“Men’s Studies” has existed as an academic discipline for several decades now. Not surprisingly, most of those involved in it identify themselves as feminists – as people interested in studying gender tend to do. But not all of them: A couple of years back, a group of mostly anti-feminist academics and popular writers with an interest in gender decided to try to do a sort of end run around the discipline of “Men’s Studies” by conjuring up a whole new, altogether un-feminist discipline called “Male Studies.”
Recently, The University of South Australia announced that it would start offering postgraduate courses in Male Studies sometime in 2014; our old friend Eoghan/Sigil1 brought this earthshattering news to the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day, where it was greeted with … suspicion and hostility.
GotMyFrogHatOn wrote:
Great, now men have the same opportunity as women to waste their time and money on a worthless degree!
Liverotto was even blunter:
YES, because the cure to bullshit is… MORE BULLSHIT! /s
That’s right: Men’s Rights Redditors hate Women’s Studies, and Gender Studies, and apparently every academic discipline with the word “Studies” in it so much that they’ve transferred this hatred to a new academic discipline that could well have been (and sort of was) designed just for them.
But don’t worry, they still hate Women’s Studies the most:
What was I saying the other day about projection?
Women getting more beautiful, say scientists
Evolution has led to women, but not men, getting progressively beautiful, according to scientists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5912250/Women-getting-more-beautiful-say-scientists.html
You are a funny one ruby. I wonder how they decided which women were “beautiful” and which ones were not.
@Jumbofish: not only that, did you notice that the study covered FOUR WHOLE DECADES?
Because of course you can totes make claims about evolution and “subtle programming” of DNA with that time frame.
And of course they knew who is most beautiful because SCIENCE!
Also, hmm, could it be that modern women conform to modern beauty standards better than women did in a time period where the beauty standard was a little different? We will never know, because of course we’re going to accept every “study” as gospel, no matter how poorly designed.
dude, you’ve been told this like fifteen times now but it doesnt seem to sink in, so once again: you would have to be exceedingly gullible to cite pop science reports in general consumption publications as evidence of what ‘science’ says. you do not know what science is.
but seriously, pseudo-scientific studies based on subjective phenomena? that is a new low, even for you.
Ruby, your article quote Kanazawa, a guy who published last year, in Psychology Today, a article saying that black women were less pretty than other women (it has been removed since). If this guy said that a flower was pretty, I would be suspicious as to his motives and methods.
And your article is a newspaper, not a scientific journal.
Scientific proof via democratic vote that men are just as beautiful as women:
http://www.laughspin.com/2012/05/22/stephen-colbert-lands-on-maxims-list-of-top-100-beautiful-women-in-the-world/
you know who else insists that ‘science’ supports all their preconceived notions of reality? mras.
And they don’t even give their sources, just a few name of people and university. Real serious SCIENCE here.
What does her latest study say? We peacocks can’t read too well.
Science proves women have changed how they look since the 1950s:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2138022/No-plastic-surgery-breast-implants–Magic-City-TV-bosses-reveal-struggle-natural-women-Miami-1950s-series.html
Sharculese: also, Scientologists. And Star Wars, Episode I.
(sorry)
‘beautiful’ people have 16% more children, according to a research at the university of helsinki’s institute of non-falsifiable claims
of all the stupid fucking backwards ass shit. ‘sorry guys, we cant make the movie we wanted of because the extras’ breasts are destroying our verisimilitude’
Say Ruby, perhaps you could tell how beauty is quantified? What’s the standard scientific measurement of beauty?
Utter tediousness and massive derailing to no discernable point isn’t a bannable offense, right? Oh, no reason. Just checking.
ruby, since you appear to be totally scientifically illiterate i guess i should explain to you that non-falsifiable is a technical term meaning ‘speculative un-provable bullshit’
trying to classify people into ‘beautiful’ and ‘non-beautiful’ falls pretty squarely under that heading
I find it funny that they illustrate an article about beauty being a natural survival strategy with a woman whose beauty depend obviously of make up, skin and product. And well, I’m no expert (and don’t know anything about her), but in this picture she looks like she used botox.
claims of this sort are generally published in the American Journal of Huffing Just Incredible Fucking Amounts of Glue. its peer-reviewed, but the review process is generally impaired because y’know, the glue huffing…
Do you guys thinks I should let BF know?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9271471/Samantha-Brick-French-women-are-hostile-and-predatory-adulterers.html
I mean, the telegraph said so!
You can always trust news stories that quote scientists, after all.
But you know what — actually, we don’t need to worry about it. According to NASA scientists (the best kind of scientists)
Please note the existence of extraterrestrial beings called “zetas” in this scientific article. Apparently, aliens have their dating problems too.
Anyway, it’s been nice knowing you all; take care of yourselves until doomsday.
milliPitts
oups, *skin and hair products
Fox units.
@kyrie
look she was VOTED the most beautiful person in the world. that is the most scientific standard possible.