[Americas]

There is something ironic about posters from this board shaming a scholar that researches and writes almost exclusively on (black) men and masculinity though.

[Americas]

(05-13-2015 04:59 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

You should only be able to major in STEM and mabey cognitive psychology, everything else should be a class not even a department, just a class. If there is no practical application then what is the point in paying to learn it? Gender Studies, and critical theory are just degrees in complaining about shit.

You think there is not practical application to disciplines such as economics, sociology, geography, political science, psychology, and history?

That just seems, well, ridiculous.

[Atlanta Man]

(05-13-2015 05:08 PM)Americas Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 04:59 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

You should only be able to major in STEM and mabey cognitive psychology, everything else should be a class not even a department, just a class. If there is no practical application then what is the point in paying to learn it? Gender Studies, and critical theory are just degrees in complaining about shit.

You think there is not practical application to disciplines such as economics, sociology, geography, political science, psychology, and history?

That just seems, well, ridiculous.

Have a class or two in it if it interests you, but going into debt for it and not being able to obtain a job in the field is just a bad investment. If you really like psychology, become a psychiatrist and really do well (one requires and MD and real science, the other does not.).

[Fortis]

(05-13-2015 05:08 PM)Americas Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 04:59 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

You should only be able to major in STEM and mabey cognitive psychology, everything else should be a class not even a department, just a class. If there is no practical application then what is the point in paying to learn it? Gender Studies, and critical theory are just degrees in complaining about shit.

You think there is not practical application to disciplines such as economics, sociology, geography, political science, psychology, and history?

That just seems, well, ridiculous.

I don't think he's saying they don't have practical applications, but when was the last time you ever heard anyone say, "I'm really looking to hire a new Poly sci major fresh of out college?"

Most of those guys end up going straight into law school to bolster their studies with something that will get them paid.

[Americas]

(05-13-2015 05:15 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

Have a class or two in it if it interests you, but going into debt for it and not being able to obtain a job in the field is just a bad investment. If you really like psychology, become a psychiatrist and really do well (one requires and MD and real science, the other does not.)

That's a false dichotomy. I'm a graduate student in one of the aforementioned disciplines and I don't have any debt and am employed.

[Americas]

(05-13-2015 05:19 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

I don't think he's saying they don't have practical applications, but when was the last time you ever heard anyone say, "I'm really looking to hire a new Poly sci major fresh of out college?"

Most of those guys end up going straight into law school to bolster their studies with something that will get them paid.

But it doesn't really make sense the way he is explaining himself. The overarching premise of his post was that these disciplines are useless. But they're not. And he stated that there shouldn't even be departments of these disciplines, well where is the research supposed to take place?

[Atlanta Man]

(05-13-2015 05:25 PM)Americas Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 05:15 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

Have a class or two in it if it interests you, but going into debt for it and not being able to obtain a job in the field is just a bad investment. If you really like psychology, become a psychiatrist and really do well (one requires and MD and real science, the other does not.)

That's a false dichotomy. I'm a graduate student in one of the aforementioned disciplines and I don't have any debt and am employed.

You are the exception, not the rule.

[Americas]

(05-13-2015 05:27 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

You are the exception, not the rule.

Not really. There are thousands of graduate students (and graduates) in my discipline that are in similar positions.

[Fortis]

(05-13-2015 05:27 PM)Americas Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 05:19 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

I don't think he's saying they don't have practical applications, but when was the last time you ever heard anyone say, "I'm really looking to hire a new Poly sci major fresh of out college?"

Most of those guys end up going straight into law school to bolster their studies with something that will get them paid.

But it doesn't really make sense the way he is explaining himself. The overarching premise of his post was that these disciplines are useless. But they're not. And he stated that there shouldn't even be departments of these disciplines, well where is the research supposed to take place?

For the record, I was a literature major with a specialization in the Classics. So I'm not your enemy

You're a graduate student or have a graduate degree, right? That is what I'm saying. What do you have a degree in and would it have enough merit on its own to land you a job in this market?

I am pro humanities departments. Some of the smartest people on my Campus worked in the Humanities departments. Guys who were multi-lingual scholars who translated ancient Greek and Latin for big $$$ with publishers. They were also just brilliant and amazing people.

I DO think you can make money in some weird fields, but I would hesitate before telling a 17 year old that he should take out loans to study psychology with no plan to advance himself beyond an undergraduate degree. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

I think it is a crime that Humanities departments are being phased out in universities across the country. I learned more life lessons reading the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" than I did reading any book that has come out in the last 500 years. Having a brilliant professor guide me through those books and explain certain things no doubt contributed to my experiences.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-13-2015 05:06 PM)Americas Wrote:  

There is something ironic about posters from this board shaming a scholar that researches and writes almost exclusively on (black) men and masculinity though.

There is nothing "ironic" about it unless the irony is that posters on this board waste a second of their time thinking about this bitch and her worthless "research".

[Americas]

(05-13-2015 05:47 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

For the record, I was a literature major with a specialization in the Classics. So I'm not your enemy

You're a graduate student or have a graduate degree, right? That is what I'm saying. What do you have a degree in and would it have enough merit on its own to land you a job in this market?

I am pro humanities departments. Some of the smartest people on my Campus worked in the Humanities departments. Guys who were multi-lingual scholars who translated ancient Greek and Latin for big $$$ with publishers. They were also just brilliant and amazing people.

I DO think you can make money in some weird fields, but I would hesitate before telling a 17 year old that he should take out loans to study psychology with no plan to advance himself beyond an undergraduate degree. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

I think it is a crime that Humanities departments are being phased out in universities across the country. I learned more life lessons reading the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" than I did reading any book that has come out in the last 500 years. Having a brilliant professor guide me through those books and explain certain things no doubt contributed to my experiences.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just don't feel like that was what the other poster was getting at.

I have a degree in political science. I will finish my doctorate eventually in the future.

Although my degree isn't lucrative by any means, it affords me with similar opportunities that any number of bachelor degrees from the STEMs such as Biology, Chemistry, or pure Mathematics would.

I don't believe in student debt (or any debt for that matter) but I also don't recommend people go to university based solely on job prospects.

I don't believe there is any sense in going into an engineering program if you don't like physics for example.

I also probably don't align with others on this board in that I don't think much of the humanities and social sciences are useless. Because they aren't. Some fascinating research comes out of those disciplines and people don't realize how much of our world is affected by research done by people who study these things.

That's all I took offense with, the fact that you shouldn't be allowed to get degrees in anything besides STEMs or there shouldn't be any departments in the humanities and social sciences. Because that position is completely asinine.

(05-13-2015 05:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

There is nothing "ironic" about it unless the irony is that posters on this board waste a second of their time thinking about this bitch and her worthless "research".

It's ironic in the sense that a manosphere forum would shame a professor that researches masculinity as opposed to the countless other academics that could be potential targets.

Not that what she said isn't retarded, but there is some humour there don't you think?

I also wouldn't say it's worthless. I don't care about her research whatsoever but that doesn't mean it's worthless.

Here is the only thing she has published so far is anyone wants to read it:

http://rmsiii.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/7...Grundy.pdf (not sure if this is accessible or not because I am on a VPN).

[Fortis]

Fair enough, We might disagree on going to school for money alone, but I see where you're coming from.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-13-2015 06:13 PM)Americas Wrote:  

It's ironic in the sense that a manosphere forum would shame a professor that researches masculinity as opposed to the countless other academics that could be potential targets.

Not that what she said isn't retarded, but there is some humour there don't you think?

Yes, I know that is what you meant, and my point is that there is nothing ironic about it because the ostensible subject of her so-called "research" is entirely irrelevant since that "research" is really no research at all and is indeed as worthless as anything could possibly be. It matters not one whit if the subject is "masculinity" or "femininity" or age discrimination in the US Postal Service. It's all the same nonsense.

(05-13-2015 06:13 PM)Americas Wrote:  

I also wouldn't say it's worthless. I don't care about her research whatsoever but that doesn't mean it's worthless.

Here is the only thing she has published so far is anyone wants to read it:

http://rmsiii.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/7...Grundy.pdf (not sure if this is accessible or not because I am on a VPN).

Here is the opening paragraph from that link:

Quote:

This qualitative study explores formations of masculinity among students at a historically black all-male college, offering insights into how the institution crafts the manhood of its students in accordance with gender and class ideologies about black male respectability, heteronormativity, and male hegemony.

Are you still going to say that this piece of politicized boilerplate gobbledygook is anything but utterly worthless garbage written for the sole purpose of getting this bitch an academic sinecure from which she can continue to waste time and money, and poison minds to the limited extent she can?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Quote:

In other recent tweets, she said, "Deal with your white (expletive), white people. slavery is a (asterisk)YALL(asterisk) thing,"

OK - despite the obvious disadvantage that blacks had in US & European history, the situation is not nearly as black and white as sold.

Only 1,5% of whites EVER OWNED slaves at the height of US slavery.
Even worse - more prosperous blacks later on could and did own other black slaves:

Quote:

An estimated 3,000 blacks owned a total of 20,000 black slaves in the year 1860. One study concluded that 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves, which is a far higher percentage than that of free whites who owned slaves.

http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread....ut-SLAVERY

Another important little known fact is that the first 500.000 slaves in the US were white - and no - they were not indentured servants - they were real slaves:





I read through excerpts of the book and actually at one time the price for black slaves was 10 times (!) as high as for the mostly Irish & Scottish smaller, less healthy whites slaves. They began to interbreed the white and black slaves and some states even prohibited that practice by law, because it undercut the African black slave trade.

Quote:

Although your textbooks are silent about it, most historians agree that two-thirds of ALL whites came to the colonies in some form of bondage. Legal papers on both sides of the ocean referred to them as "slaves." White slaves outnumbered black slaves in America throughout the 1600s.

Quote:

Hundreds of thousands of white slaves were kidnapped and brought to America; their middle-passage death rates were comparable to those of black slaves; they were sold at auction and traded for livestock, they were routinely beaten—sometimes to death—and an estimated one half of them died before gaining freedom. It's possible that more whites came to America against their will than blacks. Historians from both ends of the political spectrum say that white slaves were treated worse than black slaves.

The descendants of the white slaves - partly Cajun - settled in certain areas in the South and then later during the civil war refused to fight for the plantation owners, because some of them still remembered being enslaved by the very same owners for whom they would have had to fight.

I am not excusing slavery at all here - it is a fucked up unethical practice and all cultures should ban it, but I consider the slavery practiced by the Muslim cultures by far more destructive.

Quote:

Throughout history, every color of the rainbow has owned slaves and been enslaved. The dictionary tells us that the root word of "slave" is "Slav," because Slavic peoples—who are REALLY pale and white—were the primary slave population throughout the Middle Ages. And though your teachers will never tell you this, there have been long stretches of history where Africans have owned white people as slaves! How do you like THEM apples? The empire of Carthage transported white slaves to Africa. The African Moors ruled Spain for 500 years and sent white Christian slaves to Egypt. And poor, defenseless white kids—just like you!—were kidnapped by Muslims during the Children's Crusade and sold into Egyptian slavery.

Quote:

• ARABS: The word "Abed" means "slave" in Arabic. It also means "black." The "Holy Land" of the Middle East has hosted far more African slaves than North America ever did.

Ah - but yes the "oppressive" white males are the biggest scum on earth. As far as I see it, it was the white males on Earth which ushered in our current civilization, they did plenty of shit, but at least they got that right.

Sounds as if someone is mixing feminism with the usual historical navel-gazing. It is a sad time when a university professor can make statements like that. But God forbid one of them mentions that the rape statistic of 1 in 5 is wrong or that there are gender specific interests or lack of in STEM. Then that guy would be fired quickly.

We should rise above those things by now and just look at each person individually and assess that being on the usual meritocratic measures. I for one can recognize a stupid asshole in any race or gender. I don't need blanket statements & faulty preconceived notions to do that.

But at least let's end it on a positive note:



WB and discuss the issue over some drinks. She is a hot slim woman and we can differ on a few points - certainly cute enough in my book.

[Americas]

(05-13-2015 06:30 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Yes, I know that is what you meant, and my point is that there is nothing ironic about it because the ostensible subject of her so-called "research" is entirely irrelevant since that "research" is really no research at all and is indeed as worthless as anything could possibly be. It matters not one whit if the subject is "masculinity" or "femininity" or age discrimination in the US Postal Service. It's all the same nonsense.

Are you still going to say that this piece of politicized boilerplate gobbledygook is anything but utterly worthless garbage written for the sole purpose of getting this bitch an academic sinecure from which she can continue to waste time and money, and poison minds to the limited extent she can?

I don't think it's worthless garbage.

[The Lizard of Oz]

If you don't think a "study" by a female grad student using the boilerplate SJW phrases "gender and class ideologies" and "heteronormativity and male hegemony" in the very first paragraph is the very definition of worthless garbage, then there is nothing more to say.

[Suits]

(05-13-2015 06:33 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

....

But at least let's end it on a positive note:



WB and discuss the issue over some drinks. She is a hot slim woman and we can differ on a few points - certainly cute enough in my book.

But what if she wants to order appetizers?

[Fortis]

I just read through that Link that Americas put up. Read at your own risk. I did my best to work through it and be objective, but whenever I start reading "heternormative" and "I'm an unapologetic feminist" I immediately think "who gives a fuck? What does that actually have to do with your research?" If you're that feminist I should be able to tell by your writing. Thanks."

I'm tired of people using academic and objective formats to push their stupid fucking agendas. I am not as hard on feminists as some of the men on this forum, but I just want to read someone's points and arrive at a conclusion on my own, not get spoon fed their ideological basis before reading their half-baked nonsense that doesn't even arrive at any real conclusions. All she does is interview a bunch of black men who didn't enjoy their time at Moorehouse college in order to suggest that the patriarchal system there MIGHT be harmful and exclusionary to homosexuals and non-conformists.

Really? You thought homosexuals and non-conformists would have a great time at a traditional school focused on imparting traditional morals? No fucking shit. I didn't need to read 20 pages to learn that. Strangely absent from her assessment of Moorehouse were any interviews from guys who actually enjoyed going to the school. Talk about biased.

Shit like this is why I hate the literary criticism industry. Any hack can perform "critical analysis" on a book, especially if their employment hinges upon pumping out insipid crap.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-13-2015 07:20 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

All she does is interview a bunch of black men who didn't enjoy their time at Moorehouse college in order to suggest that the patriarchal system there MIGHT be harmful and exclusionary to homosexuals and non-conformists.

Damn, what a surprise that this is what this bitch's "research" about "masculinity" amounts to.

[Fortis]

To her credit, she does manage to state that many of the best and brightest black men have come out of that school, so she can't quite put the nail in the coffin and damn the institution, but you can tell that all she wants to say is, "This great school should eschew its traditionally masculine ethics and embrace the asscocking and butthexting! lozlozlozlzolzozlozlozlzozlozlzo."

Women hate a Boy's club that has a set of standards that is enforced from the lowliest freshman to the president. She really hated it.

Final Edit: I should have gone to that school. Sounds awesome.

[Eskhander]

Yes we are.
And in an effort to show how better you are than us, both morally and organizationally, you should simply exile us to some empty land and have your own society while we have ours.
And anyone who wants to live in either society, and is allowed to by their would-be hosts, should be permitted to.
Seems fair to me.

[Captainstabbin]

(05-13-2015 02:21 PM)Grange Wrote:  

Yes, that crazy European "race".

[Quintus Curtius]

I have a hard time accepting the fact that a woman--any woman from any race or national origin--is qualified to write about "masculinity."

It would be like me trying to write about pregnancy or child bearing. I might be able to write some clinical tripe, but there would be no vigor to the writing. It would be dull, flat, and lifeless. This is what women sound like when they try to write about masculinity.

The only possible exception I can think of are those women who are true anthropologists or ethnologists who do real field-work among foreign cultures, nations, or tribes. But those are rare. And they're actually scientists.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-13-2015 06:59 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 06:33 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

WB and discuss the issue over some drinks. She is a hot slim woman and we can differ on a few points - certainly cute enough in my book.

But what if she wants to order appetizers?

Would pay for appetizers and invite her home for some dessert and a nightcap - followed only by this:

[Fortis]

Well said. I wanted to say something similar. I have no clue what it's like to be a woman, and I don't presume to. Her study of masculinity comes across as unduly divorced from reality. It was a bit like watching a discovery channel special on wolves but the scientist is blind and has never seen or interacted with wolves. Needless to say, I found her plays at being scholarly cute.