University of Kansas offers 'Angry White Male Studies' class

[–]Ferbuggity 170 points171 points172 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrElderwood 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRA_TitleIX 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HikuroMishiro 102 points103 points104 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 64 points65 points66 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]goinsouth85 26 points27 points28 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thanics 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GnomeChompy 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrElderwood 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoeSmith1907 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And the goalposts they are a movin.

Not all Fortune 500 companies are American companies, or headed by Americans

Asian Americans have a higher average household income than white Americans.

This is especially the case for Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean households.

76% of American millionaires are white being 65%, with 8% of Asians while being 5.7% of the US. That puts Asians much more overrepresented than whites. Blacks are 8% with Hispanics at 7%, meaning Hispanics are more underrepresented than Blacks.

>Imagine how horrible that would sound if you said that to black people fighting for their rights pre-Civil Rights Act.

Next up to the stage it's Motte and Bailey! A very popular tag team duo that manipulates people with emotion while deceiving them into accepting an ancillary position!

> The entire point of Marxism is advocating against unfair hierarchieslike the one America had pre-MLK, and the one it has now with the vastmajority of wealth going to a group that has a massive head start overothers.

Wealth isn't immutable, and whether someone had a head start or not *does not change the fact they are the ones producing the wealth*.

People who complain about what is unfair always define fairness in accordance with their own self interests.

Marx was born upper middle class, and despite in adulthood having an income most families could live on comfortably and having a live in maid, squandered his income over and over, to the point of his children starving to death, constantly having his family bail him out, send him allowances and inheritances. His wealthy capitalist friend Engles financed him most of his adult life as he continuously maligned capitalism with his objective theories of value that could not be reconcile with basic economic concepts like marginal utility or time preferences, and couldn't even be arsed to put all this work together coherently in what would become Kapital and the Communist Manifesto; Engles had to do that for him too.

He was a leech on society, and what he known for best he couldn't even be bothered to finish himself, offering little more than whines of a spoiled child who knew little of real work or real poverty, but felt he was in touch with what was truly wrong with both. He is a textbook case of Dunning Kruger syndrome, but his writings appeal to the masses of equally out of touch spoiled children.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MerlynTrump 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MerlynTrump 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chmony_tttt 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halafax 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LELO_TV 63 points64 points65 points 3 years ago (112 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Halfcocked_Jack -27 points-26 points-25 points 3 years ago (110 children) | Copy Link

[–]LELO_TV 40 points41 points42 points 3 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Sex in humans is defined by gametes, not chromosomes. Your genes, not your chromosomes, determine which gametes you produce.

Gametes are one way we can define sex, sure. But then again, if a person is genotypically and phenotypically male, but can't produce any sperm whatsoever, I'm still comfortable using the word "male" to describe them.

Chromosomes are strings of genes (and regulatory elements, etc), so the distinction between "chromosomally male" and "genetically male" is a bit pedantic for a two sentence comment, especially considering that the male sex-inducing and sperm-related genes normally all reside on the same chromosome... But if we want to get technical, let's do:

The SRY gene in particular, which is normally located on Y, is the primary sex-determining gene in humans. Experimentally, we can clone SRY onto some other chromosome to make "chromosomally (i.e. karyotypically) female, but genetically male, phenotypically male" animals. But we've already done some philosophical sleight of hand here, because normally only the Y chromosome carries SRY... So whichever chromosome we experimentally stitched SRY into isn't what we would call an entirely normal female chromosome!

That's in the lab. In the wild, many cases of XX people possessing a SRY gene are due to translocation of the short arm of Y onto one of their X chromosomes, creating a partial-X/partial-Y chromosome. It's an abnormal karyotype. So they are "genetically male, chromosomally partially male," though they lack a full Y chromosome. They often have testes (male, obviously) but can't produce sperm (not male, per the "gamete production" definition).

My point was that all of these hair-splitting exercises, as messy as they can be, don't cause science-minded people to lose much sleep over the definitions. Usually male and female genotypes are in alignment with male and female phenotypes. But even when they aren't, we can look at those intersex conditions and say, "yep, genetically male but phenotypically 99% female" without experiencing an existential crisis.

Contrast that to all the hemming and hawing over terms like "man" and "woman" these days...

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Gametes is how we define sex for anisogamous organisms.

XX males are still male. There's no partial about it.

Sex is the reproductive condition of an organism. Humans reproduce by binary fission of haploid gametes, thus their sex is defined by gametes. Anisogamous organisms' gametes are distinguished by size.

There are no male or female chromosomes. For humans there is the gene that makes you male, or your undifferentiated tissues default to female.

The SRY gene is a necessary condition for being male. There is no analogue for being female. The fact sometimes genes don't function fully doesn't disqualify you for being in that category anymore than missing a limb disqualifies you from being a tetrapod-which would preclude you being a mammal, and thus human.

Intersex conditions do not refute the definition of sex at all. Suggesting they do only serves to confuse or manipulate people.

[–]Kuato2012 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

XX males are still male. There's no partial about it.

Internal and external morphology of XX males varies from complete virilization to totally ambiguous. Those morphologies in between are the definition of "partial virilization" of the tissues. Such a person is genetically male, with intersex morphology, and a female karyotype.

There are no male or female chromosomes.

Splitting semantic hairs. Calling the Y chromosome the "male chromosome" is perfectly acceptable, because that particular string of genetic material is found in males.

Intersex conditions do not refute the definition of sex at all. Suggesting they do only serves to confuse or manipulate people.

Agreed, and I haven't said otherwise. A genotypically male person who is phenotypically female doesn't refute the definition of male or female.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Splitting semantic hairs my ass. We're literally talking about the definition of something.

The chromosome located specifically in the overwhelming majority of males, and absent specifically in the overwhelming majority of females, the chromosome that contains not only SRY but multiple other genes necessary specifically for male gamete formation and therefore male fertility... The chromosome specialized almost entirely to those male-specific genes and little else... That one is absolutely fair game to describe as "the male sex chromosome." I don't know how this is even an argument.

The X and Y chromosomes are formally called "sex chromosomes" in the literature, due to their role in sex determination. One of those sex chromosomes typically presents in males. Hence "male sex chromosome."

Importantly, while you're right that SRY is sufficient for primary sex determination, Y also carries several genes necessary for the proper formation of those all-important gametes. Y is not merely a vehicle for SRY, nor is the presence of SRY the rigidly narrow definition of what constitutes a male human.

Ambiguity in secondary sexual characteristics means nothing to the definition of sex.

Quite the linguistic coincidence then!

"Chromosomal sex," "genetic sex," and "phenotypic sex" aren't exactly controversial terms (and I mean among scientists, not gender warriors).

Having a different trim or paint job on a car doesn't change the engine or drivetrain.

Sure, and I'm comfortable describing different parts of the car separately when that's the case. I'm told one can salvage a Chevy engine and drop it into a Jeep. We need not reductively describe the resulting vehicle as only Chevy or all Jeep.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Not really. CAIS people are considered male through all the history of the medical literature, they have XY chromosomes and SRY gene functioning, they just not have the AR gene functioning. Just because they look like female, doesn’t mean they’re one.

People with De La Chapelle Syndrome aka XX-Males are females, firstly because this syndrome only occurs in XX embryos (females) because of an abnormal translocation of SRY gene of an Y chromosome to one of the XX. Also, there are those who don’t have the SRY gene, but developed male genitalia because of the overexpression of a gene, like the SOX3. They’re females, just because they have male appearance aka "male phenotype", don’t make them male.

A CAIS person is not less male than a normal male with diabetes and a XX-"Male" is not less female than normal female with osteoporosis.

Sex is defined by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome. For example, just because someone appears female, doesn’t mean the person is truly female, otherwise transexual woman who had their genital modified and started transitioning before puberty would be considered to be female.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Not really. CAIS people are considered male through all the history of the medical literature, they have XY chromosomes and SRY gene functioning, they just not have the AR gene functioning. Just because they look like female, doesn’t mean they’re one.

No, they have testes and produce sperm. They're male.

>People with De La Chapelle Syndrome aka XX-Males are females, firstlybecause this syndrome only occurs in XX embryos (females) because of anabnormal translocation of SRY gene of an Y chromosome to one of the XX.

Yeah, and they're male. Lyonization isn't limited to females.

>Sex is defined by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome. Forexample, just because someone appears female, doesn’t mean the person istruly female, otherwise transexual woman who had their genital modifiedand started transitioning before puberty would be considered to befemale.

No it isn't. It's defined by the gametes produced.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Halfcocked_Jack -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenRAllowd2bRacist 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Halfcocked_Jack -17 points-16 points-15 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Pepper-6241 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WomenRAllowd2bRacist 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]krzysztofgetthewings 29 points30 points31 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Algoresball 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuzzy_Department2799 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]heyyy-kiddo 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BalloonPilotDude 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]heyyy-kiddo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]attackfarce 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Proud_Ad_4861 points 3 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Proud_Ad_4861 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chmony_tttt 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]attackfarce 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It’s much more “convenient” than class politics the left once liked. Rich gays, POC, women, you name it, can feel unapologetic about their wealth, as they’re part of the “downtrodden”, unlike the hillbilly’s or that homeless guy living in the alley who are part of the “privileged”.

And the white academic staff can likewise spread their privilege around with such people, which lessens their own personal privilege. And promoting women, POC, alphabet soup individuals preferentially and letting them drone on about stuff won’t impact on their lifestyles anywhere as much as having to pay a true living wage to the guys who empty their garbage would. The fact that a high proportion of the guys who work these low paid jobs are members of these “oppressed groups” and would actually benefit more on this basis than one focused on promoting people because they tick a particular box doesn’t register. They may mumble so garbage about “capitalism” every now and then, but identity politics won’t affect their lifestyle in the way socialism (class based) would. Some also have a racist idea that these “identity groups” are too stupid and ignorant to find their own voice, and are going to gratefully let these clowns cook up all these theories that will let them (the clown academics) to really run the show.

But rest assured, it’s mostly for purely selfish reasons. Not some real desire to “right the wrongs”.

[–]No-Pepper-6241 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chmony_tttt 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HolyJellyMate 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlvckAnomally26 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Illustrious-Music-61 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]manicraccoon 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]paliostheos 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlvckAnomally26 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redram78 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Algoresball 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomjack420 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AyWhatITIS 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZekalMacabre 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mutzga 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoNotNeo 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IgorRenfield 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Marty-the-monkey -15 points-14 points-13 points 3 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Based on what the article writes the course is about, this sounds really super interesting.

The name is a tad headline grabby, but other than that is frankly sounds really fascinating...

The course description explains that students will be "employing interdisciplinary perspectives" to examine "how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced in cultures undergoing periods of rapid change connected to modernity as well as to rights-based movements of women, people of color, homosexuals and trans individuals."

Questions that will be answered about angry White males in Forth's class, according to the course description, include, "Where does he come from? What's he angry about? Is his anger misplaced? Is he blaming the right people? How long has this been going on? Is he a global phenomenon? And how do we move forward?"

isn't these questions exactly what gets discussed here as well?

[–]IanHawkess1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Marty-the-monkey -12 points-11 points-10 points 3 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]IanHawkess1 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Which one of the questions from the course gives you that feeling?

I get the sense you're being purposely obtuse. It isn't a particular question in the course description that gives me the feeling, it's the entire cultural zeitgeist of the last 15 or so years. You know, the one that says whiteness is a pandemic and it's ok to hate men, especially white men. And academia in particular seems to be near the epicenter of all this madness.

I mean, you're aware that you're using a social media platform whose admins are explicit about the fact that hate speech toward whites and men is ok, right? Let's not even pretend that our culture is neutral and even-handed with respect to that.

The class will be taught by Christopher Forth who is a professor of history and the Dean’s Professor of Humanities, serving in the departments of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and American Studies.

Should we really hold out hope that a women and gender studies prof is going to treat the subject of white men with empathy and respect? Why are you so insistent that we should expect to see a zebra?

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

So when presented with what the course is going to be about, you decide to completely disregard that,

I read the course description (and not the Faux News article, in fact), and it leaves plenty of room for your zebra or my horses. I've already admitted that a zebra is possible, while you appear unwilling to admit that a horse is much more likely.

I think you are naive if you think deep, pervasive racism and misandry won't play a major part on the way that the course is handled by the prof and the students.

invent your own feelings on what it's going to be about,

I certainly didn't invent the 21st century zeitgeist. What you are really asking is for me to discard all of my prior knowledge and life experiences on the subject for some reason. Surely Lucy won't pull the football away this time, right??

pretend that's the new reality,

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. There were several links in my previous post for your benefit.

and you ask me why I expect a zebra?

Yes, now that we're past all your attempts at deflection, I still don't know why should we expect a zebra. Gender studies profs, and gender studies as a subject, aren't exactly known for their fair and generous attitudes toward men as a demographic. I'm fact, they tend to be relentlessly hostile and disparaging. Is there a special reason you expect this time to be different?

[–]denisc9918 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]denisc9918 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

nope. This is just CRT bullshit aiming to morally grand stand while being biggoted. Don't believe me? Fine let me answer the included questions by reading from the ideological script of intersectional CRT.

Where does he come from?

He comes from ugh conservative, small town america. There he was brought up in the remanants of white supremacist patriarchy which instilled him with entitlement.

What's he angry about?

He is angry about women, poc and trans people no longer accept their status as inferior beings in cis-het white-supremacist patriarchy and that he now has to compete against them on an even playing field, since his privileges are being dismantled.

Is his anger misplaced?

Yes of course, it is misplaced.

Is he blaming the right people?

If anything he ought to blame late stage capitalism(TM)

How long has this been going on?

Since the first whites created societies in europe

Is he a global phenomenon?

Yes. All the #AngryWhiteMen #EveryWhere are stirring in their agrieved entitlement and yes, you can absolutely be an #AngryWhiteMen without being caucasian or male. It's all about that #perceived loss #privilege

And how do we move forward?

AngryWhiteMen need to be put in their place and clearly shown that their agrieved entitlement is unacceptable and they must work extra hard now to compensate minorities for the centuries of historic oppression

Something along those braindead lines will be taught there. The overlap with the discussions here is slim to none.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

CRT practioners/believers don't discuss to gain insight and most certainly not to evolve their own perspective.

For CRT practioners/believers conceptualize every exchange between two or more people as a power struggle in which the culturally/socially/historically privileged person or group exerts their power to define what is true/right/good in order to oppress and/or marginalize other people (for example minorities).

In their world view it is paramount to prevent this from happening. Therefore parameters of the discussion must be set up to privilege the presumably non-privileged minority/group and balance out this differential.

This is the root justification they bring forward to explain/excuse their racism, their sexism etc

There is no point in talking to/with those people. I'm speaking from experience. Believe you me.

If you want to understand these ideas/dynamics, I'd recommend James Lindsay's New Discorses. He explains it rather well & accurately.

[–]Marty-the-monkey 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuzzy_Department2799 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Marty-the-monkey -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GnomeChompy 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Halfcocked_Jack -22 points-21 points-20 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Halfcocked_Jack -11 points-10 points-9 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Illustrious-Music-61 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IGotBigHands 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sohumm 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omieye 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RATHROWAWAYBlue 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	University of Kansas offers 'Angry White Male Studies' class
Author	Heavy_Grand2526
Upvotes	232
Comments	145
Date	August 11, 2022 4:02 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wlhtim/university_of_kansas_offers_angry_white_male/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/university-of-kansas-offers-angry-white-male.1127782 https://theredarchive.com/post/1127782

Comments