Why is gender studies dominated by one gender?

I agree but many see it differently.

It's sad but true

You where curious enough to comment. I really did not want to disappoint you.

you rarely disappoint me, and I admire your tenacity, just see things differently

Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. This is the only way to find the truth. It would be boring if we all agreed with one another.

I wish I could vote up a 100! Your response is right on!. This is exactly my experience!

There already is a course on 'humanism,' it's called cultural anthropology.

Did you call out the professor on skewing figures? Because that's the kind of thing that can get a professor reprimanded.
It could be that you're just taking the issue too personally. Men actually did devise a scheme to keep women in a lower social status. It's not like it was just some natural event, it was actually legislated into law.

"Did you call out the professor on skewing figures? Because that's the kind of thing that can get a professor reprimanded."

Not exactly easy since it was a lecture with 4 professors and 200 students. When i say skewing figures i mean they would say things like "30% of women are killed by their spouses/boyfriends" which is of course significant but at the same time they wouldnt provide the number of men killed by their spouses. They used subtle form of data manipulation that most people dont pick up on.

They also used funky logic like saying that work in the home is not valued enough in society and that women should be payed for housework. Who exactly would be the ones paying women for things they do around the house?

"It could be that you're just taking the issue too personally."

Its possible i suppose but i at least try to be open to different ideas. I believe in equality for all people which is supposedly what feminism is about. I just find it rather hypocritical for them to make men in general out to be the bad guys all the time.

"Men actually did devise a scheme to keep women in a lower social status. It's not like it was just some natural event, it was actually legislated into law."

Absolutely true. In cultures all around the world men have generally been the dominant sex since the dawn of history. However the course i took made it out that even today men have scheme behind closed doors to keep women down. While im sure some actually do the fact of the matter is that there isnt a massive conspiracy going on. Hell the class i took didnt mention a single male feminist. Seems just a little one-sided to me.

Are you familiar with VAWA laws, laws dealing with sex crimes, or domestic violence? Are you aware that none require evidence or witnesses? Are you aware all is needed a statement of the "victim" and an innocent man will be found guilty. Are you familiar with the jury instructions in these cases? Man is guilty until proven innocent. Did you know that a woman (let's say an angry wife) can easily send her husband to prison for 20-30 years by simply calling police with the claim she "feels threatened"?
It appears that women actually did devise a scheme to keep men in prisons.

I wouldn't say women devised a scheme, I would say men trapped themselves into their own gender identity. Of course there is gender bias against fathers and towards sex crimes. The issue definitely deserves attention. But overall, women are subjugated far more than men. That's why gender studies is dominated by women.

Yeah, I don't buy the whole 'women should be payed for housework' idea either. I mean, should I get paid for doing my own laundry? From what you describe, the lecture sounded biased. I was lucky enough to have a professor who looked at gender from both perspectives.

I am so tired of your rhetoric. Yes, there is a war against manhood being waged out there, but there is so much more to it than the nonsensical one-sided posts that you continue to flood current with. You discredit a movement that desperately needs credibility.

women's studies courses tend very much to be biased this way, as do ethnic studies, and there is reasoning behind both, but the fact remains that we need gender studies where we examine the social construction of gender roles, as well as racism and its origins, not this one against the other extreme non productive nonsense.

So what do you do to fight the war against manhood?

examine the way we develop and define gender (male and female, plus trans) and how those definitions both serve and enslave us.

Look, I understand where you are coming from and what you are trying to do, but the solution is not trying to balance inequities by pointing out every evil deed done by a female anywhere at anytime. You lose credibility in the big picture and only reinforce the beliefs of those who are already on your side.

I am not perfect and emotions take over sometimes. I see your point. I bring out articles about evil women only to bring the balance. Media is consistently white-wash crimes commuted by women and paint every man as monster BEFORE he is even charged with any crime. I find the Judicial system acting as a corrupt corporation that often favors females.
I no longer recognize America and as a woman myself I am sad, disappointed and even ashamed by the outcome of women movement.

Joe--I almost always agree with your point of view, and this is no exception. I appreciate the fact that you back up what you have to say as well. voted up

Every course you have ever taken, any subject you have ever studied, has been a men's studies program. History, studied literature, curriculum and the whole lot have been dominated by men. Researched, biased and written by men. You are schooled already in male studies and point of view.

To ignore the contribution that women have made in history and literature seems to be ass backwards.... there is plenty of information on this subject matter, but it people who spout this rhetoric are the ones who are perpetrating the myth itself..... The information is out there if one wants to find it, I personally do not trust the public education system to teach my kids the truth about Christopher Columbus let alone anything from ancient history to modern social studies. The problems with education are much bigger than a mere gender issue......

that is true, but this post is about gender.

I can't help but notice a dominating pattern in the stories you visit on your page.

perception is many times ones biggest obstacle

About the first point: As long as chivalry lives, there can be no equality.

About the suicide thing: It's not just with PTSD. Men across the board are more likely to commit and succeed in commiting suicide. Yet, that strangely never comes up.

Men are not more free to define their identity. Men are slotted into male expectations. Women where more restricted 50 years ago, nowadays men find themselves in the positions women where. Unfortunately man's issues are not openly discussed as woman's issues are.

You can't be serious!
Men will never be in the position that women were. Women couldn't vote, were believed to be less intelligent, were not allowed to have a sexuality, and couldn't have an identity outside of husband and family. Men aren't experiencing anything close to this extreme.

I understand your angle, you're talking about fathers' rights and gender bias towards sex crimes. In that issue, the deck is stacked against the male.
However, in society taken as a whole, men are dominant. Just look at the leadership in our society- it's mostly men by a large degree.

Men werent allowed to have feelings, they had to fight and die for their country, it was always women and children first. The man had to be able to support his family, he was the one working his ass off in dangerous jobs(98% of all work-related deaths are male). Men had to be fearless, be strong, be violent if need be.
We've freed (pretty much) women from admittedly bad sexism, but if we fail to also address men, they'll stay in a 1900 mindset while the society advances, leaving them behind without a clue what they're supposed to be doing.
According to feminists, i screwed up already being born a male, what will that attitude lead to when we are able to exclude men from procreation via new technology?

You are right on. We hear so much about women feelings, sexuality, inequality but the issues men face are even taboo to mention.

Of course men have a gender role, but the difference is that males were in control, they had all the power. Did you read my original post? There are male queer and gender theory authors who are working to redefine masculinity.

What feminists are you talking about? You're not talking about academic Feminism, you're talking about man-haters. Any so-called feminist author who claims men screwed up by being born is not a feminist. That's like calling Ann Coulter a typical conservative. They are just extremists.

the times where this had happened are relatively short (human history has spanned much longer than these problems you speak of).... during ancient times women were revered (the idea of mother earth is a long standing religious symbol of woman's ability to give life) even in medeival times there were prmenant women figures. of course we do not hear about them today, but most of the extremists would rather forget it themselves to perpetrate the "patriarchy" argument themselves......

Wow.
Listen, I know you're pissed off about fathers' rights and you have a good reason to be, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.

Women were subjugated all throughout European history, which is not a 'relatively short' amount of time compared to human history. In ancient Greece through the Roman Republic and Empire (800BC~400AD), women were basically just property during this time. In Medieval Europe through the Renaissance up to the Enlightenment (~400-1800), women were basically treated like children, intellectually and otherwise, they were subjects of their fathers or husbands. Women don't get all of the rights of men until suffrage in the 20th century. Just because their were "permanent" figures in Medieval times like Queen Elizabeth, doesn't mean women weren't subjugated. Those women were exceptional, not typical.

Women had more freedoms in eastern civilizations, like the Egyptian, the Ottoman, the Chinese, and the Japanese, but they did not have the same rights as men.
There were some Native American tribes that were matriarchal, but they were not typical.
The trend throughout history is that women were subjugated by men. Does that mean that men are bad and women are good? Of course not. That's just history.

There is a lot of bias against men in family court, but attacking Women's Studies and the history of the subjugation of women is a mistake, and counterproductive.

OK, you can't be serious. I'm sitting here looking at this list you linked and laughing. These women are EXCEPTIONAL not TYPICAL. The very reason a list like that exists is because women were subjugated. The list shows women who triumphed over adversity. The general experience for the average woman throughout history has been that of subjugation.
That's like showing me a list of important Black Americans throughout history and claiming that Blacks weren't subjugated.

You are just flat out wrong when you say "the times where this had happened are relatively short." Anyone familiar with history, feminist or not, would laugh at that.
Do you think I'm making this up? Pick up a history book or google women in ancient Greece, Rome, Medieval Europe, etc. None of them had the rights that men did. And I'm not talking about a few individuals, I'm talking about most women in general.

Be careful not to polarize this issue into either all women were slaves or most women were free. The truth is that most women were subjects of men to varying degrees, across cultures and social class and all throughout history. It doesn't matter if they were working in the fields or being pampered- they did not have the same rights as men. You're going to have a really hard time proving that fact wrong.

You're really going to sit there and tell me you have no issues with bias against fathers in family court? You're a self-proclaimed father's rights activist, don't be coy about it.

" if women did not have rights in these civilizations then how did they have female rulers?"

ahhhh Joe, one of the greatest contradictions to your argument is the history of Anthony and Cleopatra. Cleopatra was a female ruler, but standing against the patriarchy of Rome was her and Anthony's downfall. The most enduring thing about Shakespeare's work is that he doesn't take sides and he doesn't give us a right or wrong. We are forced to come to our own conclusions, but it is hard to deny certain facts, and chief amongst the facts in this story is that there would be no independent Egypt under Rome.

well, I agree with much of what you are saying, and this is some of the social construct of gender, based upon, some would say, the biology of reproduction. Women were responsible for nesting to protect the pregnancy/young child, men were the hunter gathers who went outside of the cave/home to provide sustenance. In the end, men and women were equally engaged in the act of propagating the species, supposedly. I'm sure it didn't always work that way, but if you are heavy with child, or toting a toddler behind you, trying to hunt a saber tooth tiger at the same time wasn't necessarily a prescription for success.

When it was no longer necessary to battle the saber tooth tiger to venture out the cave door, roles changed, and they've been changing ever since. While there are indeed women who prey upon men, and a system that may indeed by unfair to men in the arena of child custody, the physical reality just doesn't back up arguments that women are a greater threat to men than men are to women, and there surely is a lot more involved than just physical prowess. You would have to be living in a vacuum not to have noticed that some people have advanced in the corporate world, not based upon the old rules of competency, but upon some new rules of gender and or ethnic quotas. A lot of people resent that, and at the end of the day, they resent the fact that someone changed the rules and they had nothing to say about it.

For me, what is sad, is that the GREATEST inequities are based upon economic advantage/disadvantage, and the longer we focus on the petty inequalities of gender bias, the longer it will be until we come together to correct the gross inequalities born of economic advantage/disadvantage.

well you can't really blame that on women. Women talk, they talk a lot. Ask any man and he will tell you how much the women in his life talk.

some of the most intriguing writers on gender have been men:

Jacques Lacan
Deleuze and Guattari, 1000 Plateaus
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality

I tell my husband about my feelings and my opinions but the fact that he does not is not an indication that he does not feel, worry, cares, or faced with daily issues.

agreed, women are just more prone to discussion it would seem.

did i really say that these women were not subjugated in their time? or did I say that even through the patriarchy they came through and were still recognized?? you make many assumptions.... i am involved in medieval re-enactment and have had in depth talks with professors and other history professionals on this subject matter. if you want to look at the whole of human history and the few thousand years in which there was an actual patriarchal tyranny it is most definately short comparitively....

I am a parental rights advocate and do so across gender lines.

Knowledge is our power.

The problem is that one loony woman saying one stupid thing does not invalidate feminism.

Early feminists used to say "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" which is patently absurd, and that's why they don't say it any more.

The goal is Feminism was, and is, equality. If you feel there are some few imbalances in society in favor of women, fine- state them, and fight for equality.

But DON'T fall into a black and white mindset that Feminism is wrong or evil and Men are pure and good victims of their tyranny.

Well known American author Christina Hoff Sommers uses the terms "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" to differentiate what she sees as acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism. She describes “equity feminism” as the struggle for equal legal and civil rights and many of the original goals of the early feminists, as in the first wave of the women's movement. She describes "gender feminism" as the action of accenting the differences of genders for the purposes of creating privilege for women in academia, government, industry, or advancing personal agendas.

I highly recommend reading Christina Hoff Sommers "Who Stole Feminism?" and "How Women Have Betrayed Women"

have you noticed the actions/words of the biggest group in the US?? Your statement is just a broad generalization in an effort to ignore what is really going on.... No one single group of people can ever bee seen as "pure" "good" or "victims"... this is the basic rhetoric that is being faught against with such things.

First you say:

"have you noticed the actions/words of the biggest group in the US??"

Would that be AARP or the NRA? No, the largest group in the US is probably the Catholic Church. What group are you referring to, and what are their words/actions?

Then you say:
"Your statement is just a broad generalization in an effort to ignore what is really going on.... No one single group of people can ever bee seen as "pure" "good" or "victims"... this is the basic rhetoric that is being faught against with such things."

So you fight against broad generalizations- gotcha.
So tell me what is the bigest group in the US and their actions/words.

... and while you are at it, point out how in my comment AGAINST broad generalizations is somehow in FAVOR of broad generalizations.

lol well context would help you figure out what I was saying... considering what we were talking about i wasnt thinking id have to hold your hand through this discussion.... you used the broad generalizations yourself and have interpreted this thread as being one on your own...... there is a specific topic within the article itself you have yet to touch upon.....

*sigh*

Obviously sarcasm is lost on you.

NOW is NOW. To state that they are all of Feminism is a generalization, which you claimed to be against.

Now, point out how in my comment AGAINST broad generalizations is somehow in FAVOR of broad generalizations.

Not in some other post somewhere- that's irrelevant. You said "Your statement is just a broad generalization in an effort to ignore what is really going on."

So, where is my broad generalization in that statement, and what is "really" going on.

... and make sure that "what is really going on" is not a broad generalization.

inherantly tone and inflection do not carry well through type......context however is not to hard to grasp if one desires to.... im trying to have a conversation on this, but it seems you would rather deflect rather than talk about the article..... its ok though its a common tactic and I dont allow myself to get sucked into it..... how can I even respond to your interpretations if they are completely out of context to what I have said??

kind of like the history of the United States, wouldn't you say? All the good guys wear white hats. It is never as simple as one side against the other, it is always more complex.

which would explain the powerlessness of your position

You made a comment NOT about the article, but about my comment.
You made an accusation, and failed to suport it.

The only context of what you said is what I said- since what you said was a criticism of what I said.

I'm not the one deflecting, you are.

You said "Your statement is just a broad generalization in an effort to ignore what is really going on."

So, where is my broad generalization in my statement, and what is "really" going on.

wow, your good, you almost had me convinced on that one.....

I will take that as being as close to an admission that you were wrong as your maturity level will allow.

now we devolve into personal attacks......