“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?
Ruby’s still doing her “I am a woman. I think ___. Ergo, all women think ___” logic fail? At least she’s consistent. 🙁
Compare back then to now. There was like very few areas for females to create erotica of any kind, now so many woman write fanfics, watch porn ect. It seems like yeah, as women are getting more and more sexually free they are expressing more and more of their desires out loud. I mean back then it would be utterly unheard of for a woman to be looking at any kind of porn, and people said women just didn’t like looking at it because of that. That wasn’t true then so why would it be now?
Also are you gonna deny social influence on how comfortable women feel expressing sexual desire? Again its like gay people, they aren’t naturally in the closet but social influence makes many uncomfortable to come out. You yourself may not find men very attractive and hey maybe you find boobies more nicer to look at which is okay! Please don’t assume that because thats your experience therefore its true for all women.
Also, erections. It’s been my experience that most women who’re attracted to men (and I think men too) are most interested in penises when they’re erect. A flaccid penis is usually visually interpreted as “no sex right now, thanks”, therefore it’s not super surprising that most people who like penises don’t get all that excited over pics of flaccid ones.
Men who like dick seem to like looking at dick quite a lot. They sure as hell aren’t any less enthusiastic than men who like boobies. Does this mess up the calculations?
…Wait, fuck, there are some men who like dick and boobies. It’s almost like this shit is complicated.
I don’t like boobies OR dick. 🙁 Guys, I think my manliness is broken. Can I return it, or is the warranty gone?
@LBT: I don’t like boobs or dick either. So…I guess that would make me a normal girl by Ruby’s standards? Ruby! How do women feel about our breasts? How can I know if you aren’t telling me what I think?!
I like both boobs and cocks, I guess that makes me a bisexual man? I mean, obviously I must not be a woman.
Ruby, do you just come here to display your staggering ignorance? Tell me some more what I like. Bitch, please.
At this point, cannot tell if trolling or just incredibly stupid.
Or both.
RE: Lauralot
I like looking at naked people, though. When I saw the image here, my first thought was, “Oh, those are some AWESOME poses! Maybe I’ll save that for refs later…”
I was a nude model until I graduated from college in May. Coming up with the poses was always the best part.
Men are so ugly that this was totally not one of the first Manboobz forum threads.
Men are so ugly that female heterosexuality doesn’t really exist. We just put up with sex for various reasons. Usually money.
Don’t worry, I’m a feminist.
Butts, Ruby dearest, not dicks.
And hands (there are whole posts in Bean_Daily devoted to closeups of his hands) (and quite a few dedicated to the nude flower scene in Lady Chatterly’s Lover, but playing “catch a glimpse of his dick” is not a turn on for me–though I understand it is for others).
And what often people don’t seem to think about–movement. I love watching him move in TROY (a movie that as I still bitterly point out was willing to strip all the young studs but kept the Sexist Man In The Whole Movie By A Gazillion Miles dressed up). But the way he moved in that–*happy sigh*.
And voices — OMG, VOICES. (Tommy Lee Jones’ voice!!!)
I feel sort of like some Pollyanna here, but Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, the world is so full of so many marvellous things and so many desires and so many beauties–do you really *enjoy* thinking that all women are the SAME???? Really????????????????????/
DOH html sscrew up. Sorry.
This, so much. Still photos never do a whole lot for me in the erotic department, but watching a sexy man move around makes for a happy Polliwog.
…I may possibly own the first X-Men movie almost entirely for purposes of watching Hugh Jackman do things in a tight, sleeveless shirt. I don’t even care WHAT things he does. I would watch two hours of that man eating a sandwich as long as his arms flexed while he did it.
@Polliwog: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Hugh Jackman! I got to see him live in BOY FROM OZ and OMG!!!!!!!!!!
And yes, Wolverine–the movement–the incredible deadly grace.
And it’s fascinating to watch actors in different roles who create such different body language for them–which Jackman did.
Gene Kelly. I LOVE watching that man dance — INCREDIBLE.
Agreed on all counts! (Well, except for getting to see Hugh Jackman live – there I merely agree that that sounds awesome, and I’m jealous.)
And that moment in Australia when he pours the bucket of water over himself… 😉
In hindsight, that was a REALLY SHORT moment. Damn, I was starved for porn.
Oh hush. You all just like looking at Hugh Jackman’s body because he’s rich!
Oh snap. That’s hilarious, I just read back and saw Varpole’s whining about DSC. It’s funny, I consider myself, so far as internet arguments go, a lazier, maybe-a-skosh-less-communist version of DSC. Whoever called that hate crush, called it right if he’s saying zie’s the dimestore version of me.
There’s a really interesting gender studies paper in the universal assumption that the male equivalent of boobs is cocks. I mean, wouldn’t it be chests?
I think it’s based on the universal scientific principle of “the sticky-outy bits.”
I find chests way hotter than genitals, for any gender. (also, naked back, and butts) And for what I’ve heard, that’s the case of a lot of straights men: I’ve rarely heard of a sexy vulva, a hot clitoris or vagina. Actually, people get probably get more compliments for their dicks than their vulvas, seeing as they’re external organs.
And I’d like to bring to the jury’s attention the existence of the French rugby team’s calendar:he stadium’s gods. Naked calendar. The positions they’re in hide all genitals, but that’s all. And it’s not marketed to a gay male audience, if you follow my lead.
And for magazines in generals, they’ve been marketed to men as a mark of manhood. So many men buy these magazines. That’s not proof of anything.
Rugby team calendar, Kyrie? Oh, my. America needs more rugby. 😉
The thighs on those men, dear god. But never mind, I’m a woman and couldn’t possibly like seeing that.