creation, perpetuation, and encouragement of discriminatory / harassing work environments and will learn to exercise reciprocal tolerance of male behavior using either the dominance-frame or zero-sum methodologies. Instructor will selectively place students in cooperative field research teams, in which students will be encouraged to conduct individual experiments in enforcing and benefiting from androcentricism in the workplace. Observations must presume and support entitlement to the objective viewpoint to be considered valid and admitted into the body of research. Instructor selection guidelines will award preference to according to paternal alma mater.

    This is a capstone course aimed at Business and Management majors and awards dual credit on successful completion. Course may be repeated for additional credit.

    **Non-male applicants will be granted the opportunity to participate by conducting supportive research work as assigned on an individual case-by-case basis. Non-male participants are further required to submit an external application; seating is limited by position availability. Upon successful completion, students may apply for awarding of credit. Additional prerequisites: BMIT – 103 Office Automation, MRKT 213 – Event Planning and completion of online orientation, “Dress for Success!” Concurrent enrollment in COMM 201 Interpersonal Communications and BMIT 212 Excel Spreadsheets for Windows is encouraged.

  11. polly April 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM #

    Funniest post evah. Up there with Sparklematrix’s disembodied roaming penises. I have nothing more intelligent to add.

  12. sneeky bunny April 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM #

    This post is why I love this blog. You nailed it.

  13. Bob Doublin April 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM #

    You are SO lucky if you haven’t heard of Lionel Tiger.He’s sort of a god-father of evo-psych.Way back in the ’60’s and ’70’s he published some books with Konrad Lorenz claiming that humanity (read MEN) are naturally aggressive,territorial ,rapers and conquerors who evolved this way and that is so hunky-dorey with them.No wonder he’s so with it with MRA’s.Whenever a man claims they can’t help it because that’s the way they are,they probably got that idea from a book written by Lionel Tiger.

  14. concetta Falcone-Codding April 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM #

    N/T

  15. Ire Maiden April 26, 2010 at 8:07 PM #

    I actually had the misfortune of listening to a radio interview with Mr. Tiger. Apparently men’s studies already exist, but Mr. Tiger is interested in creating a male studies program. He thinks men should study the biological natures of primates in order to understand themselves better and not have to feel so guilty about natural male behavior (i.e rape).

    He goes on to say that men in academia are punished with what he calls “male original sin” and that they are constantly made to feel guilty about their ‘natural maleness’. Apparently making men and women attend rape seminars are detrimental to the poor men and makes them believe that some of them might even be predators.

    He’s an MRA supreme on the war against boys train.

  16. wiggles April 27, 2010 at 9:21 AM #

    Is this Tiger guy being taken seriously? I’ve been hearing a lot about this male studies business lately and it’s concerning me.

  17. joy April 27, 2010 at 11:29 AM #

    A queer male friend of mine pointed out the other day that there is such a thing as “masculinity studies” that is an entirely different ballgame than “male studies” or “men’s studies” espoused by M. Tiger.

    Masculinity Studies is apparently a lot like Feminism 101, but about guys (of course). So … a small step forward … kind of …

    except wound up in all the shit 9/2 pointed out about college and “_ Studies” of any kind.

    So … also a step back? I’m unsure.

  18. polly April 27, 2010 at 12:44 PM #

    It would appear so wiggles, sorry:

    Lionel Tiger (born 1937) is a Canadian-born, American-based anthropologist. He is the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University and co-Research Director of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation. He is a graduate of McGill University, and the London School of Economics at the University of London, England. He is also a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense on the future of biotechnology.

    Some of Tiger’s works have included controversial concepts, including the biological origins of social interactions. Tiger published a work, The Imperial Animal, with Robin Fox in 1972, that advocated a ‘social carnivore theory’ of human evolution.[1]

    Tiger has predicted the higher status of women within society, in books such as The Decline of Males and Men in Groups. He has also written books such as The Pursuit of Pleasure, which discussed the concept that evolution has established the biological mechanisms of pleasure and that they have survival origins.

    Lionel Tiger lives in New York City, and regularly contributes to mainstream media such as Psychology Today and The New York Times

    But since the popular meeja would be full of this shit anyway with or without him, I don’t think if he falls under a bus or suffers a more appropriate alpha male fate (gored to death by a bull, perhaps) he will make that much difference.

    I think these evo-psychs who are so keen to live as their caveman ancestors did should be stranded on an island with no power, no running water and a lot of natural predators and left to get on with personally. Let’s see who survives eh? Isn’t that what they want?

  19. polly April 27, 2010 at 1:46 PM #

    I also think *MRA Island* would be a great reality TV series, thereby killing two birds with one stone. They could even study it in men’s studies…..

  20. wiggles April 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM #

    I agree. The MRAs and the Evo-Psychs need to duke it out for Alpha status. Whoever survives can go live in the Alpha Jungle with the Alpha Predatory Carnivores.

  21. Miss Andrist April 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM #

    LOL. That is brilliant. I’d stock the Alpha Jungle entirely with velociraptors.

  22. wiggles April 28, 2010 at 11:23 AM #

    Alpha-velociraptors!

  23. Komal April 28, 2010 at 1:00 PM #

    Utterly brilliant.

  24. polly April 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM #

    PS (in response to your twitter ND). I know nothing of John Mayer but James Blunt is a very very bad man indeed who had a massive hit with a dreadful dirge about stalking someone. He’s first on MRA island I’m afraid. Throw him to the sabre toothed tigers. (it’s kind of like jurassic MRA island).

  25. Nine Deuce April 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM #

    Mayer recently told Playboy that he’d like to fuck black women, but that his “dick is a white supremacist.” And he’s responsible for the worst song ever made, “Your Body Is a Wonderland.” But James Blunt is so goddamned creepy. I can’t decide.

  26. aquarianrabbit April 28, 2010 at 4:10 PM #

    Just stopped by to say that this blog and comment thread are filled with so much ‘win.’

    I can’t listen to Mayer. Blech.

  27. joy April 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM #

    Kill all male musicians, and all music fans.

    Says a music fan who likes a few male musicians, but, you know.

    I have insider knowledge that even on the indie level, perhaps especially on the indie level, they are all a bunch of wannabe Mick Jaggers with gigantic fucking issues and a shit-tonne of entitlement/sexist baggage.

    Also, my queer male friend who told me of Masculinity Studies got really angry when I showed him this blog entry. Cue repeated whinging of “Your anger isn’t helping,” “it’s hurtful to stereotype,” “women do it too,” and a slew of other basic male wankery.

    I thought, ironically, “Gee, did they teach you how to do this is Queer Studies?”

    And that is not meant to be a slur against queer people. I also identify as a queer person. I’m just also female, and while not “proud” of it per se (I had nothing to do with it; I’d rather be proud of my actual accomplishments) … I’m not willing to throw my female…ness and feminism under the bus in order to huddle under the “maybe they’ll accept us if we diss on women, claim we don’t see gender because it’s a moot point, and don’t talk about feminism” blanket I see a lot of my nonfeminist queer peers throwing over our collective heads.

    Feel free to yell at me. I’m having a shitty day (two male roommates think I should pay THEIR rent because their needs are more important than mine , er, I mean “they’re starving artists too, so [I] should have thought of that”) and didn’t censor my rage.

    • Nine Deuce April 28, 2010 at 4:36 PM #

      Your friend is missing the point. This post is a response to people like Tiger who actually believe in a biology-based gender binary and want to reinforce it by creating university departments in its service. It’s their stupid idea of manhood that I’m lampooning.

  28. joy April 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM #

    As I told him. And then he commenced to sulking.

    They’re all the same, aren’t they? No matter what they dress themselves up as.

  29. sneeky bunny April 29, 2010 at 12:30 AM #

    Oh, the sulking! As if he deserved a cookie or something.

  30. wiggles April 29, 2010 at 10:12 AM #

    92, you’re totally costing us allies with reading comprehension issues.

  31. Owl Eyes April 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM #

    This was fantastic. I heard about this and I nearly peed myself laughing. As if history isn’t just “men’s studies”, ridiculous.

    More ridiculous stuff, My city has an event apparently, called “Bicycle Porn”, anyway I will leave a link if you want to check it out.

    http://bonerkilling.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-you-wild-kinky-or-sexually.html

  32. polly April 29, 2010 at 4:29 PM #

    Just his dick? How peculiar. I never knew you could have racist body parts without racist owners.

    Quick somebody tell the BNP.

  33. polly April 29, 2010 at 4:34 PM #

    Is somebody going to accuse me of fantasy wishing death by extinct predator on James Blunt and therefore being a heartless bad singer with bad hair slaughtering b*tch now then as well? I plead guilty, but there are a million others just like me.

  34. polly April 29, 2010 at 4:36 PM #

    I hope the bicycle porn lot don’t make it over here Owl Eyes. Though we did have a man who got done for having sex with a bike once.

  35. polly April 29, 2010 at 5:07 PM #

    On a serious note, yes “masculinity” IS a problem (a big problem). But to not recognise that it’s a problem for women rather than just hurting the poor ickle menz, is about as logical as John Mayer claiming he’s being oppressed by his racist penis.

  36. Miss Andrist April 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM #

    Joy –

    Yes, they are. Fun privilege experiment you can try on your own: identify yourself as bullshit-intolerant to members of your own privileged class and you will hear the exact same argument for why it’s okay for US +/- not wrong against THEM, the exact same excuses for why we can’t help it +/- they do it to themselves. Your gay friend is a member of Oppressed Class (not heterosexist), but being a member of an oppressed class does not make you incapable of oppressing. He could be a gay black Jewish Wiccan, he’s still a man and he is very, very fond of his male privilege.

    The first symptom of being privileged is believing that your privileges are RIGHTS to which you are entitled. When a d00d objects to challenge of his male privilege, it’s because at some basic level, his sense of entitlement defines his idea of what is / should be rightfully his. Sense of entitlement is so limited in perspective that yes, all the arguments every single person has ever made in defense / support of privilege are identical: “Because I’m special (and you’re not.)” I mean, the argument invariable boils down to why Person A just arbitrarily gets what Person B does not. And people who argue in defense of privilege are convinced that their arguments are unique and spring from / lead to an a-ha moment. Derailing for Dummies does an entertaining job of compacting all possible variations of all possible arguments. ~_^ Maybe your friend would enjoy it. http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/derailing-for-dummies-google-cache-reconstruction/

    -Miss Andrist

  37. Miss Andrist April 29, 2010 at 7:25 PM #

    @Polly:

    “Just his dick? How peculiar. I never knew you could have racist body parts without racist owners.”

    Silly you! Of COURSE body parts carry their own independent bigotry. Take me, for example. My right elbow is a Jew-hating Klansman and one of my kidneys is a Communist community organizer. It’s a good thing I’m not double-jointed or I’d be dead by now. I once knew a guy whose extremities announced their allegiance to Peru, now all of his toes need a visa. *lol*

    When men call a vagina beautiful, and the woman attached to it a filthy slut – same logic.

    “Masculinity” is the most basic incarnation of zero sum: one side invariably gains what the other loses. Masculinity is diametrically opposed to femininity because the terms describe mutual contrast. They’re inversely proportionate ideas and their only meaning is the distinction they imply. They are composed entirely of impossibly sweeping stereotypes that are never realistic. For example, (masculine) men are big || (feminine) women are small – relative (perception of size happening through comparison) and how many of us know men who are smaller than ourselves? Obviously, it’s not nearly as “in general” or “overall” as masculinity needs for it to be, any more than whites are more enterprising than blacks. Masculinity defines the state of manhood as inherently, perpetually heroic and womanhood as clinically codependent. Masculinity means saving damels in distress; femininity means being in distress and needing to be saved. For non-males, the concept of masculinity is a giant booby prize (ha ha! see what I did there?) where we get the short shrift of second-hand traits like “compassion,” “cooperation,” and “understanding,” that cast us in supporting roles in every situation. (Oops, my bad. MRA’s call it “facilitating.” As in, “facilities,” right? See — there’s the connection between “feminine” compassion and toilets that aren’t gonna clean themselves.)

    Individual internalization of a masculine self-image means distorted perception of strengths, weaknesses – one’s own are diminished and those of others magnified. Hence individual internalization of themselves as superior because male -> masculine ->superior leads to the subconscious definition of non-males, the non-masculine as inferior. Boys hate pink because pink is girls and girls are bad.

    Masculinity is the psychological construct that defines men as superior and women as, uhm, not as superior. It is the paradigm of misogyny: one half is better because the other is is worse. Masculinity makes femininity separate-but-equal like racial segregation, complete with an ever-growing list of what women don’t get to do (aka, what “only men” get to do.)

    Yeah, I’ll protect men’s rights when men need me to.

  38. sneeky bunny April 29, 2010 at 9:20 PM #

    Miss A your definition of privilege was a privilege to read and, with your permission, I’m sure I’ll be quoting it.

  39. Miss Andrist April 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM #

    Sneaky bunny:

    Go for it. I’m flattered. ^_^

  40. joy April 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM #

    This fellow claims that because he’s “researched gender” (he’s ‘queer’ as in ‘non-gender-identified’, not ‘queer’ as in ‘gay'; he is currently partnered with a similarly-queer woman), that he is exempt from sexism.

    Of course, his response to picking on the male gender shows that he’s not.

    Don’t cha love it?

    Also, your disembodied body parts are hee-larious. My right hand is a man-murdering helldyke. Actually … wait. That’s basically all of me. The right hand just has less self-control.

  41. Grace April 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM #

    Lionel Tiger hasn’t done his research. Our closest ape relatives, the bonobos, are a female- dominated, not rapists, altruistic bunch.
    Actually most people don’t know much about the bonobos, which is not surprising because their behavior debunks the rapist fantasies of Lionel Tiger and his ilk.
    (I am not sure how one can tell what rape is in the animal kingdom anyway, does Lionel speak monkey and know when no or yes is being said, or is it *possibly* his own projection/wishful thinking? I think I read once that he said the female lion leads the pride because the male ‘lets her’.)
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/41856

  42. sam April 30, 2010 at 1:48 PM #

    Almost exactly one year ago, Lionel Tiger made a fool of himself on NPR over a debate questioning, “It’s wrong to pay for sex” where he offered:

    “If you want to see people paying for sex, I suggest you go to the ground floor of Bloomingdale’s. The place is full of women paying for garments, colors, clasps, various instruments of torture, lust, you name it, but they’re paying for their own sense of themselves as sexual creatures, and they’re not on that floor because they don’t like sex and they don’t like what it means.”

    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/its-wrong-to-pay-for-sex/

  43. wiggles April 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM #

    Since chimpanzees are humans closest evolutionary relative, wouldn’t it make sense that our natural social structure would look something like theirs? That’s what I tend to figure.
    I think how the chimps do it is the females band together and share food, resources, protection, and child-care and the males roam around and fend for themselves, occasionally dropping in on the females when the females allow. Sounds about right to me. But then at some point with humans the males convinced the females that they couldn’t trust other females and needed males for protection.

  44. Hoyahead April 30, 2010 at 3:12 PM #

    Nine Deuce & Co.,

    I can always count on you to cheer me up. I’ve been feeling foolishly bummed out because I got yelled at, called an “intellectual” (I guess that was supposed to be an insult?), told that I need to “get over” myself, and instructed that my priorities are dangerously out of whack by a bunch of women on a message board.

    Our disagreement? Whether or not “pregnancy brain” and “mommy brain” are real, verifiable, biological conditions.

    My position: what generally gets referred to as “pregnancy/mommy brain” is actually sleep deprivation and stress, which would affect men and women equally if men would ever do their fair share of housekeeping and child rearing.

    Their position: pregnancy and motherhood makes you a moron. LOL.

    But, whenever I get sad about the fact that many? most? nearly all? women have so completely internalized patriarchal values and expectations that they personally attack anyone who points out misogynistic bullshit, I come here, get happy that I’m not the only one who feels angry, and recharge my feminist batteries.

    Thanks to you all!!

  45. polly April 30, 2010 at 3:43 PM #

    Yeah bonobos are hippies. Sadly for reasons of being quite old and only having so much life left to stare into space, or piss about on t’net, I find myself unable to listen to Lionel’s podcast, but the idea that men are ‘essentially’ anything is nonsense. These evo psychs never suggest we should make tools out of flint, as opposed to going to our nearest shop, but strangely enough we’re still meant to have retained behavioural patterns from pre history. Or whenever they made tools out of flint she said with her intensive knowledge of history.

  46. polly May 1, 2010 at 1:58 AM #

    Gosh, Lionel Tiger is lucky Bloomingdales didn’t sue. However it’s true Lionel, the baggy hoody, tracky bottoms, socks and sexy specs I am currently wearing are all totally to do with wanting to pull. And nothing to do with warmth or wanting to see.

  47. polly May 1, 2010 at 2:04 AM #

    It’s a complicated argument but it’s a long story, I’m an
    anthropologist, we’re interested in what people around the world
    do, 90—over 90 percent of human marriages are arranged.
    They’re determined by families in terms of the larger interests of
    the two clans, they usually involve a bride price or a dowry, or
    something like that in which the male usually commits himself to
    sustaining the female, we don’t do it with cattle, we do it with
    some exotic unit called the diamond ring.

    Ok, Tiger is clearly an idiot. He is an anthropologist, but doesn’t understand that a ‘dowry’ is something the female partner brings to a marriage? The male doesn’t provide it, the female does you ninny.

    • Nine Deuce May 1, 2010 at 11:02 AM #

      Yeah, he’s not displaying a very thorough understanding of how dowry and bride price work. I suppose that in modern western society the ring could be seen as the bride price, as could the guarantee to support the wife could (though not really, since the ring and support go to her rather than her family), and the wedding party itself could be considered a dowry since the woman’s family is expected to pay. But seriously? How much relevance do conclusions drawn from pre-modern societies or cultures fairly removed from our own have to our current practices beyond maybe showing us the archaic origins of some of the dumb rituals we partake in for no reason other than we hear we’re supposed to? It might make sense if he wants to relate India, pre-1911 China, and the modern West on the grounds that all are/were engaged in the exchange of women for goods, but I somehow doubt that. I cannot believe this guy gets away with this shit. It’s seriously making me reconsider academia.

  48. Grace May 1, 2010 at 2:58 AM #

    I was brought up in a very religious household and was told that animals don’t possess souls. Is the soulless, unethical behavior we project on to the animal kingdom the result of this type of belief?
    When we see animals behaving in ethical, altruistic ways, everyone seems so damned suprised. After doing extensive research, scientists are finally discovering chimps are actually prefer fair play over unjust rewards!
    http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/04/chimpanzees_prefer_fair_play_o.php

    Do we have to wait for this data to come in before deciding to be decent to each other?

  49. isme May 1, 2010 at 6:43 AM #

    “These evo psychs never suggest we should make tools out of flint, as opposed to going to our nearest shop, but strangely enough we’re still meant to have retained behavioural patterns from pre history. ”

    I know…I’m so fed up with people using the word “natural” as a defense on the effing INTERNET.

    Ok, writing it down with ink on paper isn’t much more natural, nor speaking it aloud in any form of real language, but FFS…

  50. Miss Andrist May 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM #

    Joy:

    Your friend has NOT studied “gender” if he still equates the concept of gender to the concept of sex. Sex is biology. Gender is society. Sexual preference for MALES -> biology. Sexual preference for MEN -> society. Obviously, he’s full of shit and I’d LOVE to tell that to his face.

    @Hoyahead:

    Weird, I never heard of mommy-anything. I have a daughter. And I learned to program in seven languages AFTER she was born. And I’m hardly exceptional, but coding doesn’t have anything to do with how I go pee.

    Sounds like another nickname for men’s hatred of women. Call them puling cowards in your nicest possible voice and make sure they know they can tell the truth about their hatred of females, you already know what they mean.

    Where is my shotgun.

    -Miss Andrist

  51. joy May 1, 2010 at 7:45 PM #

    “Your friend has NOT studied “gender” if he still equates the concept of gender to the concept of sex. Sex is biology. Gender is society. Sexual preference for MALES -> biology. Sexual preference for MEN -> society.”

    Ironically, he lectured — or is it mansplained? — me about this very thing.

    Apparently “feminism” is a loaded word. Oh my god … you guys! It turns out “feminism” is about WOMEN! Holy shit! We can’t have anything about THEM! That’s like APARTHEID.

    I’m so confused at his logic. It makes my head hurt.

    • Nine Deuce May 1, 2010 at 7:48 PM #

      Huffing dong qualifies as research on gender. Everyone says so. I mean, just ask the people who commented on my porn and BDSM posts.

  52. Hoyahead May 1, 2010 at 8:55 PM #

    “Call them puling cowards in your nicest possible voice and make sure they know they can tell the truth about their hatred of females, you already know what they mean.”

    The skin-crawling part of the whole experience is that the people with whom I was fighting WERE WOMEN. I felt like I had fallen down the rabbit hole…

    Me: Even though you’re women and mothers, you’re not drooling imbeciles!

    Them: Yes we are, you uppity bitch! We run our cars into shopping carts and leave our car keys in the freezer because our ladyparts have addled our brains!

    Sigh.

  53. joy May 1, 2010 at 9:54 PM #

    “Huffing dong qualifies as research on gender. Everyone says so. I mean, just ask the people who commented on my porn and BDSM posts.”

    You never fail to crack me up with “huffing dong.” Seriously, it’s amazing.

    “We run our cars into shopping carts and leave our car keys in the freezer because our ladyparts have addled our brains!”

    I do these things even while not pregnant. It is because I am running on near-constant adrenaline from the PTSD, or because I am stoned. Sometimes both. In other words, it has less to do with “hormones” than with impaired brain function due to either fear or (cannabin-induced) depression.

    Your theory that, for these women, the symptoms stem from exhaustion, is very sound. But don’t tell the P so. They’ll tell us it’s ’cause we’re women!

    Also, apparently, I am not gender-liberated because I am a feminist. And feminism is about one gender! Ha! Aren’t I backed right into a logical corner!

    Other than the fact that, obviously, I’m not. Anyone who can read and think can see the flaws in that argument.

  54. polly May 2, 2010 at 1:49 AM #

    Interesting idea Grace – I think there’s certainly an idea that (non human) animals are in a state of ‘raw nature’ and human beings are civilised. (Because of all those spiritual beliefs, I mean nobody ever started a war over religion, right). And MOST western thought (or what passes for it) is influenced by Judaeo-Christianity. But I’d say it’s more that eejits will grasp at any straw to prove their theories and/or that animal behaviour is observed with a biased lens. There are simply loads of gay animals about for instance, but you will always get bigots saying ‘it’s not natural, animals don’t do it’.

  55. polly May 2, 2010 at 1:56 AM #

    Tiger (or whatever his real name is) also shows a bias only towards the affluent ND. The simple fact is that for most of human history, most human beings haven’t got married at all. It’s certainly becoming steadily less popular in the UK, despite numerous attempts by conservative politicians/media to push it as the norm.

    It really amazes me that these dudes get academic posts when their approach is so often the opposite of rigorous. I suppose they’re saying what certain vested interests want to hear, that’s why.

  56. polly May 2, 2010 at 1:58 AM #

    ‘feminism’ is about women- what kind of crazy talk is that?

    It turns out it’s not actually. I read it on the internetz.

  57. wiggles May 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM #

    Hoyahead
    April 30, 2010 at 3:12 PM

    Our disagreement? Whether or not “pregnancy brain” and “mommy brain” are real, verifiable, biological conditions.

    My position: what generally gets referred to as “pregnancy/mommy brain” is actually sleep deprivation and stress, which would affect men and women equally if men would ever do their fair share of housekeeping and child rearing.

    Their position: pregnancy and motherhood makes you a moron. LOL.

    I was accused of being an essentialist out of the 1950s for stating that men generally don’t do their fair share of housework and childcare and that marriage benefits men over women.
    The studies I cited were trumped by Nigel’s ability to make dinner and do laundry.

  58. wiggles May 2, 2010 at 1:09 PM #

    The simple fact is that for most of human history, most human beings haven’t got married at all. It’s certainly becoming steadily less popular in the UK, despite numerous attempts by conservative politicians/media to push it as the norm.

    There’s a study or survey going back to the 1950s that shows that women have been heads of households more often than not the whole time. I have to admit I was even a bit surprised by it, considering how often the 2-parent, male-lead household is framed as the norm and the ideal, especially in the 1950s. But what was presented as the norm and the ideal in the 1950s was probably a backlash against the independence women found and had thrust upon them as a result of WWII.

  59. polly May 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM #

    The situation in the 50’s is also probably though to do with the fact that women weren’t required in significant numbers in the labour force. If they had been, their presence would have been encouraged.

  60. Miss Andrist May 3, 2010 at 12:59 AM #

    Women have been “required” in the workforce in the United States since the American Civil War. Women WERE the workforce during the American Civil War, and never left. Our presence has simply suffered the same selective historical blindness inflicted by males. We should be used to this. I love the way history teaches that “blacks” won the vote as if that is supposed to mean ALL blacks. Women were denied the vote until our great-grandmothers won it what, ninety years ago? I love how history refuses to acknowledge that Vagina-Americans were deliberately, willfully, predeterminately excluded from everything at every point by men – see, MLK mocking black women at rallies and John Adams ridiculing Abigail Adams when she plead, “Remember the ladies.”

    I would strangle them with their own intestines. Dworkin might have been wrong about men’s humanity…

  61. polly May 4, 2010 at 12:03 AM #

    That’s true Miss Andrist, but because a reserve army of labour is required in a capitalist economy – ie one which can be called up in times of economic boom and got rid of when demand slackens – women have been told their ‘natural’ place is in the home and they only work for fun.

    So postwar – in the 50’s women were encouraged to be ‘housewives’ so that the MEN could have the jobs. Obviously there was still some low paid ‘women’s work’ about, but there were sufficient unmarried females to do that. These women, if they wanted to leave the parental home, were expected to look around for a suitable male to actually mean they had sufficient money to live on. When my sister got married (in the 1960’s FFS) she was EXPECTED to leave her job. And duly did.

    Obviously there have always been women who have bucked these trends (my father was brought up by a single parent in the 20’s, and most working class women have had to do some paid work to make ends meet), but unless they were some of the very few who made their way into traditionally male jobs, they were usually poor because the work they had was low paid.

  62. lizor May 4, 2010 at 7:54 AM #

    Miss A – Thank you for posting a new link to the Derailing page, I was frustrated when I saw that the previous one had been removed. And thank you for your highly quotable remarks regarding masculinity.

    Finally thanks to Sam for the link to the debate. So it seems that the “Tiger” did name himself and I will forever more picture the tiger on the cheezies package when I hear his name.

    He surely proved one thing in this debate: an advanced degree from an august institution in no ways guarantees that you will be articulate or even able to stay on topic.

  63. wiggles May 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM #

    I love the way history teaches that “blacks” won the vote as if that is supposed to mean ALL blacks.

    And truth be told if I hear one more word about how the suffragists threw black women under the bus and not a word about Frederick Douglass’ maneuvers with the AERA? I don’t know what.

  64. wiggles May 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM #

    Anyway, I’d have thought the demand for women’s labor in the 50s would have been higher than we’re lead to believe it was, since a lot of men had been killed or injured or mentally traumatized in the war. But yeah, they wouldn’t have been in upper management.

  65. ChaosRocket May 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM #

    Well, yeah, upper class women didn’t usually work outside the home in the 50s. But poor women have pretty much ALWAYS had to work outside the home. But poor people are another group that history likes to ignore.

  66. fannie May 5, 2010 at 12:26 PM #

    You can’t have a “Male Studies” department without offering a:

    Certificate in Mansplanation- Students will learn the fundamentals of learning how to speak authoritatively, especially in the presence of women, and will master the art of convincing oneself and others that one Knows Things that one does not, in fact, know.

    Required courses:

    MNST 101 Internalized Male Superiority

    MNST 620 An Examination of Male Mental Prowess

    MNST 200 The Necessity of Playing “Devil’s Advocate” In Internet Communities Dominated By Women

    MNST 301 The Natural Objectivity of the Human Male

  67. Scott DaHarb May 5, 2010 at 6:09 PM #

    Came across your site, I believe you referenced some guy as a “DaHarb” which happens to be my last name. I’ve never heard it used in that context before, could you provide some other adjectives, we don’t know much about our family history. This may lead to some new insight.
    Thanks,
    Scott DaHarb

  68. bluecat May 5, 2010 at 8:49 PM #

    Absolutely brilliant! Thanks to 92 and contributors for the many lolz.

    I’ll add MNST 500 Advanced Compartmentalization Skills: How to utilize patriarchal sexual mores to categorize women as Dirty Worthless Sluts or Women You Must Accord a Modicum of Respect To.

  69. Miss Andrist May 6, 2010 at 3:17 PM #

    Scott:

    Wow. Best shameless display of male entitlement – and you managed to combine it with an attempted derail! And best of all, I’m SURE you didn’t MEAN to do EITHER, and I’m also willing to bet you think that should get you off the hook. Just, WOW!

    -Miss Andrist
    Lover of Men

  70. GXB May 7, 2010 at 11:47 AM #

    Pretty much all my body parts, in fact all my cells, are something like socialist community organizers. There’s an obvious word for non-cooperative cells: cancer, which I believe I don’t have.

    Question: if there is a Men’s Studies department, why don’t they put current Literature, History, Art History, Political Science, Economics, and Area Studies into that department, and start developing some better versions for everyone who doesn’t want to study men? With appropriately diverted funding of course.

  71. melanie May 13, 2010 at 1:44 AM #

    Too bad Lionel Tiger isn’t anything like Daniel Tiger, ’cause Daniel Tiger is awesome.

    At my university, the Gender Studies classes (gender=female, by the way) are only offered at 7 pm and off campus, and my macro econ book quotes only one woman.

  72. Miss Andrist May 13, 2010 at 7:17 AM #

    @Wiggles, who posited this waaay back like 2 weeks ago almost:

    “Since chimpanzees are humans closest evolutionary relative, wouldn’t it make sense that our natural social structure would look something like theirs? That’s what I tend to figure.
    I think how the chimps do it is the females band together and share food, resources, protection, and child-care and the males roam around and fend for themselves, occasionally dropping in on the females when the females allow. Sounds about right to me. But then at some point with humans the males convinced the females that they couldn’t trust other females and needed males for protection.”

    I have some interesting ideas about social structure of humans from middle paleolithic to the end of the upper paleolithic – so from ~Cro Magnons, through the ice ages, to the advent of agriculture. I’m going to share them because I tend to think my ideas are pretty goddamn cool, so here goes.

    Ask any vegetarian if it’s okay for lions, or any monotheistic moralist why it matters what animals do when it’s gayness, but not heterosexual promiscuity. Answer: it’s absolutely ridiculous to attempt to cast the behavior of any other species as a model for human ethics / morals, or hold the behavior of any other species to a human ethical / moral standard.

    Moving on.

    We all know the patriarchy’s peenie-tale about prehistoric “cavemen” – men hunt, women gather. Females fill docile, passive domestic roles at all times and exist in a baby-factory harem overseen by Alpha Males Who Run Everything. The Alpha Male/s fight off competitors, defend the helpless women / young from predators and hunt, which earns them the right to beat and rape the females at will. The females just sort of tolerate this. If anybody wonders why, it’s probably because these males have established themselves as The Best (I guess by eliminating the competition) and the females want The Best for offspring-production purposes which, as we know, is the primary objective of all creatures with a uterus – implementing that uterus supersedes our own well-being as motivation. Or maybe the patriarchal model permits we even try to get away, for whatever it doesn’t matter – The Best Males will just drag us back for more rapings by our hair.

    Well. I posit this is a big fat wad of abject failure with glaring evolutionary and physiological inconsistencies piled on top of delusional notions of what wilderness survival in a subarctic climate requires.

    For one thing, when simians evolve beyond males violently competing for females, the species loses pronounced canine teeth. Considering our chimp origins as bonobos, who also lack pronounced canines, humans as a species never actually had them – so male-on-male violent competition for mates ended for our species over 4 million years ago. Furthermore, SOMEWHERE in our DNA lies a history of big canines: if violent competition between males had RETURNED to our species at any point in this four million year span, it would only take about fifteen to thirty thousand years for us to retroactively evolve those big canines to go with. (See: lactose tolerance, an example of our species evolving a retroactive genetic adaptation for milk digestion. Right time frame for about half the population to have inherited a retroactive adaptation to a gene all humans are born with, in that all baby mammals drink milk, but since domestication about 14K years ago, humans never quit. I digress.) Point is, the fossil record does not support male-on-male violent competition over females in our species prior to written history.

    Okay, cool. Let’s skip ahead straight to the Middle / Upper Paleolithic. -400,000 years to -10,000 years. That’s one big goddamn chunk of time. It’s also when the vast majority of our favorable evolutionary adaptations happened – from Neanderthal to Cro Magnon and depending on how you measure this sort of thing, we’ve been backsliding ever since. Average height of males seems to have been ~6’3″, females ~6’0. Granted there’s still a size discrepancy, but not the 9 inch gap between average modern males and modern females. Also, reminder that this period is the Ice Ages – most of the fossil record is subarctic and we pretty much lived at the foot of glaciers. Big brains are a signature of all great carnivores; that said, we evolved our forebrain, our evolutionary trump card, during this time. Course, we were the only natural predators of mammoth. (We ate other megafauna of those era, whatever – you get the point.) Summers were short; winter was such a fundamental survival objective that it might still haunt our genes: seasonal affective disorder.

    All that spells out a pretty harsh environment to be enforcing such survival-costly social taboos as excluding able-bodied adults from food acquisition endeavors. Question for MRAs: horseback riding didn’t happen until the tail end of the Upper Paleolithic, so how many males all on foot does it take to hunt a 14-foot tall, 12-ton very aggressive wild animal with a foot of subcutaneous fat, an inch-thick hide and a skull big enough to stand up in? How many to carry it back? Let’s pretend they’re all Olympic-quality weightlifters as befits Alpha Males (deadlift ~500 lbs) and it’s a very puny sickly mammoth (6 tons). You’re talking some 24 d00ds killing themselves just to pick it up off the ground, let alone drag it back. Considering the anti-cooperative, anti-social, anti-share MRA Alpha Male basis, that’s a lot of cavemen all cooperating peaceably together over a single kill that they presumably expect to share (to speak nothing of the exceeded maximum size of a sustainable community.) A laughably cursory test of logic, the entire MRA model falls totally apart.

    Comparative physiology of the sexes. Males are marginally bigger and heavier than females. When women’s hormones are not altered artificially, when women’s diets do not include processed carbohydrates (that allow acquisition and maintenance of higher body fat ratios and didn’t exist prior to agriculture), and when women live with daily intense physical exertion, women have no difficulty whatsoever “bulking up” and amassing fearsome physical prowess. Equal / superior to male, you ask? Doesn’t have to be. I mean are we hunting males or mammoths here? (LOL!) “Superior upper body strength” – for one thing, I doubt that’s necessarily exhaustively true, and for another thing, unless you expect to arm-wrestle the mammoth to death, irrelevant provided you can throw a spear hard enough to make with the stabbity, right? I believe studies indicate accuracy lists among female physical advantages (and flexibility, and agility, and endurance, particularly for distance-running.) …It’s almost as if females are built to be huntresses? But that’s just ridiculous!

    So IF IF IF there existed sex-based division of labor at all – females appear better suited to hunting in every social, sharing, cooperative way. Males – with their uncooperative, non-social mannerisms, right? – ala lions, probably remained behind defending young against predators and gathering whatever was nearby with that upper-body strength. Females, ala lionesses, worked together to kill, then transport butchered meat back to the tribe.

    All this is assuming females tolerated males in the tribe at all. Female social units, given female propensity instinctively seek the company of people who smell different when fertile, then reject the company of people who smell different when pregnant – were probably familial. A mother and daughters, a bigger group might mean mother’s sister and sister’s daughters, perhaps their mother (lifespans were pretty short.) Males were probably pushed out after adolescence, and for their own good (these females won’t mate with him anyway.) Birth control happened in the form of body fat: without carbohydrates, it would take a couple of bumper years of plentiful food to allow women to acquire enough body fat that menses and ovulation returned. Outside of said excellent conditions, I tend to bet women were too lean to be fertile – let alone the ovulation-mobiles like we are in modern times. Women would not have been sexually appealing to men outside of those fertile times anyway – reproduction ceases to be a reason for sexual contact when a woman is amenorrhic from athleticism. Voila, the rape-because-he-can’t-help-it argument falls apart, let alone to the point of risking physical aggression with a clique of huntresses who cooperate well enough to take down a ten-ton mammoth.

    Keeping women physically docile and passive is a key part of keeping women fertile and thus sexually appealing all the time. Keeping women isolated from other women – our sister huntresses – is the other key to keeping women at a disadvantage. As we all know, perpetual fertility is our fucking bane, that we can be made hostages of our own biology through unwanted pregnancy. Threat of pregnancy makes rape an even more formidable weapon against us. Men have for ten thousand years used two tools to make us and keep us literally rapeable – agriculture, the yield of grains (processed carbs much??) long known to raise fertility – making us “soft” enough to be appealing sexually, equal to rendering us perpetually fertile. And then, marriage: that ubiquitous social contract that exists between men regulating how to fairly divide up the females so as to eliminate competition over women and reasons for aggression between men. The key is to keep the women divided, to always separate the lionesses from their prides so the males actually have an advantage over said females.

    This is, at least to my mind, the only remotely plausible “evo-psych” basis of why abusers are overwhelmingly male and why abusive techniques are so incredibly similar; females stand to gain very little from digressing from sisterhoods and/or attempting to dominate a male. This would also provide an explanation for the seeming compulsion of male cooperation against females, bonding through violence against females, and tolerance of male aggression and violence against females: we all know it only works if and when the males cooperate and fall into lockstep against us. That said? Evo-psych is still not possible. A fast-track new genetic adaptation, strictly sex-selective to males, would have to occur between fifty and three hundred times faster than our species is capable of. So no.

    Patriarchal sex-based division of labor that casts men as assertive and women as passive only serves the patriarchy’s need to validate modern limitations imposed on females. In reality, socially imposed taboos only survive as long as their Darwin value in the face of survival situations. If this were an evolutionary truth, modern females would not object to limitation. In fact, with actual evolutionary adaptation (such as the MRAs claim) – it’s doubtful anybody would even notice. Like the study that showed women can smell when men are sexually aroused, or the one that showed men can smell when women’s estradiol rises. Nobody notices or cares about that shit; nobody condemns smell-based oppression.

    I just had to throw this Caveman Manifesto out there, since it’s a patriarchy pet peeve of mine on so, so many different levels.

    -Miss Andrist

  73. isme May 13, 2010 at 7:40 PM #

    @Miss Andrist

    That certainly seems reasonable to me (though it’s not something I really know anything about). However, how does that compare with societies of hunter-gatherers that have survived to the present day (or thereabouts), enough to be studied and recorded?

    Again, not my field, but it seems to me that lots of gender divisions do tend to crop up for some reason.

    Though, of course, even should it be proved conclusively that men are vastly superior in such a situation, anyone able to download and read the proof, by definition, hasn’t got any real reason to care.

  74. Nokidding May 14, 2010 at 7:46 AM #

    Hehe. Good post indeed.

    Miss Andrist – Those are interesting theories. But it’s very difficult to get any objective data when it comes to stuff like this. It’s all been filtered to fit the believes of the Church of Superior Sex (=science communities everywhere).

    However, I seriously encourage all of you to, ahem, try and see all these MRA theories from another point of view.

    Because I seriously believe a lot of it is true. What evidence is there that men AREN’T raping, killing, destroying scumbags? Crimes, wars, any kind of injustices, men do most of it. Have always, always will.

    I think it’s very dangerous for us women to refuse to see the truth. It leads to us becoming victims. Us taking the blame. Like how mainstream feminists will never stop “educating” men who already know it all and _just_don’t_give_a_shit_.

    Admitting that destroying women is something men are born to do doesn’t take away their responsibility. It makes you see them for what they are: scum. Something we should get rid of, or if not possible, at least try our best to avoid and tread as miserably as they treat us.

  75. wiggles May 14, 2010 at 1:12 PM #

    I was thinking males and females both/all hunted and gathered cooperatively and/or individually, depending on the day’s circumstances. But I don’t know how a nomadic loner would round up her/his fellow cave-peeps to take down a mammoth and prepare it for bbq. Figured they just ate more manageable-sized bunnies and grub shrews.

  76. Alina May 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM #

    quote ND:basic alibi formation.

    Alibi for what exactly?for their partners?

    What I think would be a good way to stop shit like that if women where more encouraged to be feminist to respect themselfs more and for men to respect women more,is if feminism would be mainstreamed.

    Adverts,movies,videos,songs.There are many girls and women outthere who think itsperfectly normal to be threated like a sextoy……

    @ND are there any succeses for feminism that you might now about that accured recently?I want and need a lil hope.

  77. Miss Andrist May 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM #

    @isme, NK, wiggles:

    The point isn’t to demonstrate exhaustive proof to the contrary so much as it is to suggest alternate scenarios, and moreso, to highlight the string of contrivances in the patriarchal cast of human evolution that depicts non-males as inferior from an evolutionary perspective.

    I just get really goddamn sick of being told men do this, women do that. Men impose artificial limitations on women, and deny women the vast majority of the human experience, because men are bitter with womb envy. For at least the last six thousand years, men have demonstrated an unbreakable will to punish women for being able to do the one thing they can’t.

    That was really the point of my post: until men figured out where babies come from, they probably left women the hell alone most of the time. Wow, utopia?

    -Miss Andrist

  78. isme May 16, 2010 at 10:41 PM #

    Ah, ok, osrry, I missed that in your earlier post.

    I dunno about womb envy as thesole cause. Presumably there must be something like it to explain why women are persecuted across the world more than other groups, but even without that, they’d merely be another minority group to be picked on, not everyone’s favourite.

  79. GraceMargaret May 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM #

    Women are easier targets, the easiest targets, apart from children. There’s a taboo against harming children but women are adults so we don’t get that protection (but funny we aren’t allowed the dignity and autonomy of adulthood, either). Although, like any taboo, it’s considered sexy by manly men to violate it, so kids aren’t really safe after all.

    There is a biologist, who actually specializes in evolutionary biology and is not an anthropologist like Lionel Tiger or Craig T. Palmer, who co-authored a study completely refuting/debunking the ‘rape is just natural, bitches’ theory that is so very dear to these *ahem* men of science. See it here: http://www.eurowrc.org/06.contributions/1.contrib_en/11.contrib.en.htm

    I mean Coyne and Berry really demolish it, it’s a great read for a Monday morning.

  80. Miss Andrist May 17, 2010 at 10:44 PM #

    GraceMargaret:

    I enjoyed the link thoroughly. Thanks for sharing. ^_^

    The other half of my point with my enormous cave-folks assessment was to attempt to debunk the myth that women are easier targets. What we are is malnourished from prepubescence to death; what we are is restrained from exertion; what we are is socially groomed for men’s sexual depravities like calves penned for veal; the idea that we are simply weaker than men is baloney. I would like to share a link to an image depicting a woman of color bodybuilder which I picked out because it is in no way disrespectful of her as a person or an athlete:

    http://www.smithmag.net/wp-content/uploads/strongwomen/5.jpg

    I posit that although not everyone is a gifted athlete, maybe we’re all a lot more like her than the patriarchy wants us to realize. I further posit men despise this in women for this express and completely conscious reason: because “feminine” women are more rapeable – in our own minds, too, by conditioning us to think of ourselves as smaller and weaker.

    -Miss Andrist

  81. Komal May 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM #

    This post is so cool I smile every time I see it.

    Which is often, at this rate of updation (?). :P

    • Nine Deuce May 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM #

      Sorry about that. I’m in Egypt at the moment, but I promise to get back to it as soon as I can.

  82. GraceMargaret May 19, 2010 at 5:12 AM #

    I’ve just started on a book about abusive cults by Margaret Thaler Singer and the techniques they employ to create learned helplessness and thought reform. This book is really eye-opening on so many levels, one of them being that it sounds all too familiar as a female and I think supports what Miss Andrist is saying about being conditioned to think of ourselves as smaller and weak, among other things.

    Singer has a list of six conditions that are needed to put thought-reform processes into place.
    1. keep the person unaware that there is an agenda to control or change the person.
    2. control time and physical enviornment (contacts, information)
    3.create a sense of powerlessness, fear and dependency.
    4. suppress old behavior and attitudes.
    5. instill new behaviors and attitudes
    6. put forth a closed system of logic.

    Elaborating on the last point, she says “If you criticize or complain, the leader or peers allege that *you* are defective, not the organization. In this closed system of logic, you are not allowed to question or doubt a tenet or rule or call attention to factual information that suggests some internal contradiction with what you’ve been told. If you do make such observations, they may be turned around and argued to mean the opposite of what you intended. You are made to feel that you are wrong. In cultic groups, the individual is always wrong, the system is always right”.
    Yes.

    There is also a great book that I read years ago called Beauty Bites Beast: Awakening the Warrior Within Women and Girls. It deals with self-defense tactics and takes on the ridiculous advice given to women in dangerous situations, like you shouldn’t try to fight back at all because you will be hurt worse or even be killed so just play the passive victim and let the attacker assault you. There are so many examples of women and girls who have successfully fought off violent assaults, and she shows how these stories are very rarely given any attention by mainstream media. It’s a very pro-feminist book as well and it analyzes patriarchal culture and conditioning, which you can see by the reviews on amazon.com makes people quite a bit angry, even the ones who like the book overall. (*see Thaler’s point six above)

  83. Exodus212 May 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM #

    Because all guys are TOTALLY LIKE THAT.

  84. polly May 23, 2010 at 4:56 AM #

    Flipping eck ND, enjoy yer holiday!

  85. imaginaryfeminist May 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM #

    Yay! I’m glad you’re coming back. I thought you were dead. You’re not dead are you?

    • Nine Deuce May 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM #

      Not dead. In fact, I think I may post something tonight.

  86. imaginaryfeminist May 30, 2010 at 7:15 PM #

    Oh yay, aren’t I excited? I thought you were dead, and I was starting to worry… unless you’re a ZOMBIE! AHHH!

  87. anon June 6, 2010 at 7:11 PM #

    You are all bigoted, and definitely sexist.

    The confirmation bias helps you stay with your clique. You know what that phrase means, don’t you? Confirmation bias?

    This is an online women’s club, where any woman is welcome to join in and bash men, as cleverly as possible, building themselves up for nothing good. You do it on purpose. You enjoy your bigotry. Regularly posting here would give me creepy shivers. Yick!

    I wonder if it helps you at all to write how you do, or if you are just as ugly in real life as you portray yourselves online. Your cleverness is harmful to yourselves. Your peers are women who lost hope in men. They might be oppressed, and if so, they need better than you provide, at best, you aggrandize yourselves.

    Are you are the sort who would like the pendulum of oppression to swing the other way? Are you practiced and ready to scream denials of the adequacy of your political position until you’ve degraded and humiliated every man on Earth? Meanwhile, it’s just harmless fun, right? So you offer nothing better than many men would offer women, making public arguments while thumping their copy of Tiger’s book, pulling only the quotes that justify their arguments or their humor. You want to advertise that ability, too, is that right?

    In a way, I wish you were worse, so more people could see how truly hopeless your attitude is, how much improvement your world offers for who men who must deny feminism’s worth. Then wiser people would shun your brand of fun, and try for better. Or maybe you would rise to world domination that much more quickly. No, I think I like that you are ignorable.

    There is that slim chance that instead of burning yourselves up, you will establish yourselves as the new “man”. “Wimmin”,”Womyn”, or “the wochine”. Or something. Because once your cleverness is over, you will just be bullies. I am afraid of you already, but you are just one on a list!

    Your sort are why men dominated by women will be abused by women. You do not know how to be superior. Although you might be smarter and more capable than me, you have too little self-esteem, so you will dominate AND abuse me.

    You probably think it’s best to gang up and to be abusive together. That is how both men and women think, but women do it more often, and to each other, with words and relationships, rather than physical violence. I wonder where your attitudes lead, and if your sort would stop at words, forever. Women in the real world do not stop at words, necessarily. Since you are so clueless or harmful, I hope you do stop. Please stop, or heal each other.

    Meanwhile, you are almost funny, except that your humor is bigoted, and worse than fart jokes (which are actually not that funny). At least your jokes were not about other women. Don’t enjoy yourselves, you seem lousy at communicating anything helpful to women or men, and so there’s little to hope for here, except that your number of converts each year is very low, or that you disband.

    You present yourselves as representing an oppressed group, with political aspirations, so your post of all these insults to men is pathetic. It is the anonymizing effect of the internet, working on you. Or maybe you all say stuff like this to people in your everyday life, to your coworkers, or to your families? If so, you are not pathetic. Instead, you are shameful. But you probably keep it online, where few people interfere with your fun. At least I can hope so, I do not want your foolishness in my life.

    To the author of this blog post: a quick web search on “Daharb” showed me a “Scott”, who posted here (poor guy), but also a Kim, a Drew, a Bryan, a Marifrank, and that was in the first page of search results. If you want to insult people while you appear to be cool and correct, you are going to have to be more careful. Or you could develop your ability to find humorous flaws and personal failings in the premises, the presentation, and the conclusions of your arguments. For example, you could make a self-depreciating joke of unintentionally insulting someone’s name. (assuming it was unintentional)

    You probably do not take that thought seriously. If that is true, then I am sorry for you, you are too much like I have been online. Stressed out by a need to control what other people do. Goodbye.

  88. polly June 7, 2010 at 3:26 PM #

    Oh anon, do you have to go? So soon?

  89. AliceRubberFeet June 7, 2010 at 5:44 PM #

    Zzzzzzzzz Oh, do come back anon, I’ve woke up now.

  90. sneeky bunny June 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM #

    Anon, Anon! Breath baby, BREATH! I can feel the hysterical spittle hitting your keyboard from here. If you’re not careful you’re going to have a stroke. And then probably blame it on feminism.

  91. Faith June 8, 2010 at 8:53 PM #

    Anon,

    Assuming you are still reading (and no doubt you are), I believe you just won the award for most boring, pointless comment on a blog thread I have ever read. Color me underwhelmed.

    Congratulations.

  92. polly June 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM #

    How much less fun life would be without humourless MRA’s. Sad but true.

  93. GraceMargaret June 10, 2010 at 5:41 PM #

    Anon, *who* needs to look it up what confirmation bias is? You are too funny. Please, educate yourself on the concept, you’re obviously clueless.

    Anyway, after that rather amusing interruption, I’d like to get back to Margaret Thaler Singer and her book (Cults In Our Midst).

    I’m one chapter shy of being finished, and shit. She’s brilliant. As with most cult critics, she had to put up with unbelievable threats of violence and intimidation, slander, and cult infiltration into her private practice in attempts to silence her.

    What I find interesting is that the effects of these abusive cults completely cut across gender lines. The leaders can be male or female, and their tactics are the same. And the devastating effects on the people in cults are also similar, especially the children who were born to parents already involved in a group, who had no chance to learn normal life skills.

    One important fact was that the children abused in these cults, both male and female, display behavior that would be labeled ‘natural’ and feminine if it were being discussed in any other context. The point being that passivity and other so-called feminine qualities are the result of abuse and indoctrination. There is nothing innate about it. No one reading this research would say these behaviors are the result of ‘hormones’ or gender or nature. Likewise with the behavior of the cult leaders. These people are sociopaths. It’s not hormonal, it’s not natural, it’s not ‘masculinity’ it’s not ‘just how the male brain is wired’. It’s interesting that if you go down the list of the qualities of a sociopath, there are many things that a lot of men would claim are just ‘how men are’.

    So why do people attribute the behavior under the duress of living in a violent, woman-hating society to ‘nature’ or hormones? And why do men get a free pass on behaving in a manner that under *any other circumstances* would be labeled sociopathic? People living in abusive cultic environments display the same behaviors, utilize the same coping mechanisms and dissociate the same, male and female.

    It’s like the Nazi psychiatrists who would observe what they called the ‘natural passivity and masochism’ of The Jew, completely ignoring the unnatural and violent circumstances of living in a freaking concentration camp. (see Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics).

  94. Yahhh August 24, 2010 at 5:45 PM #

    All courses offered in university, until women’s studies came along, excluded women. You’re very right about that.

    They also excluded “losers”. Everything from history onward only teaches about elites and winners… and their world view (rich jewish and protestant western european elites).

    Women’s studies came in to show that like you know, women have thoughts, concerns, accomplishments etc.

    Men’s studies comes in to study “males” as a group, who have been left out of the curriculum.

    Now don’t get me wrong. I do agree all courses, have been catered to a male view-point and even languaged to cater to a man… But they haven’t covered male-issues. They have covered “rich-white guy” issues.

    You see, when MRAs whine how… “bohooo, everything feminists say is wrong, bohooo”… I disagree with them.

    Personally, I agree with 99% of feminist theories. I simply say to these MRAs… Whenever you see a feminist claim or theory like “men do x”, “men are x”… Simply replace “man” with “rich, white guy”, and then all feminist theories become objectively true. To use their MRA lingo… I’d tell them to replace “man” with “alpha male”.

    Well, these male studies are focused on the men on the bottom of the pyramid who have never been studied out of pathology and criminology, and like, believe it or not… Not all men are either arrogant, powerful jerks or dumb, homeless criminals or screwed up nice guys. That’s kind of like the “madonna/whore” complex. Male studies is about studying the part of the population that has an “m” in their drivers licence, but you are blind to when studying “men”. You don’t even know these people exist.

    Don’t get me wrong, MRA don’t either. Whenever MRA make stupid generalized statements like “women are”… I say, wait “does that apply to people with an f in their driver’s licence or just women who fit your definition of a woman, i.e. the one woman you objectify and crave.” All of their claims are based on 1% of the female population, and then they say stuff like “women are x”…

  95. isme August 24, 2010 at 11:46 PM #

    “Everything from history onward only teaches about elites and winners… and their world view (rich jewish and protestant western european elites).”

    Maybe where you went to uni, but not where I did.

    Admittedly, the movers and the shakers of the day get more mention in anything to do with the moving and the shaking of the day, but when I was taught history, there was a focus on the ordinary people. Though, it is a fairly new trend, wasn’t like that, say, 20 years ago.

    And, you’ve wandered into “what about the menz?” territory. Yes, generalisations are being made, but not without cause.

  96. Yahhh August 25, 2010 at 4:59 PM #

    Isme, the whole blog post is about a course on the “what about the menz” subject. Kind of hard to comment on the course without being in that territory.

    And yes, the ordinary people trend in history is fairly new, and only more progressive universities have it so far.

    Nothing I said changes. Read it as “what about the menz” if you will, but that curriculum has for most of history been focused on rich white aryans and jews, is not something I’ve invented. It might fit into a narrative of “what about the menz”, and you’re free to read it that way. Doesn’t change the fact that males as a group are not covered in the curriculum, only rich white aryans and elite males are.

  97. GraceMargaret August 26, 2010 at 8:27 PM #

    Yahhh,

    Look up Lionel Tiger’s views on gender roles and you’ll see why many women are creeped out at the idea of universities adding his type of “men’s studies” courses.

    Marginalized men are not left out of history books in the U.S. We are taught from grade school about the civil rights movement and the abolitionists, native american rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans in 1865. The fact that African American women didn’t not get the right to vote is not mentioned by any history book I’ve read. The “3/5th’s of a human being clause” was never rescinded for women.

    Men as a group are absolutely covered in curriculum, because humans are covered, and everyone knows humans = men. If most people believe that the 15th amendment gave African Americans the right to vote, that pretty much says it all. Women don’t count.

  98. ColdwaterCr October 3, 2010 at 8:44 PM #

    Humanities and social “science” courses are just for crybabies that don’t want to learn math anyway. Get an engineering degree- if you design a bridge it doesn’t give a shit if you have a penis.

  99. isme March 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM #

    On a semi-related note, apparently March 14, being one month after thay annoyingly womanish Valentine’s Day thing, is “Steak and Blowjob Day”, cause it wouldn’t be fair if men didn’t have a day where they could have it their way.

  100. Amuz3d April 25, 2011 at 8:02 AM #

    Hysterical and dead on!
    I’d love to share this with my peeps, but sadly they just
    wouldn’t get it. Most women I know are brainwashed by
    the patriarchy.

  101. Hecate April 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM #

    ‘Men’s studies’ eh? At my Psychology class in college, we were studying a concept called ‘intersubjectivity. The professor at the time thought the subject of rape would be a wonderful example to illustrate said concept. So basically what he was saying was that it’s really ok for a woman to be raped, because she is fully aware of the rapist’s intentions. Talk about mind games. Oh and the professor reminded us that we must not have any personal feelings one way or the other when thinking about this very poor example. Feelings apparently do not enter into the realm of philosophy or basic rights to selfhood.

  102. Jesse Leon Easter October 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM #

    I support the idea of changing department names from Women’s Studies to Gender Studies. If I had to try and explain with an analogy, I would say that calling Gender Studies Women’s Studies would be similar to calling Political Science something like War and Money Science. Its (very) arguably true that war and money are the primary source of study in Political Science, but in spite of it being the best (maybe) case study, we use a term broad enough to encompass more than just its primary element. If the history of issues regarding women are studied in a field, what is being studied, “women”, or how the concept of gender itself affects society? I honestly think it does a disservice to feminism to narrowly define the study of gender as the study of women, even if the place of women in history is principled, possibly ironically, as the best place to look for how the idea of gender can be used to dominate and control.

  103. Sugarpuss October 29, 2011 at 4:41 AM #

    Jesse Leon Easter, mansplainer extraordinaire, said

    I honestly think it does a disservice to feminism to narrowly define the study of gender as the study of women

    Excuse you? Feminism was created for women by women. As an official cock-n-ball holder, you have no say in the matter. Stop trying to make it all about you, as men so often do. Are you even aware of your incredibly arrogant attitude? Imagine a white person bursting into a Black Panther meeting and telling them how to run things the “right way”. That would probably never happen, yet men feel perfectly comfortable with throwing their weight around in a Feminist environment and telling us how to run things so that the movement will be more to their liking. Just fucking stop and think about how insulting your comments are. It’s garbage like this that forced me to drop my cable subscription…I’M FUCKING SICK OF HEARING THE MALE PERSPECTIVE.

    You bastards already own everything else…now you want to take Feminism too? Fuck you.

  104. Jesse Leon Easter October 30, 2011 at 3:31 AM #

    Im not really sure how to reply to that. Im not used to being sworn at… is there a more respectful way I could have made my claim? Im sorry for angering you.

  105. lizor October 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM #

    No Jesse there is not. When you are spoon-feeding us shit, we really don’t care how pretty the spoon is.

  106. Jesse Leon Easter October 30, 2011 at 2:40 PM #

    Wait, is my idea shit because im male, or is it shit because the idea itself isnt valid as an idea? I actually derived it from the original post, which seemed to support the term “Gender Studies” in unversities. If my gender is what makes my argument invalid, im not really able to say anything on the topic, because my maleness would taint the argument im making. If, on the other hand, you disagree with my argument about Gender Studies versus Women’s Studies on its own, then I would be happy to hear what specifically you disagree with, and look forward to learning from you.

    • Nine Deuce October 30, 2011 at 4:10 PM #

      Your maleness is your sex, not your gender, and is not the problem. There may, however, be a problem related to your gender (a set of socially inculcated behaviors that people with wangs are expected to adhere to); most people raised as males in this society are unaware of their own privileged arrogance.

  107. Sugarpuss October 30, 2011 at 5:27 PM #

    Jesse Leon Easter:

    Im not really sure how to reply to that.

    Try not replying at all. Thanks.

    Im not used to being sworn at

    I am.

    is there a more respectful way I could have made my claim?

    Why are you even attempting to make a claim on a RadFem blog? Are you not welcome on man-blogs, or what?

  108. Sugarpuss October 30, 2011 at 5:34 PM #

    Wait, is my idea shit because im male, or is it shit because the idea itself isnt valid as an idea?

    Everything you say is shit. Your own privilege is on display, under your very nose, and yet you continue to play innocent.

  109. Jesse Leon Easter October 31, 2011 at 8:12 AM #

    @92

    “Your maleness is your sex, not your gender, and is not the problem. There may, however, be a problem related to your gender (a set of socially inculcated behaviors that people with wangs are expected to adhere to); most people raised as males in this society are unaware of their own privileged arrogance.”

    Thats a really good point, and I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks.

  110. tate November 15, 2011 at 9:43 AM #

    Sadly, I fear the college courses you made up are not too far from reality :(
    Check this ridiculously stupid shit out…

  111. Raoul December 7, 2012 at 12:33 PM #

    Men’s studies needs a How Not To Be Gay class, with “gay” defined as an ever-changing and ever-increasing set of behaviors dudes should eschew and abhor. Dressing well. Liking cats. Enjoying unsuitable (drinks/music/culture/cars/sports/pastimes). Reading feminist blogs without comment-shitting.

    Trouble is, the syllabus would change constantly, maybe multiple times every term, in response to the changing and fluid nature of the everlasting rock that is Manliness.

  112. Hunter January 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM #

    Your attitude, and that of others like you, is why I don’t call myself a feminist. I am an ostensibly white male that has dealt extensively with the damage patriarchy and enforced gender roles has done to males. Everything from basic mistreatment at birth by male and female parents ( rougher handling, cries ignored, lack of comforting when injured, told to toughen up when females are shown love) to enforced repression of their overall identities. A true masculine identity is nothing to be ashamed of by anyone. What is shameful is allowing that abuse to be perpetuated or exclaiming it unworthy of study. That same socially imposed repression and emotional isolation is why men( according to a recent Washington University study) are four times more likely to commit suicide than women.
    Denying that men have been taught historically that they have no real worth compared to women strikes me as absurd. Movies are still created showing boys dying after being drafted and that’s considered acceptable. The majority of mainstream society will react more vehemently to a teenage girl being slapped/hit/abused than a male of the same age. One shelter here forces males at sixteen to enter social services and leave their families while daughters can stay past 18. Not due to behavior but genitalia and cultural stereotypes that they can handle separation and independence better. All this talk about females being abused more…at least some of that is perception and reporting.
    A large factor in the backlash against feminism, by feminists, was the cost in health of assuming privilege. Heart attacks, strokes, depression, they all skyrocketed for women filling the roles of a primary breadwinner.
    Males also still register for compulsory service or can’t go to college.
    I remember watching titanic as a child/early teen and wondering why “women and children first.” What made me worth less than half the population? These are issues that do need exploring and respect.
    By claiming genitalia makes one unworthy to participate, you ignore the real problem.
    As far as feminism being by women originally…it was a privileged white women club that did gain by walking in and working with groups like the Black Panthers and becoming inclusive.
    I would love to see those humanities courses you brought up bring up feminine privilege. 20 million men, largely conscripts, died after being drafted in WW2. I believe 18 women, volunteer nurses, were listed dead as well. Want to get more recent and local? The Vietnam Memorial lists 8 female volunteers who died. 58,000 boys, an average age of 19, dead. That’s ignoring later suicides and trauma.There is a very real need to look at feminine privilege and entitlement as part of the problem as well.
    I know I was never made to write a paper on the subject.
    Incidentally, I remember being corrected on using gendered language by a professor one day and then called a feminist by her the next. Don’t be a hypocrite.
    I was told by a Chinese-American scholar during a Q&A following a paper presentation on feminism in the Bible that I could never understand what it was like to be a colored woman in America as a white male and dismissed completed. Her family all had advanced degrees and were quite wealthy.
    My father is an unregistered Native American with an African American grandfather. My mother is the child of poor Polish and Irish immigrants. They both grew up with an outhouse and no running water. My father quit school at 13 to work and support his family. His father didn’t make it to 6th grade. I’m the the first person in my family to be able to go to school. It is also a fact that my gender and race (as “white male”) has been detrimental. I was wait-listed for being a white male by a very selective school and told if I could get on the tribal rolls in time I’d be in. I am about to start graduate work towards my MSW and was told they only have funds for women and hispanics. ( Despite less than a fifth of MSW holders being male.)
    Forget preconceived notions and stereotypes and stop seeing all of this as a war and affront and actually think about real equality. Women have controlled the vote since they got it..don’t finally feel empowered and then become bigots.

  113. sneekybunny January 15, 2013 at 5:26 PM #

    Oh. My. God. Hunter every single one of your complaints can be laid at the feet of the patriarchy, not Women, and their liberation from it.

  114. isme January 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM #

    Hunter…how do I put this? When a person of privilege is told they have privilege, they are very likely to immediately deny this and attack whoever said they did, coming up with the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again and assuming that they are the first to think of them. Almost any actual research would have shown you that these are wrong. And, I’m aware that you are almost certainly going to ignore everything I say, and that you’ve decided you are for some reason more knowledgable than anyone else on the issue.

    People are more sensitive to women being hit than men, due to the assumption that women are weak and feeble and vulnerable. You are correct that this causes problems for men, but that’s not to say it’s working in favour of women.

    Yes, female on male abuse is under-reported. Just like male on female. You will note that domestic murders (where the evidence is clear) are much more likely to be committed by men against women than the other way around.

    On the Titanic, it wasn’t “women and children first”. It was rich women and rich children first, the rich men graciously allowing them on the boats before them in the knowledge there’d be room when it was their time to board.

    Yes, men are subject to conscription in the US. While women are not, due to being seen as being weak and useless and thus unable to serve in many roles whether they want to or not.

    Yes, you cannot understand what it is to be a woman of colour since you aren’t one. Being from a poor family does not make you a woman of colour. Likewise, being a woman of colour does not make someone understand what it is to be poor unless they have to be that as well. Privilege doesn’t work one way on a sliding scale, there are many different ways to be privilege, a lack of privilege in one area does not invalidate having privilege somewhere else. Or to put it another way, a poor white male is better off than a poor woman of colour. A rich white male is better off than a rich woman of colour.

    Women having controlled the vote? That is bullshit. You can’t have not noticed that politics, industry, religion, the military are male dominated, and have been for ever. What gender is the ruler of your country? What gender was the one before that and the one before that?

    Certainly, yes, there are problems in society that aren’t gender related. This does not somehow remove the ones that are. And yes, the existing gender roles do cause problems for men. There’s a movement aimed at doing away with gender inequalities. It’s called “feminism”.

    • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) February 28, 2013 at 3:36 AM #

      I always imagined as a joke in my head a male bringing the Titanic as an MRA argument. Never thought someone would swoop that low to go there though. Wow.

  115. Sugarpuss January 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM #

    Hunter said:

    Your attitude, and that of others like you, is why I don’t call myself a feminist.

    Feminism is for women aka People With Vaginas. You were never invited to participate, so kindly go fucketh thyself.

    I am an ostensibly white male…[...]

    *Flush*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 471 other followers