Inside higher ed article on male studies conference

[MRA4lif]

link

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/08/males

Most of the comments are extremely ignorant so a positive comment would be appreciated.

[LSBeene]

Here is what I wrote:

A certain professor quipped: "Who makes the laws" - as regarding anti-male laws - a snarky and poorly thought out one liner meant, wrongly, to show that since most politicians are men - that men cannot be disadvantaged.

This is called the "Front Man Fallacy" - one would assume that a (claims to be) PROFESSOR would have been taught the basic tenents of LOGIC and the fallacious arguements that one encounters in debate.

The Front Man Fallacy is thus:  A person will point out that more politicians are men, and that, therefore it is not Womyn's Groups or Feminists who are making the bad/anti-male laws - but rather that "men hold the power" and therefore men cannot be disadvantaged.

WRONG.  It does not matter what gender the "front man" is, but rather, who is lobbying, who the law effects, and who stands to gain from those laws.

Simply, snarkily, and incorrectly pointing out the gender of the law MAKER does not explain who promoted, proposed, wrote, and lobbied for that law.

Also, the use of "Professor" in his monikor suggests another logical fallacy - "Appeal to Authority"

Professor of WHAT?!  Got a sheepskin of a degree, but could not be bothered to remember the basics learned in a higher education, nor to examine issues outside the PC lens?  THAT kind of "professor"?!

This country WORSHIPS women - the most protected, entitled, financially supported, and empowered women in the history of the planet - and yet the whining continues.  Wow, just freaking wow.

More of use need to post there.  Don't write 5000 words - just pick one MRA subject, and make it simple, readable, and backed with facts.  It might open some eyes.

Steven

[MRA4lif]

some feminist wrote

85% of battered victims are women
44% are battered by an intimate partner
Murder is the leading cause of deaths for pregnant women (33% of them by an intimate partner

isnt all of this BS the last one was debunked by Sommers in her book wasnt it. WHERE THE HELL are these people getting these BS statistics from.

[LSBeene]

MRA4lif -

They have probably had the real #'s pointed out to them dozens of times.

What happens, as I personally know is:

1)  They deny deny deny - "water is NOT wet, you male pig!"

2)  They try to retaliate in your real life for even holding or espousing these views (so to silence those that oppose them)

3)  They then go on to repeat them

Logic!?  Lol, dude, it aint got 1 step into the door in their heads.

Steven

[LSBeene]

Here's my next reply to OAKB:

Oak branch alluded to women dying in child birth as a point - in reference to men dying on the job.
Yet notice how she had to go BACK IN HISTORY, while the men who are dying are dying NOW?

She then went on to decry how women who went into fire/police work were "resisted" - in the past that was true - but not today OAKB.  Today there are hiring preferences and quotas.  We are not living in the past.  "Revenge" for past wrongs, against someone who did not commit the acts, had no knowledge of the acts, and does not agree with them towards a victim who is no longer alive is twisted.
What some men do have a problem with is the double standards in the police dept, fire dept, military, and other physical jobs where "gender neutral" (double standards) physical requirements have been enacted.  Get your facts straight.

Those men don't take those jobs to "oppress" anyone.  Give me a break.  They do so to provide for their FAMILIES - not because it's "fun".  Sitting around theorizing based on false premise "patriarchy" theory does not fit the real world reasons people take such jobs OAKB.

OAK B then points out that men commit 91% of all murders In the US.  Notice what area that she avoids?  Who the victims are.  Yea, most of the victims are male.  Had they been female she might have cared, but since that didn't fit her argument her empathy never triggered.
Debating feminist indoctrinated  people becomes easier and easier once you notice that they ONLY concentrate, have empathy for, and want to help on female victims, but when it comes to gender neutral thinking and not trying to find male villains they have never been taught to think in that manner.
I mean, she dismisses out of hand that more men commit suicide, and never ONCE asks WHY they commit suicide.  Only citing that men are "violent" and therefore are suicidal.  Huh?  But women "trying" (cry for help) to commit suicide IS a point of empathy.

Seeing a pattern here?

The "male conspiracy/patriarchy" argument.

More men die in combat.  The reason OAKB is that while feminists want women to shatter the "glass ceiling" for glamour jobs in the military (Jet Pilot, General), very few advocate making women Grunts.  And you cannot "gender norm" physical frailty nor a lack of upper body strength.

And it is not "men" (I never met a guy name "men" - but I have met women who are academic/political feminists) who "cause all war".  Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, Joan of Arc, & Golda Meir were all women leaders who led their nations into war. 
The next argument she WANTS to make is "More men have started wars or were in charge" - but notice the mental gymnastics - when women WERE in charge there WERE wars - she skips that to vilify men and ONLY men.  That is the fight against villainy and bigotry that we fight against.  Anyone who decides right and wrong, bigotry or acceptance, or evil versus good by first determining the gender of the individual is not an open minded and equality minded person - they love, live, believe in and perpetuate their bigotry.
Then, and this is a hoot, she makes light of men not going to college.  Again, gender specific in her rationale and dismissive as to the outcome for men, it's blithely dismissed as a "non-issue", and then even excused.
I could break it down further, but, really, do I have to?

Men dying earlier?  Hey, go talk to God.  That's her answer.  No reply to the "Office of women's health", NIH, and CDC spending.  No, just ignore the men DYING and then claim women are the victims - according to the U.N.   Lol, yea, that's a good group of unbiased people.

In short, OAKB and her dismissive, non-empathetic, and one sided view is EXACTLY why men's issues need to be discussed and taught.

We did grow up OAKB - care to join us?

Does someone else want to tackle the assinine comment about men and child support that one snarky idiot brought up?  Mention Abortion, Safe Haven, Adoption, and how no money is ever accounted for.

My fingers are tired.

Lol

Steven

[Captain Courageous]

link

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/08/males

Most of the comments are extremely ignorant so a positive comment would be appreciated.

MRA4lif - I can't post on the comments section. Not sure as to why at this point.

It is vital that those who can get through post as many pro-men's studies conference statements as possible. Don't be intimidated by the labels Title/Department or Institution. If you are retired, put that in the blanks. The same goes for those of us who are alumnae of colleges or universities and those of us who are students (including part-time).

Please let them know the deck is being stacked against males by ideologues, and that male studies is part and parcel of true equal opportunity. We're tired of defamatory propaganda being pedalled without any dialogue or debate.

[LSBeene]

At the point of posting it said you have to disable something - there is a tab below where you post your info (name, E-mail and such) - I had to hit it.

A Text box should open, and then you should be able to post.

I hope that helps.



Steven

[MRA4lif]

link

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/08/males

Most of the comments are extremely ignorant so a positive comment would be appreciated.

MRA4lif - I can't post on the comments section. Not sure as to why at this point.

It is vital that those who can get through post as many pro-men's studies conference statements as possible. Don't be intimidated by the labels Title/Department or Institution. If you are retired, put that in the blanks. The same goes for those of us who are alumnae of colleges or universities and those of us who are students (including part-time).

Please let them know the deck is being stacked against males by ideologues, and that male studies is part and parcel of true equal opportunity. We're tired of defamatory propaganda being pedalled without any dialogue or debate.

It wont let me post anything either.
they might have blocked any more comments from being posted.

from editor

Folks:

Many of the recent comments on this thread have veered into political debate over whether men are victims or not in today's society. While that's obviously an undercurrent of the above article, we'd ask that future commenters focus their contributions on the issues raised directly in the article.

Thanks much.

Doug Lederman

[LSBeene]

Yea, and had this been about women being victims - that would never have happened.

What I SUSPECT is that some of the "equality minded" feminists on the thread, or at the news organization did not like the counter arguments and have decided to end the "debate".

Surprised it took this long.

Steven

[MRA4lif]

Yea, and had this been about women being victims - that would never have happened.

What I SUSPECT is that some of the "equality minded" feminists on the thread, or at the news organization did not like the counter arguments and have decided to end the "debate".

Surprised it took this long.

Steven

sadly your probably right.

[Mr. Bad]

Hey guys, I saw a few of you over there - good show! 

The hostility and resistance are glaring, but IMO clearly demonstrate why male studies is needed now more than ever.

Keep fighting the good fight.   

[LSBeene]

Here's my latest post:

Let's see if it gets through:

I keep noticing that when the narrow subject of DV (Domestic Violence) comes up that the really anti-male indoctrinated types ignore, minimize, and excuse it.

I mean, - seriously - read the men's comments here - .... (take your time, I'll wait)

Have ANY of them minimized, excused, or dismissed it?  Even a little?

But some here think of DV as some ideological zero sum game.

If men are 1% or 50% of DV victims ... does it matter?  Isn't helping ALL victims our goal?

THIS IS WHY WE NEED MEN's STUDIES.  Right now there is only a one sided anti-male approach being taught.

Where, praytell, do people with womyn's studies degrees go into - :

Fields where people are victims, especially ones that are reserved, wrongly, for ONLY women.

That won't change until a male perspective is taught.

The great part is - for the undecided, and the unaware (of the gender indoctrination) seeing OUR posts IS going to make people think and realize there is another side, and if they agree, that they are not alone.

Steven

[MRA4lif]

Here's my latest post:

Let's see if it gets through:

I keep noticing that when the narrow subject of DV (Domestic Violence) comes up that the really anti-male indoctrinated types ignore, minimize, and excuse it.

I mean, - seriously - read the men's comments here - .... (take your time, I'll wait)

Have ANY of them minimized, excused, or dismissed it?  Even a little?

But some here think of DV as some ideological zero sum game.

If men are 1% or 50% of DV victims ... does it matter?  Isn't helping ALL victims our goal?

THIS IS WHY WE NEED MEN's STUDIES.  Right now there is only a one sided anti-male approach being taught.

Where, praytell, do people with womyn's studies degrees go into - :

Fields where people are victims, especially ones that are reserved, wrongly, for ONLY women.

That won't change until a male perspective is taught.

The great part is - for the undecided, and the unaware (of the gender indoctrination) seeing OUR posts IS going to make people think and realize there is another side, and if they agree, that they are not alone.

Steven

any open minded person that compares our posts(the ones that use statistics to back up what we say) to those obvious feminist post(that use illogic and no statistics) should side with us, of course many people are not open minded.

[LSBeene]

A new reply to Julie H.

Julie Jumped in - I'll respond

Julie H. said:
"But seldom fatal. And arguably less likely to affect sexual function as, say, a radical double-mastectomy.
Not really a good example."

Nah, not like prostate cancer will kill you, or if not, then make you completely unable to have intercourse.  That's not important.

But snarkiness aside, what I won't do is get into a "Victim's Olympics" with her - both sides suffer - one gets funding.  I think that was the point.

)()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()())(

Julie Opined:
"Mostly, though, what is disturbing is that this conference seems to be at least in part supported by the American Enterprise Institute, which definitely has a political agenda, and no one seems to have really considered that in hir comments."

Meanwhile the AAUW (American Association of University Women), a bastion of leftist feminism is producing study after study the magnifies bad things done to women, and ignores the same done to men.

Somehow she missed that.  Being equal minded and all, I wonder how.

()()())())()()))()))()()()()()()()()()()()()()
Julie noticed:
"The article makes the point that there are already some departments of men's studies -- more important, I think, is that more and more Women's Studies departments are morphing into Gender Studies departments."

Yes Julie they are - and they are also staffed by the same feminists, many who belong to the AAUW who produce one sided studies and help shape policy.

Changing a name does not mean they changed policies, ideology, nor focus.  But thanks for pointing out the shell game I forgot to mention.

()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(()()()

"I used this article in my Modern World Civ Classes today, as the planned discussion topic was the expression of different feminist ideals in the early 20th C and beyond. I have to say that the plaintive cries of the supporters of Male Studies are far less convincing than the voices of the women who argued that they should be treated merely as human, and perhaps even as equals. "

Ahhh, the shaming language and pretension of the higher ground appears.

Shaming language - "plaintive cries" - meaning a dismissive and non-empathetic reaction to specific problems outlined by many who posted here.

And, Julie, we have provided specific examples of the lack of empathy, funding, and legislation due to the one sided construct of womyn's/gender studies.

We have pointed out WE wish to be treated as equals.  Why does that bother anyone?
()())())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

"The complaints on the male-studies side seem largely to focus on a diminution of male rights at
......(snip) ......
This is the sort of thing that happens in societies where women are treated as less than men.

1)   Have a say on their own bodies: does the child get a choice too?  More people in this country are pro-life, and the majority are women.  It's MEN who are more pro-choice.

Why don't women's studeis, being apolitical and caring about women's issues, wants, and to promote all of women's political points of view never seem to mention this?

2)   Equal access  to education!?  Really?!  You mean how this years crop of incoming freshmen (people) are almost 60% women?  Or the women only scholarships?  Or the "Seven Sisters" colleges and their 95% female students.  Which one would you point out is the discrimination women face?

3)   No one stops anyone from GETTING a divorce - but the feminist perspective is "want my cake and eat it too" - that women, being equal, should somehow almost automatically get custody of the kids.  And please - spare the self-justification, it suits you to get them, therefore you defend it.  Were it the other way around, you'd cry foul.  And "primary caregiver" goes right out the window in the case of abortion, safe haven, and adoption.  Only when it's to your advantage.

Oh, I am not a father who lost custody - I am man who didn't see his father for 20 years due to an acrimonious divorce.

4)   Who is binding feet in the U.S.?  Anyone?

5)   No one deserves to be sexually assaulted.  Not even in prison.  But feminists never seem to make that logical leap.  Nor does anyone deserve to be falsely accused, and then watch their accuser smirk and walk away with impunity.  Maybe having a men's department in college would advocate punishing false accusers.  You don't MIND punishing false accusers ..... right?

6)   And what did NOT make the news, and certainly was not important in any feminist classroom was the 13 year old boy conscripted in Afghanistan who was used by the Taliban as an improvised "mine sweeper".  But, thanks for caring.
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(()()
And as to your quote from some Women's Studies author who says in the language rich words of "privilege, institutionalized,  hegemony" etc  - wow - she was so oppressed she got PUBLISHED and is taught at a public institution, supported by tax dollars, and faces no censorship.

Meanwhile even the DEBATE of HAVING a men's department is boiling your blood.

And, yea, Title IX - it's sure been used on men's SPORTS - but not on womyn's studies.  I thought Title IX was about equality in EDUCATION.

I hope my reply to Julie H. will help add to the discussion.

Steven

Steven

[LSBeene]

Ok - no matter how on-topic I stay (like my last post) - I am not getting "published" - and my last post was a POINT by POINT answer to a feminist perspective.

WTF.  Not surprised - but fuck it - I put effort into my posts.

Steven