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?

We, actually in history, often call our program the male equivalent to Women's Studies because, for so much of history, the entire globe has been religiously, politically, socially, militarily, and culturally hegemonic-ally dominated by men.

The majority of civilization has been altered by the backward and pointless assumption that men are somehow better than women. Only very recently have a sizable minority of global leaders and history makers been women. It is high time men and women were put on the equal footing everyone deserves.

And to that point, there never will be a "Male Studies" course for the same reason there will be no "White Studies" course.

Such a class would be too easily seen as a front group for a far more sinister misogynistic sentiment among the instructors and attendees. Perception is everything and, even if one means well with a Male Studies course, it will never happen for what people will think of it as.

My opinion? Sounds like an incredibly pointless class.

Originally Posted by rcrw88

They already have male studies; its called history.

Damn it! I was hoping someone hadn't already said that...

Originally Posted by jo87

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.

Yes, you are absolutely right, I am 5 years old

Originally Posted by lorend

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

okay, seriously, I have to go bomb a calc exam in 30 minutes, so I will keep this brief. The idea of slotting people into gender categories is useless in most contexts. Really, why do we need to sort people? This isnt me going all hippy or anything, it is a serious question, Why do we need to sort gender? If there is a specific purpose, that purpose will expose the requirements necessary for separating people into those groups, but there is no large sweeping set of rules that apply to every situation. The idea of separating people into different gender groups is just something that is so deeply ingrained into society that people cant fathom how to just let go.

The movement from 2 genders to another larger discrete number reminds me of someone reacting to the comment "black people steal" by saying "no way! that is a stereotype, black people dont steal". It is a reactionary answer that doesnt step back and really analyze the problem. To reach any constructive end, the responder should realize that the likelihood that you are a thief is not a function of skin color. So going from 2 genders to 5 to any discrete number is changing the problem around without stepping back and realizing the assumptions used to solve the problem are erroneous.

We, actually in history, often call our program the male equivalent to Women's Studies because, for so much of history, the entire globe has been religiously, politically, socially, militarily, and culturally hegemonic-ally dominated by men.

Women's studies isnt just "here is some shit women did". Any good class includes a lot on how ideas of and perception of gender at the time influenced these things. "History" classes are looking at the events that happened and their significance, but it is rarely done through a gender studies lens. People are confusing a study of "what happened under a patriarchal world" with "what happened under a patriarchal world in relations to perception of gender, gender identity, and teh pros and cons associated with those systems.


time to go fail calc, haza!

Originally Posted by lawleypop

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

It would be limited in a similar way to the limitations on physical abortions (I don't know what they are... within the first 2 trimesters or something?). The going doesn't get tough until the little parasite dislodges from mama's womb and starts making noise and eating things. At that point, under this proposed amendment, it would be too late.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

okay, seriously, I have to go bomb a calc exam in 30 minutes, so I will keep this brief. The idea of slotting people into gender categories is useless in most contexts. Really, why do we need to sort people? This isnt me going all hippy or anything, it is a serious question, Why do we need to sort gender? If there is a specific purpose, that purpose will expose the requirements necessary for separating people into those groups, but there is no large sweeping set of rules that apply to every situation. The idea of separating people into different gender groups is just something that is so deeply ingrained into society that people cant fathom how to just let go.

The movement from 2 genders to another larger discrete number reminds me of someone reacting to the comment "black people steal" by saying "no way! that is a stereotype, black people dont steal". It is a reactionary answer that doesnt step back and really analyze the problem. To reach any constructive end, the responder should realize that the likelihood that you are a thief is not a function of skin color. So going from 2 genders to 5 to any discrete number is changing the problem around without stepping back and realizing the assumptions used to solve the problem are erroneous.

I do and don't agree with you.

There have been studies that drug treatments (AIDS treatments specifically) affect the sexes differently, so in that case it is necessary. Also, if you're female (sex) there are certain questions you are asked when you go in for exams and treatment in hospitals/emergency.

However, there is a difference between sex and gender...so I don't know if this just makes things more complicated? The correlation I guess I see is between inter-sexed persons, as mentioned in the info I provided.

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

Yes, you are absolutely right, I am 5 years old

Me too! Or so most people who know me say.

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?

I know this wasn't directed at me (and the person was joking anyway), but I think someone could make a decent argument that history studies is similar to male studies.

I'm in Political Science but I've taken a lot of history courses at Mac (so many I could have minored in it), and very very rarely was there discussion of women. To get an idea of which courses I've taken ...

Europe: French Revolution
Religion and Society
Early Modern France
Global History in the 20th Century
History of Ancient Greece
U.S. History since the Civil War
and others

I don't remember ever focussing on women in any of those classes. I'm sure the lectures and readings don't purposly focus on men instead of women, but we never really talked about women. And I don't think it was because there were no influential/important women at those times in history.

I don't think history studies is the exact same as male studies, because male studies would involve discussing of men in society, media, etc., not just history. But when history classes only talk about men, I can see why it would be difficult for people to think otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the only reason there are women study courses is because women felt they werent being treated with equality... so they had to make a course to prove it.
So... when in history have men been subject to sexism...?

...

Exactly.
So why does there need to be a course about it? What the **** would they teach?

Didn't they end up getting rid of Women's Studies at Guelph because of lack of interest? I'm pretty certain this would draw even less interest than Women's Studies...

If I'm wrong though, and this somehow could draw people, I don't think it would be a big deal to run it. We've got plenty of other useless courses.

Originally Posted by Fish

I'm pretty sure the only reason there are women study courses is because women felt they werent being treated with equality... so they had to make a course to prove it.
So... when in history have men been subject to sexism...?

...

Exactly.
So why does there need to be a course about it? What the **** would they teach?

Over the years its become acceptable to bash men and label them as the bad ones. That kind of attitude cant continue. To say men dont face discrimination is very ignorant.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

Women's studies isnt just "here is some shit women did". Any good class includes a lot on how ideas of and perception of gender at the time influenced these things. "History" classes are looking at the events that happened and their significance, but it is rarely done through a gender studies lens. People are confusing a study of "what happened under a patriarchal world" with "what happened under a patriarchal world in relations to perception of gender, gender identity, and teh pros and cons associated with those systems.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by jo87

Over the years its become acceptable to bash men and label them as the bad ones. That kind of attitude cant continue. To say men dont face discrimination is very ignorant.

One of the harmful forms of this discrimination that you continue to see in idiotic sitcoms is that "men can't take care of the home or children." The best argument I've heard about this came from feminists talking about how to create gender equality and reduce the wage gap between men and women.

Until men are seen as competent caregivers and managers of the home, women will never gain equality in the workplace since they will be naturally expected to stay home with the children. Until it's seen as normal for men to do this, women will continue to face the wage gap. :(

Originally Posted by Bobble

One of the harmful forms of this discrimination that you continue to see in idiotic sitcoms is that "men can't take care of the home or children." The best argument I've heard about this came from feminists talking about how to create gender equality and reduce the wage gap between men and women.

Until men are seen as competent caregivers and managers of the home, women will never gain equality in the workplace since they will be naturally expected to stay home with the children. Until it's seen as normal for men to do this, women will continue to face the wage gap. :(

To be fair, I am ragingly inept at all things house/child related... but that's not necessarily because I'm a man... just because I'm lazy and don't like small animals making noise around me.

Originally Posted by c.erl

My opinion? Sounds like an incredibly pointless class.

It would be pointless if it is presented in the manner you have presented it as.

However, if it was a class aimed at the issues that men face, which don't exactly make it to the mainstream, and isn't a look into the history of men's issues, then it becomes more fruitful.

There are plenty of problems unique to men: most significantly related to health and sexuality. The current mindset in the world is that premature ejaculation, delayed ejaculation and erectile disfunction are stuff that happens to "other guys".

Moreover, the whole gender stereotype puts men into weird places where they make assumptions of how to act based on media. Strong, fearless, brave men are always portrayed on screen, but the reality is not the same.

Male suicide rates are much higher than female suicide rates, and there are many illnesses that affect only men.

A men's studies class would be able to provide good education regarding these matters. Even if it wasn't something to build a career upon, the education we get in grade 5 health does nothing to address the issues the modern man has.