“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?
Beauty=symmetry. That’s how beauty is measured.
Interesting, patriarchy in the West has diminished greatly in the past 100 years, yet the emphasis on beauty in women has remained just as important. Hmmm, maybe there’s more than culture at play.
wow that is actually dumber than i imagined.
man, it’s almost as if patriarchy is still fucking everywhere or something. also, good to know were adding basic correlation/causation errors to the list of things you dont understand about science.
Just symmetry, eh? There’s nothing else? I mean, I could have a perfectly symmetrical face and roll around in shit and nobody would mind?
You humans are a strange lot.
brb guys i just saw the hottest isosceles triangle ever
Ruby, I know you’ll appreciate the science-y article from this very science-y source http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2006/06/angies_asymmetr.html Angelina Jolie, the most beautiful woman in the entire world, has an asymmetrical face. What now?
ruby you are like every caricature of a feminist mras accuse us of being rolled up into one
Well Ruby, that’s you’re opinion but:
– can you prove it’s this definition of beauty they used, when we don’t even have the names of the studies?
– can you prove “symmetry equal beauty”? Or even “more symmetrical is more beautiful”?
Did we ever decide if we think she’s a poe or not? On the one hand, could be, but on the other hand, stupidity is a thing that exists in the world.
Strict beauty standards on women is biology yo.
it just occurred to me that ruby’s pretend version of history completely ignores the fact that we had a major sea-change in beauty standards within the last hundred years, and it didn’t have anything to do with biology.
i mean, there’s no reason i would expect ruby to know anything about history of fashion, because i dont expect her to know anything about anything, but still
I don’t think she’s a poe. I vote genuine and voluntary stupidity.
My word some people really can’t bear to let go of that binary can they?
Symmetry is beauty, eh? So everyone who’s symmetrical is considered beautiful, and vice versa? Are you really trying to make that claim?
So, uh, chaining the logic… Women have gotten more symmetrical in the last forty years???
16% more
actually no, its not even that, because contrary to the headline, all that was found was that ‘beautiful’ women had more children, there wasn’t anything included about the beauty quanta of these children
It’s kind of a waste, really, because have men gotten (genetically!?!) any richer over that time period?
We’re spending all this beauty and not getting full value!
…Also, I’m fat and masculine and have small breasts and messy hair, but I’m pretty symmetrical. So I’m glad to hear I’m Scientifically Beautiful! That explains why this pack of rich men follows me everywhere.
Does this mean that if I part my hair to one side, I become less attractive than if I part it down the middle?
I just looked at a picture of myself, and one side of my jaw is more pronounced than the other. I am doomed to die bitter and alone. I will redirect any myopic rich men who mistakenly want to mate with me to more symmetric partners, in the interests of evolution.
Hang on. If beauty and richness are equivalent (eyeroll), and that means that beautiful women pair up with rich men, it follows that ugly women aren’t dropping off the face of the earth–they’re breeding with ugly men!
We shouldn’t see people getting more beautiful, because there should be tons of ugly poor people still around.
Ruby isn’t a feminist. She’s a ruby-ist.
If she were a man she’d be an MRA. And she’d still be hopelessly stupid.
By the by, Ruby? You still haven’t provided any evidence which proves that naked men are unattractive. I mean, you’ve proven that you find naked men unattractive but you haven’t proven that I find naked men unattractive.
Just so you know.
Whoops, I meant “they’re breeding with poor men.” Obviously all men are ugly.
…Except John Barrowman. I mean for God’s sake. If you’re going to claim John Barrowman has no physical effect on any women then I just don’t know what to do with you.
Also: Fireflies!
Yay summer!
not genetically, but weve done a good enough job of ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer without it
Ruby gets a hamster: http://qkme.me/3ph2x1
John Barrowman does appear to be fairly symmetrical…
Oh Sharculese, you libruls always have such a problem with inequality, but the poors have options! They can become more symmetrical via plastic surgery. Or cover themselves with peacock feathers, maybe that would be cheaper? That’s it, I’m going down to a soup kitchen tomorrow with a bag of feathers and a pot of glue — who wants to join me?