"Male studies"

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226800150348

http://www.news.com.au/national/sout...-1226801378560

The first link may or may not work on your computer. For those who don't here's a rough summary of the story:

Local uni sets up a course on male health and labels it "Men's studies." The course is linked to an allied health setup and/or nursing/medicine, so people who wish to specialise in men's health can actually do so (and yes, there is a GP near my house that specialises in this, who I see if I can't see my regular GP). Alternately, they could specialise in other areas relating to males. (such as politics, teaching etc.)

Then the information comes out about who's actually going to be lecturing and what the topics are ACTUALLY about. The topics? Arguing that among other things, women have been favoured in every aspect of their lives over 200-300 years. And that is not a typo! The lecturers are also not from the uni.

Needless to say, the local uni catches onto this (second link) information and clarifies heavily that the only courses that have been approved are courses relating specifically to men's health and promoting healthy lifestyles for men and NOTHING ELSE. Among this, the alleged topics/courses relating to an anti-male bias will not be going ahead.

Cue the said extremists not liking the criticism of said course, calling said criticism lies, corruption and slander and...fascist. That last part made me laugh: fascism has been known for putting "traditional" roles on men and women!


And my thoughts on the course overall:

If you're going to teach a "male studies" course, then please do so. However, please get your facts straight and focus on actual studies rather than populist pieces of crap that supposedly play men as the victim since the 1700's!

[Gravekeeper]

If you're going to teach a "male studies" course, then please do so. However, please get your facts straight and focus on actual studies rather than populist pieces of crap that supposedly play men as the victim since the 1700's!

But, isn't that exactly what the uni is doing in the second link? >.>

It doesn't seem like any of these lunatics were ever actually approved for anything.

[Canarr]

The claim was:

US "anti-feminist" lawyer Roy Den Hollander said yesterday that he was preparing a course that looked at how the law favours females when it comes to employment, crime, domestic relations, property, divorce and illegitimate children.
"The course is really looking back at 200 or 300 years of history and how the law treated guys and girls - and it treated girls more favourably than guys and it still does, maybe even more so.”

Well, if you cherry-pick your laws, it would be correct... in theory. For instance, any law obliging employers to hire a minimum percentage of women is, strictly speaking, a law that favors women over men, since it grants women a right that men don’t have. The fact that the need for such a law actually comes from existing discrimination against women in the workplace is, of course, conveniently ignored.

Whether such laws could actually be found as far back as the 1700s, I don’t know; but I have to admit, if such a course were offered, I would be tempted to sign up just for curiosity’s sake – to see if he can actually deliver on his claim.

[fireheart17]

The fact that the need for such a law actually comes from existing discrimination against women in the workplace is, of course, conveniently ignored.

This is more than likely where the argument would be going. There is a women's study major available at my uni, but surprisingly very few "women's study"-based topics: a good chunk of the course is either politics, international studies, media, sociology or psychology-based.

Whether such laws could actually be found as far back as the 1700s, I don’t know; but I have to admit, if such a course were offered, I would be tempted to sign up just for curiosity’s sake – to see if he can actually deliver on his claim.

I suspect very few people would've signed up for that course. The few that would've, would've likely been fresh off the high school bus so to speak and very easily influenced.

From what I've gathered since, the lecturers do not particularly like the fact that the course has been completely scrapped/retooled into a men's health course and is not merely the equivalent of a "women's studies" course.

I will agree that the men's health course is at least RELEVANT! There was a huge stink today about a very upmarket department store shutting down their gourmet food section and replacing it with an extended lingerie/socks/underwear section as well as a breast screening clinic. The uproar was of course, about the breast screening clinic. Me not being sure about whether a PSA test (the blood test) can be done in public or not (chemists down here will do health screenings from time to time ie hearing, cholesterol, blood sugar etc.), my retort was simply "Would you REALLY want a digital rectal exam near a place that serves FOOD?"

(the gourmet food section is near a food court)

[Panacea]

Whether such laws could actually be found as far back as the 1700s, I don’t know; but I have to admit, if such a course were offered, I would be tempted to sign up just for curiosity’s sake – to see if he can actually deliver on his claim.

He can't deliver on that claim. Men were the head of the house. If a woman divorced her husband, she lost all rights to her children. It was a powerful incentive for women to stay in bad marriages.

That didn't change until the 60's. I won't say that the pendulum hasn't swung too far in the other direction (there are cases where men get well and truly screwed by the courts), but that's a recent phenomenon.

I think there is a real need for courses on men's health issues: physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. Men don't think the way women do, and that's a GOOD thing; it gives men a different perspective on the world that is valuable and should be cherished not derided as it often is.

And a man's physical health issues are very different from women's and deserve attention as well.

But an anti-feminist course just stirs the pot and doesn't address any useful issues.

[siead_lietrathua]

i've heard the arguments about men being put last throughout history. and they aren't all invalid.
main ones seem to be about:
-how men were often forced to be soldiers, which women were often exempt from (depending on culture)
- the idea that men are expected to lay down their lives without a second thought to protect women (women and children first off sinking ships, etc)
- the idea that men are to be providers above all else to their partner and children.

i'm not saying they had it worse then women. but unless they were upperclass, men were also getting a pretty big bit of the shit stick too.

there are other cultural men's issues that DO need to be taught and talked about though. like the inequality of parental rights for men NOW. or the cultural acceptance of male genital mutilation. the inequality in prison treatment (men tend to get harsher sentences for same crimes)

frankly, if women's studies classes can have discussions on how women are getting the shit-end of the stick on equal pay, then a men's studies class should be able to talk about the shit-end they get on divorce settlements.

[fireheart17]

i've heard the arguments about men being put last throughout history. and they aren't all invalid.
main ones seem to be about:
-how men were often forced to be soldiers, which women were often exempt from (depending on culture)
- the idea that men are expected to lay down their lives without a second thought to protect women (women and children first off sinking ships, etc)
- the idea that men are to be providers above all else to their partner and children.

i'm not saying they had it worse then women. but unless they were upperclass, men were also getting a pretty big bit of the shit stick too.

there are other cultural men's issues that DO need to be taught and talked about though. like the inequality of parental rights for men NOW. or the cultural acceptance of male genital mutilation. the inequality in prison treatment (men tend to get harsher sentences for same crimes)

frankly, if women's studies classes can have discussions on how women are getting the shit-end of the stick on equal pay, then a men's studies class should be able to talk about the shit-end they get on divorce settlements.

Except there's a way to do it. The folks in the article were more likely just going to be spouting "TAKE BACK THE STREETS, FIGHT LIKE A MAN, FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BETTER" (ok, maybe not the last one ) and making NO mention of those points above.

[Andara Bledin]

Except there's a way to do it. The folks in the article were more likely just going to be spouting "TAKE BACK THE STREETS, FIGHT LIKE A MAN, FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BETTER" (ok, maybe not the last one ) and making NO mention of those points above.

Shouldn't that last be, "Two legs good, three legs better"?

[Panacea]

i've heard the arguments about men being put last throughout history. and they aren't all invalid.
main ones seem to be about:
-how men were often forced to be soldiers, which women were often exempt from (depending on culture)
- the idea that men are expected to lay down their lives without a second thought to protect women (women and children first off sinking ships, etc)
- the idea that men are to be providers above all else to their partner and children.

There are some historical inaccuracies here.

First of all, while women seldom served as soldiers historically, they were not immune from the effects of war. When a city fell to the enemy, the women were raped and murdered along with the rest of the population.

Women and children first was a Victorian ideal. The first known instance of it was the Titanic sinking, probably because women were considered children in the culture.

Prior to that, women got no special treatment in disasters. It was every man or woman for his or herself. Families might stick together, but a stranger was no more or less likely to put a strange woman ahead of his safety.

Prior to the Victorian age, when women were demoted to the status of children, women were full partners with their husbands in supporting the family. Women often worked in the fields with the men, along with managing the household. The man might be the head of the household, but the women were expected to pull their weight, and so were the kids (read up on the history of child labor).

Our ideas of men as primary breadwinner are NEW ideas: less than 150 years old.

And they don't work very well, which is why we have an epidemic of single parent households. Marriage really only works well when both parents are living up to the roles of parent, and doing the tasks they agree to when they marry. If the woman expects the man to take care of her while she does nothing but spend his money, well, pretty soon he's going to resent it.

If the woman is putting her career before the family, the man will resent it. Of course, the converse is also true (and often overlooked because of the bad idea that the man should be the one to get ahead).

[wolfie]

Women and children first was a Victorian ideal. The first known instance of it was the Titanic sinking

The men of the HMS Birkenhead would dispute that.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

We've also now defined "women and children first" to its specifically seafaring context and the linguistic origin of the phrase. It might be a little on the pie in the sky side to just assume that in 1852 a man said it on a boat and everyone just went along with it because that Cap'n was a trendsetter.

It might be more accurate to say what he was voicing was a pervasive mindset when it came to imminent physical harm (only in a boating context) which gave us that phrase. After all, keep turning back the clock and yes regardless of the fact women and children could die in a war, they were not compelled to fight. The sexist implication that women were too vulnerable for it dictated it.

I wanted to check the study wikipedia had referenced that women and children first may have been the exception but the reference has been removed.

I hate to say it, but these tend to be topics where the ground shifts constantly for political reasons. I remember revisiting the Male Rights Movement page on wikipedia to see it had been totally rewritten from its original form tracking the movement from Feminist roots (that is, dealing with the excess of patriarchy from what would be male priorities) to what it is now which is a view that it was entirely reactionary against feminism itself. I wish I could post the 2006 link from the Internet Wayback machine, but it seems to be malfunctioning over here.

All that to say, the topic tends to be a skeptic's paradise as far as people changing, rewriting, or stacking history to fit their personal view.

[siead_lietrathua]

i've heard the concept of women and children first being used in more than just seafaring terms. locking them in a safe place while the men fight, storm shelters, evacuations, etc all tend to take women before men. men are supposed to be willing to possibly die if it means the chance of a woman living. hell look at modern films. cannonfodder guy stays behind to give herogirl more time to escape. but the variations in historical context is still something worth discussing. plus. there are still men's rights issues in modern times that need to be dealt with properly. especially with divorce/ parenting rights.

so, i repeat, if a women's studies class can talk about women's issues regarding health care, job equality, or etc then a men's studies class should be able to do the same.

[Gravekeeper]

First of all, while women seldom served as soldiers historically, they were not immune from the effects of war. When a city fell to the enemy, the women were raped and murdered along with the rest of the population.

Women fought with the men when a city fell ( Beats standing around waiting to get raped and murdered ). There's actually quite a bit of history in regards to women and combat. Often times as strategists, yes, but in some cultures as standing soldiers as well. Keeping women out of combat seems to be a bit more of a western thing. There are records of female soldiers going back to 2000 years ago in the Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Prior to the Victorian age, when women were demoted to the status of children, women were full partners with their husbands in supporting the family. Women often worked in the fields with the men, along with managing the household. The man might be the head of the household, but the women were expected to pull their weight, and so were the kids (read up on the history of child labor).

The division of labour did not change in the Victorian era. Women were still responsible for most agricultural roles and many industrial ones. Where ever you had child labour, there were women as well be it a factory or a coal mine. The problem with the Victorian era is that a woman legally stopped existing when she married. A marriage was considered a single legal entity, not two people, and the man got full control over it.

They still worked and made wages, but their husband had full financial control. They were mostly restricted to industrial or agricultural work though. The highest they could aspire too outside of that was a teacher or nurse really.

And they don't work very well, which is why we have an epidemic of single parent households.

Yeah, no. You combine an increase in rights of women to seek a divorce + a decrease in education, wealth and access to birth control/abortion, you're going to get single parent households. Its not going to get any better with the GOP fighting tooth and nail to ensure women are nothing more than incubators either.

The US has a 49% unintended pregnancy rate, higher than any other industrialized nation and higher than the world average. Half of the women in the US will have at least one unintended pregnancy by age 45.

and just for a final note, around 10% of adoptions in the US are by single people.

It has everything to do with shifting socio-political norms, wealth, education and women's reproductive rights. Marriage and divorce rates have always fluctuated with these factors along with major historical events.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Since I was raised in one, I don't tend to find the connotation of an
epidemic is a valid reflection of what we have now in regards to single parent households. It's not a disease, it's a choice.

Although that's sort of its own topic altogether. I do think it probably is worth examining. Still, I don't think it's women's access to divorce and education really exclusively responsible either. Tack on the negative hit to men's economic outlooks (the #1 cause of divorce is financial) as well as dispute as to who does what and today's families often struggle for a model. I do think the culture as it exists today is somewhat in "shock" in terms of for the last 100 years at least, our roles today don't match what they did in the past.

I think there was a WSJ article just yesterday about equal time spent working but women's time being more stressful due to time spent with the kids. An odd comment said something I didn't expect, that many of these women actively limit the father's involvement because they believe themselves to have superior parental skills. I thought it was bullshit when I heard it, but being the google junkie I am, sure enough "maternal gatekeeping" was picking up multiple hits. It makes sense when we think of "traditional" roles and outcomes of marriages especially when a male figure can't be the breadwinner. If a man both can't be the primary breadwinner AND can't be considered the primary parent, he's going to look like a deadbeat. Marriages have ended for less.

[Gravekeeper]

Since I was raised in one, I don't tend to find the connotation of an epidemic is a valid reflection of what we have now in regards to single parent households. It's not a disease, it's a choice.

I was raised in one as well. -.-

Still, I don't think it's women's access to divorce and education really exclusively responsible either.

They're not exclusively responsible. I didn't say they were. However, access to divorce and the social acceptability of divorce are big factors. Even in the 80s when my mom divorced my dad she took a lot of flak for it because it just wasn't done.

Tack on the negative hit to men's economic outlooks (the #1 cause of divorce is financial) as well as dispute as to who does what and today's families often struggle for a model.

The #1 cause shifts between finances and death of a spouse. In the case of finances, its not men's economic outlook, its disagreement over how to handle finances. If it was men's economic outlook than finances would fluctuate as a cause for divorce based on the rise and fall of traditional nuclear family gender roles. But it doesn't. Finances as a cause for divorce has been pretty steady for decades regardless.

I thought it was bullshit when I heard it, but being the google junkie I am, sure enough "maternal gatekeeping" was picking up multiple hits. It makes sense when we think of "traditional" roles and outcomes of marriages especially when a male figure can't be the breadwinner.

When it comes to divorce and custody, the legal system is heavily biased towards the mother. So access to the children can very easily become a weapon as the courts will side with her 9 times out of 10 in any dispute.

Even in the case of adoption, single men have a much more difficult time adopting than single women. In some states men are not even permitted to adopt girls, only boys ( Women have no such restriction ). Because clearly they're pedophiles and even if they aren't, how can a man possibly raise a girl? -.-