“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?
@dsc
Hahahaha he said he misgendered you in an edit but didn’t go back and change the gender. He did say he misgendered you but in his edited thing he used male pronouns. He also claimed “hysterical” was not a gendered insult.
Edit: He finally changed it to your correct pronoun with a little bit of nudging….
@Jumbofish: and zowie, is he pouting about it!
I spammed him with some reading material.
Cassandra, thanks for that video, it will replace “Parklife” which has been in my head all damn day.
Wait, did NWO say up there that unattributed prank calls are counted in rape statistics??? Add that one to the book of learning!
@kladle:
He probably read a news story about it happening once and thought “wow, this must happen all the times ever!” You know, par for the course for our NWO.
Never change. 🙂
I’m now imagining a bunch of police files full of “Do you have Prince Albert in a can?” and “Is your refrigerator running?”
@katz:
Filed under “Possible Rapes.” /)_-
Shadow – I dunno, the comment in question is entirely consistent with the belief that women are genetically programmed to be attracted to wealth and status.
Well, Albert in a can is barely distinguishable from “rapist in a box”. I’m more worried about these schoolgirls using rape to excuse missed homework.
@Dracula
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not disputing why people found it problematic, or that the trope is out there. The only reason I think it’s a joke fallen flat is that she’s quoting Elaine, and the poses in the poster are amusing. The joke IS offensive, it drew an indignant “hey!” out of me, I just don’t think that it’s a belief of hers. Which, of course, doesn’t make it any less offensive.
@NWO — “One never needs to open the black box. There’s a man inside and the word rapist is written right on the box.”
I addressed that two days ago.
Ignore the part about sticking to bad math though, your math is so bad I don’t really want to try fixing it.
And reading comprehension fail, on my part. I see what you mean. The nature of the comment is why I think it’s a failed joke, though i can see how it falls in line with the rest of the shit she’s said.
Actually I bet NWO read somewhere that police stations record all their calls and when that passed through the black box in his brain, it came out as “every phone call to the police is a case.”
What a strange, unpleasant place NWO’s mind must be.
I picture it like a squirrel jumping at the slightest noise. Phone rings? MISANDRY! Pepsi commercial? TITLE IX! Junk mail? FEMINIST CONSPIRACY!
I’m sure Pepsi commercials get up NWO’s nose especially, since he did not get hired there because misandry.
You mean MISANDRY?!
Yes, MISANDRY!!!!11
MISANNDRRRYYYYYYY!!!eleventy-1!!!
@badandfierce,
Regarding homeopathy, maybe you’re thinking of a different sort than that which I’m familiar with, because we don’t demonize doctors and certainly don’t buy into or create those silly internet ads…
You know, that you guys don’t type out all the exclamation points is a prime example of the kind of casual anti-male bigotry that antimanboobz is talking about
Katz: I won’t watch them.
I’m really looking for a more formal anti-male bigotry. I think we misandrists should use complete sentences, and dress up — preferably with top hats and monocles. Something like this.
“only men are talked about because only men contributed to the sciences, as everyone knows.”
Right… No Mme Curie. No Ada Lovelace. No Mary Wortley Montague. No Admiral Grace Hopper. No Rosalyn Yallow. No Caroline Herschel (whom Patrick O’ Brian included in his Aubry/Maturin novels. He didn’t have to. Then again, his women were real people, with minds of their own, and passions, and agency; but I digress). No Mary Anning: who discovered an entire family of prehistoric non-dinosaurs).
No Lise Meitner, who figured out how much energy was released when uranium was split, and coined the term, “nuclear fission”.
No Barbara McClintock (who was the woman who figured out that genes can move from locus to locus on a chromosome) she figured out that corn is a sport of teosinte not a cultivated mutation, though this is still disputed.
No Rosalind Franklin. No Aphra Behn. No Marie Crous, nor Maria Cunitz.
No Maria Aringhelli, nor Anna Atkins, not Sophie Germain (who worked in the theories of elasticty and number) No Marie Paulze Lavoisier.
No Sofia Kovalevskaya, who worked in partial differential equations, Abelian functions and rotating solids). No Johanna Mestorf, nor Vera Popova, nor Mary Jane Rathbun.
No room to list them all.
Because women never did any science.
I was on Ritalin as a child and young adult, and am currently back on it after a few years without it. I’m very pleased with my decision to take it again. But then again, I am a woman, and we’re supposed to be fitted for lives of quiet drudgery, so there’s that.
Fun fact: the elementary school as we know it is a late nineteenth-century development, modeled on the two most visible examples of ways to discipline men in service to the state: the army and the factory. The notion of bodily and intellectual discipline on which these institutions rested was gendered masculine: just like factory work or military service, schooling involved sustained effort, which only men and boys were supposed to be strong enough to undertake. This would help prepare boys for participation in the public sphere, which was dangerous and exhausting–another 19th century male thing.
Tell me again how this feminizes boys?