I came across this new few days ago and it was something I actually found very interesting. I think from the sound of it Male Studies would be a great addition to any university, but I have a feeling it won't be as popular as women studies. Over the years I have head many negative messages from female professors towards males and I don't find that amusing or educational. But that's because I don't believe you can achieve equality by bashing the other sex. It just creates this whole message that females are the victims and males are bad. In general I'm finding that men are constantly treated like there is something wrong with them, and I don't think that's fair treatment towards anybody so why should it be okay in this case. What do you guys think about the male studies idea? Good or bad?

Here is an article if anyone wants to read about it.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2785510

I've taken a few Women's Studies classes and, while they are not particiularly interesting to me, the ones I took weren't about male bashing. It was more of a study of women in history and how women are reflected in media today. I think Women's Studies, if taught properly by an unbiased professor, is a useful and interesting program.

I think the "opposite type" of Male Studies might be a good idea. I think it would be redundant to have a Male Studies class that focuses on famous males in history and influential men in the world. But to have classes on how men are represented in media/society today might be something worth looking into.

Thank you so much for posting something about this, ha.

"Gender Studies" at universities has more pitfalls then positives, but that doesnt mean we should give up on them. Women's studies provide a good look into a topic throughout history, but the material tends to have tunnel vision and ignore a lot of really interesting connections between other perceptions(any other gender identities). Unfortunately it is not PC to make criticism of women's studies and typically you will just be called an ignorant sexist ******* : (. I get sad when I see arguments start about men vs. women's issues by feminist academics because they typically ignore the fact that a two-gendered system is incredibly outdated and shows little understanding of what gender really is.

Even the Anti-Violence Network on campus, that deals with a lot of "women's" issues, can be a bit one sided and non-inclusive. It is hard to give constructive criticism without being dismissed because you are not recognized as a woman(identifying/presenting as anything other than female).

People say history classes study the history of men, which I understand the comment, but I havent seen any that study history through the lens of how their identities as men formed their actions/perceptions.

I was SOOOOO happy when I was in the convenience store the other day and I heard on the TV playing in the background that Canada was going to begin incorporating information about different genders/gender perception in primary school sex education. I was so surprised that Canada would take such a big step, dont know what actual content they were pushing though.

Yeah.... Not gonna happen. We've moved from a male dominated society to an anti-male society and its not going to change any time soon. Take our family justice system as an example of everything that's wrong with gender politics today. And if you want to examine things you're portrayed as a sexist and misogynist.

But let see who hates who. A parent, having witnessed the courts make a bad decision about custody and kidnaps the child. If it is a man it is considered as bad or worse than the man kidnapping a child off the street to sexually abuse and/or kill. If it is a female, a significant portion of the media will be crying that she had to do it to protect her child and that she's a hero. You can even see this seeping into our entertainment. In an episode of Two and a Half Men, when Judith decides Charlie is a bad influence on her son, she arbitrarily ignores the custody agreement and withholds Jake from his father (Alan). Do the cops come? No, instead we get to see Judith and her friends tell the men how bad they are.

And now lets look at what would happen if a parent, denied custody of their child because the parent of an opposite gender is inherently better, set themselves on fire (it has happened!). If they were female the outcry would be great. "She was suppressed by the male dominated justice system which is built to be discriminatory against females. She had no choice but to take this heroic stand for women's rights.". A male does it and he's a nutjob, proving that father's rights advocates are poor parents and don't deserve to see their children anyways.

I'm tired of it, but its not going to change in my lifetime. It's far too entrenched.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

I was SOOOOO happy when I was in the convenience store the other day and I heard on the TV playing in the background that Canada was going to begin incorporating information about different genders/gender perception in primary school sex education. I was so surprised that Canada would take such a big step, dont know what actual content they were pushing though.

Im actually worried about the early start of sex ed, mostly because I don't know what they will be teaching. I hope it isn't gender bias and stereotypes. Most of that concern comes from what I have witnessed in university classrooms. I would really like to sit in a class and see what exactly they are teaching the kids and I hope parents do that. Its a huge step and thats why we have to be carefull and critically think about it and if the content is appropriate for young kids. But the good thing is that they are allowing parents to take their kids out of the class if they prefer, which is a nice thing too.

I recently read an interesting article on a concept referred to as "Male Abortion". I can't find the one I read, but Google it and you will find a wealth of information.

In its essence, the concept argues that men should have the right to relieve themselves of their fatherly duties shortly after conception, in order to balance the gender playing field. Women have the option of keeping the baby, putting it up for adoption, and getting an abortion. The argument goes that men should logically be able to make a similar decision, and not be at the whim of their female counterparts. (The man can't force the woman to do anything, but if she keeps it, he can absolve himself of responsibility).

Originally Posted by jo87

I came across this new few days ago and it was something I actually found very interesting. I think from the sound of it Male Studies would be a great addition to any university, but I have a feeling it won't be as popular as women studies. Over the years I have head many negative messages from female professors towards males and I don't find that amusing or educational. But that's because I don't believe you can achieve equality by bashing the other sex. It just creates this whole message that females are the victims and males are bad. In general I'm finding that men are constantly treated like there is something wrong with them, and I don't think that's fair treatment towards anybody so why should it be okay in this case. What do you guys think about the male studies idea? Good or bad?

Here is an article if anyone wants to read about it.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2785510

Please, no more joke degree programs. There's already too many of them.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

Thank you so much for posting something about this, ha.

"Gender Studies" at universities has more pitfalls then positives, but that doesnt mean we should give up on them. Women's studies provide a good look into a topic throughout history, but the material tends to have tunnel vision and ignore a lot of really interesting connections between other perceptions(any other gender identities). Unfortunately it is not PC to make criticism of women's studies and typically you will just be called an ignorant sexist ******* : (. I get sad when I see arguments start about men vs. women's issues by feminist academics because they typically ignore the fact that a two-gendered system is incredibly outdated and shows little understanding of what gender really is.

Even the Anti-Violence Network on campus, that deals with a lot of "women's" issues, can be a bit one sided and non-inclusive. It is hard to give constructive criticism without being dismissed because you are not recognized as a woman(identifying/presenting as anything other than female).

People say history classes study the history of men, which I understand the comment, but I havent seen any that study history through the lens of how their identities as men formed their actions/perceptions.

I was SOOOOO happy when I was in the convenience store the other day and I heard on the TV playing in the background that Canada was going to begin incorporating information about different genders/gender perception in primary school sex education. I was so surprised that Canada would take such a big step, dont know what actual content they were pushing though.

As in...the five genders?

Originally Posted by lorend

As in...the five genders?

To put gender, sex, or sexuality into easily defined limits really makes no sense. Sure if you need to, for some reason, it might be useful, but the whole idea of it is approaching the problem from the wrong side. The idea that these perceptions are discrete points on a number line is insane. There are so many factors that go into these identity groups that even a limitless multi-dimentional vector space seems like not enough </hyperbole>. But you get what I mean. Trying to fit into a box always causes problems. Boxes are just cages without windows </infinitely deep comment>

Originally Posted by sniderj

I recently read an interesting article on a concept referred to as "Male Abortion". I can't find the one I read, but Google it and you will find a wealth of information.

In its essence, the concept argues that men should have the right to relieve themselves of their fatherly duties shortly after conception, in order to balance the gender playing field. Women have the option of keeping the baby, putting it up for adoption, and getting an abortion. The argument goes that men should logically be able to make a similar decision, and not be at the whim of their female counterparts. (The man can't force the woman to do anything, but if she keeps it, he can absolve himself of responsibility).

And if a couple actually PLANNED to have a baby and the male backs out once the "going gets tough"?

I agree if it's a mistake on both ends then yea, both people should be given the option to opt out... but we all know that's never gonna happen. Because of all that emotional stuff that apparently goes with being pregnant that femalse have to go through. -rolls eyes-



Anyways, in regards to the actual topic at hand...I think it's a decent idea solely because I DESPISE how there's courses geared towards women and their history yet none for men, even though we "pride" ourselves on gender neutrality. -rolls eyes-

Do I think it'll be popular? Not at all. I think women take women's courses because they feel victimized/they're insecure/want to blame someone/ etc. Men don't feel like this. What purpose would there be for them to take a men's course? If there's no emotional weight to the subject for them, then they can just google any thing they needed/wanted to know.

And I don't imagine any females taking a course like that ANY time soon, especially if they have any sort of inkling of feminism inside them.

(-gets ready for the influx of attacks-)

They already have male studies; its called history.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

To put gender, sex, or sexuality into easily defined limits really makes no sense. Sure if you need to, for some reason, it might be useful, but the whole idea of it is approaching the problem from the wrong side. The idea that these perceptions are discrete points on a number line is insane. There are so many factors that go into these identity groups that even a limitless multi-dimentional vector space seems like not enough </hyperbole>. But you get what I mean. Trying to fit into a box always causes problems. Boxes are just cages without windows </infinitely deep comment>

So you haven't heard of the five genders then? It was a reading for one of my anthro classes (I think 2E03?) years ago. If I'm not mistaken this is the article: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html (that textbook is no longer in Hamilton, so I can't check).

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
http://genderfork.com/2009/the-bugis-five-genders/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/fs.html

Originally Posted by rcrw88

They already have male studies; its called history.

From your profile it looks like you're in engineering, so Im assuming you've taken a lot of history classes for your major right? Can you explain why history is male studies?

Originally Posted by jo87

From your profile it looks like you're in engineering, so Im assuming you've taken a lot of history classes for your major right? Can you explain why history is male studies?

From your profile it looks like your at least 19 years old. You do know what a joke is right? There's no need to get all defensive

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

From your profile it looks like your at least 19 years old. You do know what a joke is right? There's no need to get all defensive

Well from your reaction there it looks like you're maybe 5? No need to attack, sometimes it's hard to distinguish whats a joke and what isn't on a message board.