University ‘Men’s Project’ Seeks to Redefine What Masculinity Really Means

This. I would prefer to see a course teaching men how to withstand the brutal reality of 21stC life (which is not working in their favour ... either at home or in the world). And the first thing I'd teach is that it's not by acquiescing to the demand that they become our BFFs, it's by retaining the detachment from 'feelz' and that little bit of remoteness many of our fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. As a straight female, I'm the first to admit that it's nice to have a man who will sit and listen to my beeatching in the same way girlfriends do, but it's only lovely for about a week, then it's creepy and weird. It's also exhausting, because it means he expects the same level of feelzie interactions which are normally reserved for intermittent socialising with GFs. If I spend my days talking my head off to kids, GFs, family members, the general public etc, I don't want to spend the evening around a man who wants to talk about his feelings, or who wants to know every detail of my day, and how I felt about it. I want a man who will nod, offer a not toooo interested "how was your day?", give me a bear hug, then p!ss off until dinner is ready.

 

If the "young lady" shoots and kills her attacker is it still okay to say she is just a little bit butch?

 

I am unaware of any colleges offering such courses. Any delusion that they do may be attributable to hysteria of behalf on the insecure.

If the need for such a course is perceived and sufficient demand for it exists, I see no need to pretend that I am acquainted with its content so that I can malign it.

 

I love you. Want to get married?

 

Well perhaps not for you, Sam. I think most boys raised by men with more confidence than your father evidently had, will know from about age 4. Assuming you had a (present and accountable) father, of course.

 

Scum and filth is all that ilk are.

 

Too late

 

Damn. Missed it byyyy that much.

 

You have me confused with Thomas Jefferson, perhaps. It was he who averred: "The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate."

Congratulations on earning your degree in feminism, by the way.

I feel that a university's responsibility is to inculcate knowledge in a wide range of disciplines rather than function as a trade school - for which there is also a need.

I do not feel that either I - or any one with an agenda other than comprehensive pedagogy - should be permitted to censor a syllabus and restrict it to his personal fancies

.

 

Well, then you should be opposed to these courses which stigmatize males for being male. (that is if you care about people, including males).

 

Well, the best way to remove the "toxic effects" of masculinity on these campuses would be mandatory male castration and hormone therapy.

Muslims typically castrated their Black male slaves.

This is called gender equality---I think.

 

Those who wish to restrict higher learning to fit their agenda should, at least, be familiarized with Jefferson's advocacy of academic freedom in the matter:

"What are the objects of an useful American [college] education? Classical knowledge, modern languages and chiefly French, Spanish, and Italian; Mathematics, Natural philosophy, Natural history, Civil history, and Ethics. In Natural philosophy, I mean to include Chemistry and Agriculture, and in Natural history, to include Botany, as well as the other branches of those departments … "Agriculture... is a science of the very first order. It counts among its handmaids the most respectable sciences, such as Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, Mechanics, Mathematics generally, Natural History, Botany. In every College and University, a professorship of agriculture, and the class of its students, might be honored as the first."

"I am not fully informed of the practices at Harvard, but there is one from which we shall certainly vary, although it has been copied, I believe, by nearly every college and academy in the United States. That is, the holding the students all to one prescribed course of reading, and disallowing exclusive application to those branches only which are to qualify them for the particular vocations to which they are destined. We shall, on the contrary, allow them uncontrolled choice in the lectures they shall choose to attend, and require elementary qualification only, and sufficient age."

Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1823​

 

Good God, man. You can't just say, "only those with a degree in teaching should weigh in on teaching."

It's absolutely absurd. Tax payers financing a gold mine of guaranteed funds for academia, with zero curriculum oversight, degrees requiring 3xs what is needed to start in said field, tenured pseudo intellectuals that have been stuck in their 'elbow patch bubble' for so long they forgot there's actually supposed to be some value in what they're saying, and generation after generation now in debt - it is a racket, unbridled.

 

What if you found out that schools were actually turning down men who wanted to teach classes with male centric themes?

 

No, that is what you just said.

Rather, I advocate a comprehensive respect for pedagogy, not a parochial one in which an elite dictate, "No! You shall not teach that!"
If there is an academic demand for any particular discipline, there should be an effort to satisfy it.

I don't sit in prejudgement of any course. If there is no yearning for knowledge by students in whatever the subject might be, the course will cease to exist.

 

And there you have it. Another example of someone claiming to care about people while it is obvious they only seek the appearance of caring. A self-proclaimed liberal advocating discrimination based on gender.

 

What a bigoted sexist statement to make.

 

True, but it is paradoxical that in order to make an educated decision of the value of the course, one would have to be already educated in the field, and perhaps in a number of fields in order to make a comparison. SO there is some merit in pre-judgement by externals

 

A weekend of John Wayne, Burt Reynolds, and Clint Eastwood movies should be enough to teach those kids what real masculinity is all about.

Oh, and make sure the fridge is stocked with plenty of coors beer, and there is a dominos that delivers nearby.

If anybody tries ordering a veggie pizza or complains about the beer, they get a failing grade. Anybody asking if the channel can be changed so that they can watch The View will be given an atomic wedgie and then forced to take the long walk of shame through a gauntlet of snapping towels expertly wielded by the football team.

 

When I was trying to win the heart of my first sugar baby, I had a buddy who would caution that I don't want to be her gay friend. Same idea just different words. We had an active and rewarding sex life but I was walking a fine line took his warning to heart. The moment he said it I knew exactly what he meant. If we connect on a certain level she will no longer look at me sexually.

It is interesting to note that a significant percentage of women start to lose their sex drive as soon as they feel safe and secure in a relationship. A man can do all the right things and sabotage his own sex life.

 

Academia once specialized in serious topics. Liberals have essentially downgraded college and are now happy with their subpar degrees(high tuition costs, etc.) Plato, Aristotle and the others would be gravely depressed at the state of Academia today. As am I. I actually chose a real major(Business Administration). I was making fun of Liberals with the whole 'degree in Feminism' crap.

 

Some might wish to proscribe academic topics in advance; I'd rather trust to the free market of ideas to determine their viability.

 

There are some who demean Business as an academic discipline, but it is as respectable as Anthropology, Greek, Philosophy, Sociology, Latin, Geography, Military History, Comparative Literature, Paleography, etc., etc., etc.

Petty, interdisciplinary prejudices neither promote nor exhibit the value of knowledge, nor the breadth of perspective it imparts.

 

No, see, all of those things are philosophical abstracts of something. The Philosophy student can use his degree to return to Academia as a professor. The Greek person became bilingual. The Sociology student just got a fast track to being a psychologist(which is surprisingly, a well paying job) Even Comparative Literature would fast track somebody into the drama and arts.

Business as an example, is a field that geared me towards a career in the profession. The knowledge I have(as long as I get income to use it with, damn it lol), will help me in the business world and I still intend to make a good business out of it. "Social Studies" is NOT an abstract of anything, but itself. It's comparatively a waste of time. Everyone who does NOT attend these classes has prejudice against them.

We won't admit it, we won't say it. I'm just too egotistic, philosophical and self-assured to say it out loud: Social Studies disgraces Academia. So let me repeat: The Ancients and Philosopher greats would be ashamed at this mockery happening in the US. And as proof, we're not among the top countries collegiately for a reason.