Former student sues LSE over its ‘gender bias’

Scarinae

I thought this was interesting – a man is suing the London School of Economics (LSE) over the gender bias in its gender studies course, saying that it discriminated against men.

The London School of Economics is facing legal action after a former student claimed its gender studies course was sexist - against men.

Tom Martin, who quit the university after six weeks, claims in papers lodged at the Central London county court that lecturers ignored male issues.

He is claiming some £50,000 citing breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act.

The 39-year-old, who attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree, said there was "systemic anti-male discrimination". But he said an internal investigation carried out by the university in the wake of his complaints found "no evidence" of bias.

Mr Martin, who is representing himself, said: "The core texts we had to read before each class were typically packed with anti-male discrimination and bias - heavily focusing on, exaggerating, and falsifying women's issues perspectives, whilst blaming men, to justify ignoring men's issues. There was no warning of this sexist agenda in the prospectus."

He added: "They simply refuse to acknowledge the research which contradicts the 'women good/men bad', or the 'women victims/men perpetrators' storyline.

"Science does not come into it at LSE's Gender Institute. Like a religion, the curriculum simply insists, by repetition, attempting to drum the anti-male agenda into the students."

The university's legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men. The team also argues that "any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable".

However, a comment article on the Guardian website, written by a politics lecturer who has done research at LSE, challenges his stance:

Let's get this straight. Gender studies isn't about 'women good, men bad'

It's ironic that an ex-student is using anti-discrimination law to sue this LSE department. But he was only there for six weeks

Feminism makes some men very scared, others very angry. Tom Martin, who is taking legal action against the London School of Economics, risks being seen as falling into both of these of these categories. A former student at the LSE Gender Institute, Martin claims he had the misfortune of being subject to a torrent of anti-male discrimination during his (very brief) time there, and has cited the Gender Equality Duty to support his case. The irony of attacking feminists by invoking a piece of legislation whose existence is largely down to the energy and commitment of feminist campaigners scarcely needs pointing out.

Martin alleges that the course material he studied during his six weeks at the LSE was systematically anti-male, overlooked men's issues, and ignored any research that contested a "women good, men bad" line of reasoning. Furthermore, Martin claims that the Gender Institute drummed into the students, with quasi-religious fervour, a simplistic view of women as victims and men as perpetrators. If his experience is anything to go by, any self-respecting male should steer well clear of such institutionalised misandry. Well, male readers, before you start cowering behind the sofa fearful of the castrating gender studies professor who's about to get you, let me reassure you. Although I don't know the specifics of Martin's experience, I am a male academic active in gender studies, and was a researcher at the very institution that Martin is suing. And yet for me, as with many other male gender studies scholars and students, my academic engagement with feminism and gender issues has been nothing short of life-affirming.

Let's get a few things straight. The dominant ideas, approaches and insights of the vast majority of academic disciplines are produced by, for and about men. This does not necessarily make them bad ideas, but it does mean that there are entrenched gender biases in most fields. In my own discipline – politics – the key undergraduate texts are overwhelmingly by and about men. And yet this is seen by most as unproblematic, as natural or inevitable.

Gender studies is an attempt to critique this entrenched male bias. As an emerging area of study, it remains small and lacks the financial and institutional clout of the bigger disciplines. It strikes me as utterly bemusing that one would want to direct one's ire towards one of the few academic spaces in which the implications of biases that go largely unchallenged elsewhere are explored.

But let's clear up a few further points. Firstly, the perception that gender studies is doctrinal and dogmatic is simply untrue. It is sceptical of traditional distinctions between fields of research, and is more dynamic, innovative and open to new perspectives than established disciplines. And far from sticking to a crude "women good, men bad" line, gender studies programmes encourage students to acknowledge the diversity of relations between men and women, the limitations of a victim-centred understanding of womanhood, and the complex ways in which gender intersects with race, class and sexuality. The development of this more holistic approach to gender analysis is one of the reasons why the name "gender studies" is now usually given preference over "women's studies", although the name of the field remains a controversial topic.

What is not in dispute, though, is the contribution to gender studies of current research into the changing nature of masculinity. Scholars such as Jeff Hearn, R W Connell, Keith Pringle, Michael Kimmel and Terrell Carver have all taken inspiration from feminism and women's studies to analyse, for example, class and racial inequalities between men, the causes and consequences of male violence, the lived experience of different kinds of male sexuality, and the ways in which ideas of masculinity influence social and political thought. Although most gender studies scholars and students are women, the likes of Jeff Hearn and Michael Kimmel have paved the way for increasing numbers of men to contribute to academic gender studies, contributions that have been unambiguously welcomed. In this context, if a gender studies scholar were to put forward a crude "women good, men bad" analysis, it would never stand up to peer scrutiny.

Finally, gender studies courses are extremely friendly and supportive environments. In contrast to the stuffiness and conformity of many academic settings, gender studies students and scholars are tolerant, friendly, and enlightened in their attitudes to race, sexual orientation and transsexuality. Gender studies is invariably more sociable than other academic settings, and all kinds of people are welcome, so long as you are willing to engage with people and ideas in a considered and respectful manner. If you're committed to combating discrimination and prejudice in academia, gender studies is an eccentrically misguided choice of target.

I can’t say I know a lot about gender studies, but I would hope that it has moved past the ‘Women good, men bad’ way of looking at things.

Tl;dr? A man is suing a university for male bias in its gender studies course, and an academic says that he is targeting the wrong people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scarinae

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is really… I think disappointing is the word I’m looking for. I thought the whole point of academia was to investigate with an open mind, rather than looking for results/arguments that support the opinion that you’ve already settled on. I suppose that is very naïve of me. Maybe I have this impression because I come from a science background, and that’s how we’re told that the scientific method works (though I accept that, in practice, some scientists do choose a stance then collect evidence to support it, even if this makes for crappy science)

Logical Fallacy

Hmmmm...the guy is obviously pissed off at the course content and how it was advertised...the piece from the Guardian is a guy clearly defending his home team.

I'd need to know a lot more before saying too much but i have to say the idea of any area of academia being nothing but smiles and hugs and open minds goes very much against my own experience.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

an internal investigation carried out by the university in the wake of his complaints found "no evidence" of bias.

surprise surprise :pac:

amacachi

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

surprise surprise :pac:

You cynic.

panda100

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whatever about gender studies, that is a retarded piece of research. I mean really what does it add to our society? Who has the right to determine what is intelligent or not?What about those who haven't been to university or have no access to education, are they all thick dumbos? Who really cares by what teeny tiny percentage women and men underpeform or outpeform each other? Why is academis so obsessed with researching the hell out of the insignificant and inconsequential, minute differences between men and women. How on earth does this make the human race take a step forward, except for making men and women out to be two differnt species, which of course we are not.

Anyways, I can see where this dude is coming from. Gender studies can have a strong female bias.

panda100

bluewolf wrote: »

Will you get a grip. That is so far removed from what was suggested it's off the wall.

How so?
The study calculates intelligence by educational achievment, something I disagree with. Its basically saying that those who don't achieve academically are not deemed 'intelligent'. That research is redundant because you cannot objectively measure differnces in cognitive ability, as intelligence means different things to different people.
I'm not suprised that Summers was witch hunted out of Harvard, after saying that women are underrepresented in science,maths etc, beause they are more stupid than men. Isn't that what he's effectively saying?Or am I reading the reserach all wrong?

fly_agaric

Surely he should have known what to expect...

1. I think these courses and depts in universities were previously known as "Womens studies" (edit: mentioned above).

2. It would seem very possible, nay likely that those in charge would include many of same academics from before refocusing (....rebranding) as "Gender Studies".

Sonics2k

panda100 wrote: »

How so?
The study calculates intelligence by educational achievment, something I disagree with. Its basically saying that those who don't achieve academically are not deemed 'intelligent'. That research is redundant because you cannot objectively measure differnces in cognitive ability, as intelligence means different things to different people.
I'm not suprised that Summers was witch hunted out of Harvard, after saying that women are underrepresented in science,maths etc, beause they are more stupid than men. Isn't that what he's effectively saying?Or am I reading the reserach all wrong?

You're reading it wrong.

He never ever says that women are more stupid. He did however point out that there was twice as many males than females in the "higher" levels but also twice as many males in the "lower" levels.

This was based on full research and studies. He was basically forced to retire for pointing out a statistical fact, which was not aimed at saying "men are smarter than women".

alchemist33

Whilst there may be a basis to some of his gripes (see posts above), suing doesn't really seem to be an appropriate response. This phrase is telling...

Mr Martin, who is representing himself...

Even Hilary Carmichael wouldn't take this one on
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056380846

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scealta_saol

TBH, I find the term "Gender Studies" should suggest at least a mention of the male gender? Even the article in the Guardian:

[QUOTE\]Scholars such as Jeff Hearn, R W Connell, Keith Pringle, Michael Kimmel and Terrell Carver have all taken inspiration from feminism and women's studies to analyse, for example, class and racial inequalities between men, the causes and consequences of male violence, the lived experience of different kinds of male sexuality, and the ways in which ideas of masculinity influence social and political thought. [/QUOTE]

states that it has enabled men to study their gender. So why would LSE focus on a woman good/man bad attitude. They need to remember instances in society where men are the sufferers of domestic abuse, where women have the dominant roles in business, or where men decide to be stay at home parents etc have now surfaced (in the last 30 odd years etc - if even). I mean it should not be so biased on one gender or they have no business calling the course gender studies.

Gender equality has come a very long way without falling backwards or falling in a completely wrong direction... It also goes back to the Sky Sports reporters sexist comments vs Loose Women being sexist I guess... PC brigade are back in town..

I'd like to keep an eye on how this one turns out...

Ostrom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There was nothing solid about those results

The data was taken from the 1979 wave of the US National Longitudinal Survey; their 'intelligence' metric was the The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a standardised test used to assess high school students' eligibility for military enlistment.

Modules on the test included 'auto and shop information', and 'mechanical comprehension' (I'm not suggesting any likely inferiority - but I'm sure there must have been some degree of gender bias in class enrolment)

There are vast differences depending on both measures used and samples selected; studies such as Hedges and Knowell (1995) support differences in male-female variance based on nationally representative samples, whereas Irwing and Lynn (2005) recorded greater mean IQ for males, and greater variance for female.

It seems to be quite difficult to distinguish variability due to measurement and sample issues. Complete agreement on the institutionalised marxism however (which puts me in a contradictory spot), but I think those results are highly contested.

edit: sorry, end of my post got cut off for some reason

Wibbs

Oh I agree somewhat E, but there have been more than one study on this and the results tend to agree. Women "on average" are more intelligent than men, or there are more intelligent women overall. There are also less low intelligence women. But there tend to be more men at the very top and at the very bottom of the intelligence scale. We're beginning to see this in the real world. Look at the professions. More and more, women are "taking over" areas like medicine and law. Many more graduates in those fields, to the extent that some are talking about quotas(esp in medicine). More men are dropping out/not "making the grade", but the tendency is still there that at the very top there are more men. This is not to say that women aren't represented in that top end, not at all(I think of a couple of women physicists and cosmologist that are well up there), but that at that extreme end you tend to get more men. Men appear to be much more variable. More left handed men, more dyslexic men, more asbergers men etc. It's not a hard and fast male/female brain thing in the individual, though there are some structural differences as an average(EG women have more hemispherical connections, men are more "two brained"). Both genders can have either dominating.

As Perma put it;

No, that's not what he was saying. He was citing empirical support for the fact that variance in intelligence is greater among adult males than adult females. That implies not that men are smarter than women (there is no significant difference in intelligence between the average man and the average woman) but that at the extremes of the spectrum, on both ends, you will find more men. Extremely high intelligence is correlated with a greater tendency to become a genius chess player or physicist; extremely low intelligence is correlated with things such as poverty and criminality. And we do indeed have more male physicists and more male criminals.

I have much less faith in the racial results by comparison, for all sorts of reasons.

Ostrom

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree somewhat E, but there have been more than one study on this and the results tend to agree. Women "on average" are more intelligent than men, or there are more intelligent women overall. There are also less low intelligence women. But there tend to be more men at the very top and at the very bottom of the intelligence scale. We're beginning to see this in the real world. Look at the professions. More and more, women are "taking over" areas like medicine and law. Many more graduates in those fields, to the extent that some are talking about quotas(esp in medicine). More men are dropping out/not "making the grade", but the tendency is still there that at the very top there are more men. This is not to say that women aren't represented in that top end, not at all(I think of a couple of women physicists and cosmologist that are well up there), but that at that extreme end you tend to get more men. Men appear to be much more variable. More left handed men, more dyslexic men, more asbergers men etc. It's not a hard and fast male/female brain thing in the individual, though there are some structural differences as an average(EG women have more hemispherical connections, men are more "two brained"). Both genders can have either dominating.

As Perma put it;


I have much less faith in the racial results by comparison, for all sorts of reasons.

I'm not sure the results agree at all - the studies cited on the previous page are highly contradictory, and rarely consider effects due to measurement and sample bias. Studies record opposing distributions of scores, some show higher averages for men, some higher averages for women etc.

I would tend to interpret womens accession to higher professions as a result of the removal barriers to labour force participation (i.e. a broad mix of welfare, family planning, education, mobility etc) - changes which are distributing greater numbers of females across all occupations (apologies, incurable sociologist).

I agree the results are compelling, but given their potential for mis-use and their emotional loading, they need to be interpreted with serious caution. I'm sure the researchers on Permabears' paper thought they were eliminating variation due to socialisation by isolating sibling pairs, but this completely ignores factors such as curriculum bias, the gendered hierarchy of the military, and class-level effects of individual teachers - factors which I'm guessing were somewhat more pronounced thirty years ago.

What terms would I search to find material on the latter part of your post? I know next to nothing about it!

Stheno

I'd be interested to see if personality profiling was done along with IQ testing, from what little I've read psychopaths (good and bad) tend to have a very high IQ, yet it's less common (again from the little I've read) for women to have that personality type, so I'd correlate the higher amount of men with a higher IQ at the top of the scale compared to women with that personality type potentially being more a male personality type if that makes any sense?

LeeHoffmann

People are talking as though performance on IQ tests is cold hard immutable evidence. IQ tests themselves are skewed and always have been. They measure the skills and aptitudes that are deemed most important by a given society. Moreover an individual's performance isn't constant - I know this from personal experience (my own scores have differed by approx 20 points depending on the time of year, how happy I am etc) and research has demonstrated the impact of self-esteem on an individual's performance - There was an experiment that showed that black people performed significantly better when the adjudicator was black (rather than white) and some other variables that were designed to increase confidence in their identity as black people; and the same was shown to hold for women. Anyone else know of it? IQ scores are inherently flawed. However, what has this to do with the price of salt? Isn't the main point of the thread about whether men are discriminated against in 'gender studies' courses? This has been an interesting detour but I think we've wandered off the point

TL; DR = IQ tests are inherently flawed. We're going off topic

Ostrom

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

People are talking as though performance on IQ tests is cold hard immutable evidence. IQ tests themselves are skewed and always have been. They measure the skills and aptitudes that are deemed most important by a given society. Moreover an individual's performance isn't constant - I know this from personal experience (my own scores have differed by approx 20 points depending on the time of year, how happy I am etc) and research has demonstrated the impact of self-esteem on an individual's performance - There was an experiment that showed that black people performed significantly better when the adjudicator was black (rather than white) and some other variables that were designed to increase confidence in their identity as black people; and the same was shown to hold for women. Anyone else know of it? IQ scores are inherently flawed. However, what has this to do with the price of salt? Isn't the main point of the thread about whether men are discriminated against in 'gender studies' courses? This has been an interesting detour but I think we've wandered off the point

TL; DR = IQ tests are inherently flawed. We're going off topic

My fault, sorry

But it is in some way related, as presumably the very basis of gender studies as a coherent sub-discipline is the rejection of intrinsic differences, and a focus on the role of social constructs of gender, institutionalised gender bias etc?

gargleblaster

Let's get this straight. Gender studies isn't about 'women good, men bad'

What is not in dispute, though, is the contribution to gender studies of current research into the changing nature of masculinity. Scholars such as Jeff Hearn, R W Connell, Keith Pringle, Michael Kimmel and Terrell Carver have all taken inspiration from feminism and women's studies to analyse, for example, class and racial inequalities between men, the causes and consequences of male violence, the lived experience of different kinds of male sexuality, and the ways in which ideas of masculinity influence social and political thought. Although most gender studies scholars and students are women, the likes of Jeff Hearn and Michael Kimmel have paved the way for increasing numbers of men to contribute to academic gender studies, contributions that have been unambiguously welcomed. In this context, if a gender studies scholar were to put forward a crude "women good, men bad" analysis, it would never stand up to peer scrutiny.

I hope more men decide to challenge this idea. If done in a serious and thoughtful manner, it could be very enlightening.

Logical Fallacy

Stheno wrote: »

I'd be interested to see if personality profiling was done along with IQ testing, from what little I've read psychopaths (good and bad) tend to have a very high IQ, yet it's less common (again from the little I've read) for women to have that personality type, so I'd correlate the higher amount of men with a higher IQ at the top of the scale compared to women with that personality type potentially being more a male personality type if that makes any sense?

Psychopathic personality traits are also very useful when it comes to trying to climb to the top of your chosen field. Well, according to Hare.

Stheno

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Psychopathic personality traits are also very useful when it comes to trying to climb to the top of your chosen field. Well, according to Hare.

That was what I was thinking from the little reading I've done. A lot of psychopaths are very successful business people, so I'd be curious to see if a similiar study to the IQ study was done on personality type and aligned by gender, and compared with IQ.

There are numerous studies already out there suggesting that the amount of testosterone in individuals influences how they succeed, so a study of personality types would be something else to consider.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

efla wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That has certainly opened the market, but it doesn't explain the gender shift in the professions. Ditto for secondary school exam results. Again the "average" women is doing better than the "average" man, to the degree that questions are being asked. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3148375.stm http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/poor-showing-by-boys-fuels-demands-for-exam-shakeup-1884014.html. but again against that at the very top end there are more men. Oh yes there are sociological influences, very much so, but I strongly suspect there are average physical/mental differences at work too.

LeeHoffmann wrote:

There was an experiment that showed that black people performed significantly better when the adjudicator was black (rather than white) and some other variables that were designed to increase confidence in their identity as black people; and the same was shown to hold for women.

Funny enough another one I read looked at another angle with regard to confidence in Black Americans. They found that if they thought they were writing a letter to another black person they "dumbed down" their vocabulary, compared to when they thought they were writing to a white person. Funny enough whites didn't do this nearly so much.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'd say there's a couple of reasons for this, especially in the US. Academia was one of the few places that left wing socialism really "took" in that culture, so there's a touch of siege mentality. Secondly there's quite the anti science vibe afoot in the US, so that adds to the siege mentality in academia too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

WesternNight

Stheno wrote: »

I'd be interested to see if personality profiling was done along with IQ testing, from what little I've read psychopaths (good and bad) tend to have a very high IQ

I'm not sure that's the case. I think it's more that there are intelligent and less intelligent psychopaths, just like everyone else, but the more intelligent ones tend to keep themselves out of prison, and are more obvious (for want of a better word) in society, where they'd tend to be quite successful in powerful/authoritative positions.

LeeHoffmann

I think it's more that there are intelligent and less intelligent psychopaths, just like everyone else, but the more intelligent ones tend to keep themselves out of prison,

...and thus, successfully committing crimes for longer...hence being more memorable and noteworthy

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But isn't that why they introduced the HPAT for example... I thought it was shown to be biased in favour of men whereas it was acknowledged the LC favoured women, so it gave medicine entrants a more even chance.

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

...and thus, successfully committing crimes for longer...hence being more memorable and noteworthy

It's not a guarantee that someone who might score high on the Hare test might also be predisposed to criminality.

amacachi

bluewolf wrote: »

But isn't that why they introduced the HPAT for example... I thought it was shown to be biased in favour of men whereas it was acknowledged the LC favoured women, so it gave medicine entrants a more even chance.

The HPAT does little more than create an extra little money-spinner for the "academic" sector. The reasons given for its introduction were that those getting the 570+ points for medicine weren't necessarily suited to the course. Luckliy there's a test for that!
It has changed very little in what's needed to get into medicine, it's a few points less in the LC but now instead of people missing out by 5-10 points there's dozens or hundreds missing out by one or two points. The HPAT is supposedly marked out of 300 but I think the highest mark is generally around 210 despite the normalisation, though a few got around 240 this year with no-one getting ~215-240.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann

It's not a guarantee that someone who might score high on the Hare test might also be predisposed to criminality.

maybe I'm having a blonde moment but - Is the HARE test the test that identifies psychos?

Monty Burnz

panda100 wrote: »

I'm not suprised that Summers was witch hunted out of Harvard, after saying that women are underrepresented in science,maths etc, beause they are more stupid than men. Isn't that what he's effectively saying?Or am I reading the reserach all wrong?

Oh my god. This is what you are up against. Where did anyone say that?

Alopex

bluewolf wrote: »

But isn't that why they introduced the HPAT for example... I thought it was shown to be biased in favour of men whereas it was acknowledged the LC favoured women, so it gave medicine entrants a more even chance.

I don't think so. I think it was introduced to get more suitable medicine candidates.

Basically it recognises that someone who gets an A1 in history, art, english, business and geography, but a C3 in chemistry and maths; may not be as suitable as someone who gets B1s in Physics, chemistry, biology, maths etc

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

maybe I'm having a blonde moment but - Is the HARE test the test that identifies psychos?

Yeah, it the one that is most commonly used in the diagnosis of psychopathic tendencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

LeeHoffmann

..so are you saying that apparent 'psychopaths' aren't more likely to commit crime?

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

..so are you saying that apparent 'psychopaths' aren't more likely to commit crime?

Nope. I am saying it is a mistake to assume that someone who scores highly on the HARE test for psychopathic traits would automatically be criminally disposed.

It's not 100% that scoring high on the test means you break the law.

LeeHoffmann

I agree with that.

I think it's more that there are intelligent and less intelligent psychopaths, just like everyone else, but the more intelligent ones tend to keep themselves out of prison,

...and thus, successfully committing crimes for longer...hence being more memorable and noteworthy

My post (the second one) was just meant as a continuation of the previous poster's idea - i.e. the highly intelligent ones (who choose to commit crime) are more likely to avoid getting caught, therefore more opportunity for crime which, if they take advantage of, will lead to them being more memorable.

Completely agree with you LF - I don't believe in any deterministic types of explanation

Seraphina

Has anyone else here actually ever TAKEN a gender studies class?

Because I have. I can guarantee to you that it is NOT all about women vs men bad and good etc etc. In fact my course wasn't even specifically gender studies (it was gender and archaeology), but it was still much more in depth than that!!!

What I can guarantee happened, is that because he quit the course after only 6 weeks, he missed all the good stuff. That first six weeks is when you get all the basics in. The thing is about gender studies, is that it is a field which has definitely grown from feminism and it's core issues, and as such (as with ANY course), you start from the beginning, learn the history and where it all started, and then move on to the more complex/recent theory.

He probably sat through the history of feminism learning about the suffragettes and bra-burning in the 60's (first wave feminism, all very mis-guided), and got all grumpy because he had to listen to how women used not be able to vote, had less in terms of rights and land ownership (blah blah blah you know it all) and got bored and sick of it. He probably sat there thinking "yea yeah yeah I know this, why are we talking about the PAST" and decided it was biased in favour of women.

I learned a lot on my gender studies course. Not just about feminism, but about how we view people through gender, make different assumptions, and judge the exact same traits differently depending on whether a man or a woman has them. It was about identity and how we create it through our actions and a lot of other stuff. We certainly did not sit around bashing men (it was a small class, 4 girls and 3 guys). We also read a lot by various male academics and writers, discussing masculinity and 'masculanism' (that's why we don't have a male equivalent to feminism, the word construction just sounds absurd!) and many other male-related topics.

I hope that guy gets his ass handed to him in court. Does he even know what the rest of the course would have entailed? You really can't make that kind of judgement in 6 weeks!

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sonics2k wrote: »

He was basically forced to retire for pointing out a statistical fact, which was not aimed at saying "men are smarter than women".

Just to interject - the Summers issue went far beyond his comments on women in the sciences. At the time, he was pushing major changes to the structure of the university which were quite popular with the students, but some of which threatened the autonomy of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. After multiple clashes with the faculty, the gender comments gave them a bat to publicly beat Summers with (a public that would be completely uninterested in teaching loads and administrative restructuring), and he was shoved out.

gargleblaster

Seraphina wrote: »

Does he even know what the rest of the course would have entailed? You really can't make that kind of judgement in 6 weeks!

Sure you can, if you go in with an agenda/axe to grind or a giant chip on your shoulder. It would probably help if you're also shortsighted.

Dolbert

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I disagree that the official academic position on equality is that we are all equal. Modern biology shows up many of the physical differences and how they impact on cultural phenomenon. E.g. brain chemistry and attitude to risk. Much of this is demonstrably due to physical differences in hormone exposure. These are physical processes that can be directly used to explain the differences in the two sexes. Epigenetical (spelling?) studies on childhood development show that males and females undergo changes in gene expression, so that even identical twins that have the same genome can still develop in different ways. If you only meant that socialist academics (sorry sociologists) think we are all equal then ok batter on.

I more or less agree that gender studies is code for woman's advocacy - but think its probably still required whatever they call it. Academia is really still a man's game. The stats you quote for success in second and third level education still aren't matched in higher level positions. E.g. Pharmacy - loads of woman pharmacists. Few managers. Loads of biology students few female science professors. Something is happening, whether or not we should try to do something about it is a separate question.

southsiderosie

The 39-year-old, who attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree

See, I just couldn't get past this line in the article. Why in the world is this a Masters program, and what is somebody supposed to do with this degree?

I am not saying that these issues should not be studied, but a more logical approach would be to have an interdisciplinary research group or center, rather than asking people to shell out thousands of dollars for a degree that I can't, frankly, see any use for.

doopa

southsiderosie wrote: »

See, I just couldn't get past this line in the article. Why in the world is this a Masters program, and what is somebody supposed to do with this degree?

I am not saying that these issues should not be studied, but a more logical approach would be to have an interdisciplinary research group or center, rather than asking people to shell out thousands of dollars for a degree that I can't, frankly, see any use for.

Well that ain't the only point of college but here is some info from Sussex:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/gender/1-2-5.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

See, I just couldn't get past this line in the article. Why in the world is this a Masters program, and what is somebody supposed to do with this degree?

I am not saying that these issues should not be studied, but a more logical approach would be to have an interdisciplinary research group or center, rather than asking people to shell out thousands of dollars for a degree that I can't, frankly, see any use for.

Most of the top universities have Gender Studies programs, so there's obviously plenty of demand. I did an interdisciplinary degree for which I took a GS module, so I got to know a lot of the students. Looking at LinkedIn, most of them seem to have done pretty well for themselves, so I suppose they bigged up the 'transferable skills' on their resumes. Also, a lot of people just have rich parents willing to shell out money for them to do hobby courses.

mcmoustache

Dolorous wrote: »

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

It would if the course was called Women's Studies.

TLL makes no secret of what it is and I have no time for anyone who'd complain about things being discussed here from a female perspective. On the other hand, calling something Gender Studies if* it is just a renamed Women's Studies course seems a bit disingenuous.

* I say "if" because I don't believe this guy. I think he already had an axe to grind and I have no sympathy for him.

James Jones

mcmoustache wrote: »

Dolorous wrote: »

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

It would if the course was called Women's Studies.
TLL makes no secret of what it is and I have no time for anyone who'd complain about things being discussed here from a female perspective. On the other hand, calling something Gender Studies if* it is just a renamed Women's Studies course seems a bit disingenuous.
* I say "if" because I don't believe this guy. I think he already had an axe to grind and I have no sympathy for him.

+1.

If the course was Gender Studies then it should have been about Gender. It seems to me that the term "Gender" has been hi-jacked exclusively for use in relation to one-gender only.
For example Gender Based Violence seems to be exclusively about women even though men also suffer domestic abuse.
Gender Equality seems to be about women only but Minister Shatter does his best to make up fairly lame excuses.

Dolbert

Right, except this guy gave the course just six weeks before jacking it in completely, he couldn't possibly have given it a chance. Most people can see here that he had a chip on his shoulder from the get-go.