TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Gender studies lecturer about biology: "Not interested, you're stupid" - teaches about men and masculinity.

AloysiusC

May 22, 2016
20 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/g14V5lX
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Gender studies lecturer about biology: "Not interested, you're stupid" - teaches about men and masculinity.
Author

AloysiusC

Upvotes 20
Comments 36
Date May 22, 2016 9:49 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4khy91/gender_studies_lecturer_about_biology_not/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/gender-studies-lecturer-about-biology-not.949074
https://theredarchive.com/post/949074
Top posts by AloysiusC

Karen Straughan's response to "those aren't real feminists"

498 upvotes
May 4, 2017
/r/MensRights

The Red Pill Movie screenings

318 upvotes
October 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

Stop telling men to show their emotions.

300 upvotes
December 3, 2016
/r/MensRights

Karen Straughan on why Mens Rights is so difficult.

187 upvotes
July 20, 2018
/r/MensRights

Gender Studies are activism, not studies.

184 upvotes
February 22, 2018
/r/MensRights

Menslib: If women abusing men is ok, that's because of misogyny.

167 upvotes
October 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

I like Lulu because it is a feminist’s dream app...the guys can’t see a thing.. and women hold all the power. It might seem a bit unfair to guys, but hey, we deserve it.

148 upvotes
June 21, 2013
/r/MensRights

Told you so: Study finds women rape men more than you think

146 upvotes
May 4, 2014
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]rg57 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Saying you're not interested in biology, when studying humans, is like saying you're not interested in algorithms, when studying computers.

It's no wonder Gender Studies is so useless.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I love how the academic is using the Tumblr style tactic of saying "I don't care" and then continuing to respond.

[–]Tgunner192 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In Linguistic Anthropology we learned that the way you talk is the way you think. Language is of the mind, not the mouth. There is absolutely no way a persons concept of gender equality can be defined by a female-centric term, "feminist" and not be biased towards the female gender in applications of equality. The very term itself, "feminist" creates a female privilege and promotes the matriarchy. Evidence of the matriarchy? Over the course of a lifetime woman work about 66% of the hours men work, yet still make about 75% of the $$ a man makes.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been saying for years how people underestimate the implications that the movement for equality just happens to be called "feminism". I even typically go on to say that, because of that fact alone, feminism is doomed to being sexist and gynocentric. It literally cannot ever be anything else.

Another clue is in how they defend their wearing of the label. They're far too attached.

[–]TheDude41 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

The blinders are strong on that one.

"I'm not so sure about the idea that feminism is pervasive and one-sided in universities."

LOL completely ridiculous, coming from a feminist who teaches a course in "men and masculinities" and who references Connell and Kimmel as authorities on the subject.

Truly laughable.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Not really.

We see a lot of crazy on here, but it's not at EVERY college. There are plenty of colleges where the only feminists are reasonable people looking for equality who were more than happy to work with me even when I identified as a MRA.

I went to a predominately and historical women's college, (70/30 female:male) and they were extremely helpful and even wanted to work with me when I looked at starting a men's group.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I say the same thing to you as everyone else who talk about "reasonable feminists just looking for equality":

Ask them why they insist on calling themselves "feminists". And then ask them if they'd be willing to lose the label if it meant accomplishing their goal. If the reponse is anything but a definite "yes" to the last question, then you know what they really are.

[–]Maschalismos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Guys: don't downvote this poster just because you disagree with the post. He is being civil, and discussing a topic in a rational way.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks

[–]irrelevant_usernam3 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad to see classes are being taught about masculinity and men, that's awesome!

I don't really see the problem here. Reading through this, I would say "FEMACADEMIC" won the argument pretty handily. Why should biology have a place in a sociology course? They might be related, but they're different subjects. "EVIL MRA" comes across as complaining because his/her view isn't presented in the curriculum but doesn't ever back up why it should be.

Also OP's quote from the title isn't anywhere in the text.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Why should biology have a place in a sociology course?

The course is on men and masculinity. Not sociology. The tool it's using is sociology but that's just not sufficient to understand masculinity.

"EVIL MRA" comes across as complaining because his/her view isn't presented in the curriculum

Biology isn't a viewpoint. It's a science. If you refuse to even consider it as a method for understanding men/masculinity, then you're declaring beforehand that you don't want to understand.

but doesn't ever back up why it should be.

I should think that asking to include biology isn't something that requires "backing up" unless you think the creationist's treatment of evolution as just a viewpoint and creationism is it's equal and opposite, is a valid reason for not teaching biology.

[–]irrelevant_usernam3 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The course is on men and masculinity. Not sociology.

At my university, at least, this course would certainly fall under that category. The description sounds like it's about people and how they relate to each other, which makes sociology a good fit. Yes, biology relates to that, but you can never get the entire picture. We don't teach human psychology in history courses to explain why wars start. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Biology isn't a viewpoint. It's a science.

I'm not disputing that. Biology would certainly be a relevant topic to discuss in this class. But not the only one. I think a perfectly reasonable course could be made without it too. But the viewpoint I was referring to was the mention of females mating with a small percentage of males. This seems to be some personal idea, which is never defended and to me, doesn't seem to fit with what I see in modern culture.

I should think that asking to include biology isn't something that requires "backing up" unless you think the creationist's treatment of evolution as just a viewpoint and creationism is it's equal and opposite, is a valid reason for not teaching biology.

I'm not saying that at all, there are great reasons to teach biology and it's an important thing to know. I'm just not seeing how it's related closely enough to this class that it needs to be a part of it.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, biology relates to that, but you can never get the entire picture.

I have no problem with focusing on certain aspects. But what we see here is the teacher not even being interested in any other aspects. That means that he or she cannot even know their impact.

Also a course like this will falsely lead students to believe that, once they have completed it, they'll understand men and masculinity in a non-superficial way. But without even looking at biological aspects that's pretty much impossible.

It's not surprising that people come out of these courses, see a wage gap and conclude discrimination must be the cause. They have no idea but because they completed courses, they think they're experts.

I would suggest renaming the course "sociological considerations of masculinity" or something like that. But even here, you can't know where cultural aspects starts if you don't konw where biological aspects stop. Which means at least a basic knowledge of what they involve.

Biology would certainly be a relevant topic to discuss in this class. But not the only one.

Nobody is saying it should be the only one. The position I'm arguing against is that it should be outright dismissed simply because somebody says so.

But the viewpoint I was referring to was the mention of females mating with a small percentage of males. This seems to be some personal idea,

As far as I know this is not only established in DNA testing ( we have more female ancestors than male) but also observed in other species. It's also easy to see why, given that reproduction comes at a far greater cost and risk to the female. That will necessarily result in mating strategies of the kind we observe everywhere: males competing for females.

which is never defended

Do you think it's fair to expect somebody to defend an idea they put forth to somebody who says they don't care and laughs at the notion that thye're even responding while calling them an idiot? I'm just curious how you justify such criticism.

doesn't seem to fit with what I see in modern culture.

Well where's the contradiction?

I'm just not seeing how it's related closely enough to this class that it needs to be a part of it.

And because you're not seeing that relevance, therefore you decide to judge that it's not needed? Don't you think one has to know something first before determining if it's irrelevant?

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

If you're referring to the biological aspect of reproduction being impacted by wealth and social power, sociology would address this in a different way but not inaccurately.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Could you explain that sentence? How would sociology "address" the "biological aspect of reproduction" and what exactly is that aspect?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

By focusing on how wealth and social power function as a basis of the availability to reproduce. Family structures, political structures, etc. All things that contribute to the ability and methods of choosing a mate would be analyzed on how they functioned socially.

Someone like Genghis Khan is a good example. As a leader we could examine the methods of choosing brides, conquering lands, etc etc. But also how the men throughout his kingdom did the same. and how the family structure and social structure of the society worked based on this.

In a similar way, we can also examine the reproductive habits of modern people based on things like income bracket, education, and of course social and political power. Breaking things down to a "biology" level isn't necessary, although it can be done

The risk being sometimes you end up looking at biology and finding misleading information too, such as XYY Syndrome. Also known as the Supermale concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

Where for a period it was suspected that many prisoners and violent offenders might be more readily detected based on genetic testing to find XYY men, and provide intervention. Eventually sociological and criminology studies showed there was no real correlation or causation based on the XYY gene.

Sociology has a great deal in common with Anthropology, as that's one of the schools of thought it came from.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By focusing on how wealth and social power function as a basis of the availability to reproduce.

This is interesting no doubt and there's plenty of reason to study these things. But they are just manifestations of ultimately biological traits. It serves nicely as an example of why you shouldn't ignore the biological component. Because if you don't understand how sexual reproduction affects mating strategy, then you'll be lead to conclude that the phenomena we observe are caused by culture which is exactly what gender studies "experts" tend to do.

Money is simply a method by which we acquire status in modern society. Scientifically, the more interesting question is why status matters and what's its purpose in reproduction.

The risk being sometimes you end up looking at biology and finding misleading information too, such as XYY Syndrome. Also known as the Supermale concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

From what I found, nothing found there was misleading. It's simply a phenomenon observed. The mistakes occurred as soon as people started departing from biology and drawing sociological conclusions based on selection bias.

[–]Black_caped_man 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The course is on men and masculinity. Not sociology. The tool it's using is sociology but that's just not sufficient to understand masculinity.

The course was on men and masculinity and she described it further by saying that it would be examined using sociology and not biology. You can argue that the course is taking a narrow viewpoint by doing so but it's still right there in the course.

I don't know enough about sociology to go into how important biology may or may not be however. I do think it's poor scientific practice to ignore the influence that biology has on sociological development.

[–]TheDude41 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why should biology have a place in a sociology course?

You obviously don't know a lot about sociology.

[–]irrelevant_usernam3 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right, I've never studied it. But why doesn't either biology or sociology have a place in engineering then? It's because the topics are too big to consider every type of science related to them. There comes a point where you have to cut it off. It sounds like this class makes the cut at biology and I see no problem with that.

[–]TheDude41 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M-2_OD3oMc

[–]Sourdust2 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say that he did present why it should be in the course, he does have a point that there are biological causes as to why men do stuff and ignoring may print a grim picture.

For example:

"Men have lead every war that has taken place in the last 300 years."

Is a true statement but to understand WHY that is happening you would need to know that men are better biologically equipped to wage war then women.

[–]AloysiusC[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

The names have been changed so there's no brigading. The part where "evil mra" starts questioning them is where the fun begins.

This serves as a fine example of the disgraceful state of university gender studies courses.

[–]mycroftxxx42 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually, that's about as good of a survey course on the history of masculinity as you could ask for. Have you ever looked into the differences in expression of masculinity between classes at various points in history? "EvilMRA"'s focus on hypergamy and misunderstanding of evolutionary biology is really pretty laughable.

This serves as a fine example of Dunning-Kruger.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Have you ever looked into the differences in expression of masculinity between classes at various points in history?

If you have some information to share, please do so.

misunderstanding of evolutionary biology is really pretty laughable.

Care to enlighten us what that misunderstanding is?

[–]mycroftxxx42 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, it's called "history" and it's the sort of thing one should probably spend more than five minutes reading about. FEMACADEMIC mentioned a few things, like fashion trends. There are also the differences in behavior between Southern and poor Northern troops in the US civil war and the Northern officer class - the US Civil war actually had a pretty strong effect on American Masculinity as the Northern victory lead to a strong shift from a traditional "honor"-based culture to the "dignity"-based masculine culture that is more common and considered more prestigious today.

As far as evolutionary bio and psych goes, EVILMRA's choice of topics shows a pretty serious amount of ignorance of both biology and evolution. Evolution does not select for complex behaviors in humans. Complex behaviors are carried by culture, not genetics. Culture decides what kind of activities people perform, and biology will play a role in what aspects of culture are passed down, but it's not the prime determinant. Evolutionary psych just does a really bad job of re-creating fables, rather than exploring or testing theories.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Evolution does not select for complex behaviors in humans. Complex behaviors are carried by culture, not genetics.

Define "complex behaviors" and how do they differ from other forms of behavior and how do you know evolution isn't influencing them?

Question: Does evolution select for physical characteristics? Do these not influence behavior? How can you be certain that this influence disappears at a certain level of complexity?

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

Congrats OP on making us all look stupid. Sociology is a very specific science and that professor is teaching a very specific class with a lot of material. So what if they don't mention evolution? This is like attending a seminar on neurosurgery and being upset that the lecturer doesn't talk about mitochondria. It's just fucking weird.

[–]AloysiusC[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You must have missed my comment where I had the great idea of teaching number theory without numbers. It's a very specific class you know ;)

[–]Spicy_Shart 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess all sociology, psychology, and criminology classes should really just be "human evolution 101" then.

[–]AloysiusC[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sarcasm fails embarrassingly when you're parodying something that isn't being said. Try to keep up and pay more attention instead of getting all emotional.

[–]boringcarpets -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol woman teaching about masculinity. Well, not masculinity but "masculinity"

[–]AloysiusC[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if it was a woman and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

[–]Sourdust2 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why does it matter if it is a women? If she is educated and has the skills to teach the course she should be able to teach it. Your comment is just baseless women hating.

[+]Pariahdog119 -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, any college course that is limited in scope is obviously shit. I mean, I took a mathematics class that didn't mention biology, when biologically speaking, the structure of the human brain is what allows us to do math in the first place. You can't teach math without biology!

/S

[–]AloysiusC[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good to know I can teach a course on number theory without mathematics or numbers. It just has a limited scope you see.

/s

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter