Post: #51

"Butthexting"? Typo or Great Books For Men reference? (/thread-23366.html)

Post: #52

(05-13-2015 03:18 PM)SunW Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 02:08 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I worry for the future of young American white men...and black men...and all men. They're starting with whites because they're easier to attack at this point due to 'privilege' and all that.

They already did in a way by targeting black men through lowering black marriage rates (ht: free government handouts!). Look at the races (including Asians) by education, family (Dalrock's post), income, and crime and you'll generally observe that races with solid family structures tend to have more money, higher education levels, and lower crime rates. If you look at ethnic groups, you'll see race doesn't even matter because some ethnic groups, like Nigerians, still have strong family structures when they come to the US, so we don't see the high crime, low income and low educational level.

This also pops some of the manosphere/racist views that crime happens because of race. Wrong; crime increases when you don't have a solid family unit. Many people don't know how the US government destroyed black family formation with welfare and reckless social policies, which created a hostile attitude of black women toward black men. With government handouts, who needs men?

Whites are next.

You also forgot about the CIA flooding black communities with Crack Cocaine(information which has been released by the government, but people stoped caring about), which was the MAIN issue that fucked up LOTS of communities for generations, then proceed to move in militarily (police) to wage the "Drug War" in Black communities, further exacerbating the problem. I'm surprised a lot of people fail to mention that issue as it is one of the huge reasons why black america is in its rut today.

Flood neighboorhood with drugs, move in to take the men away through "Drug war" pretenses, observe how the next generation deal with not having fathers in their homes, and see if the communities remains in tact (read: it doesn't) welfare has a lot less to do with it that people want to believe, as the black community is STILL reeling over people involved in drugs(selling, using, etc)

Post: #53

Da gbfm lievs on. asscocking bernankified cunzilla black wominz professor thinks whiet guys r da problem? I tihnk her tepid wirting is a porblem. how bout you pay me 100,000. 10,000 to teach you to write and 90,000 for all the condoms I'll buy for uor special itme. lozlozlozlozlozlozlozlozlozlozloz. You cna take it out on a loan frm ben bernanke. He alredy desouled ur anus with his fedrally funded lotsa cockas.

WAB (would asscock and buthext lozlozlozloz).

But seriously, yes that was a gbfm reference. Glad you picked up on it.

Post: #54

(05-13-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I have a hard time accepting the fact that a woman--any woman from any race or national origin--is qualified to write about "masculinity."

True enough, but in this case it hardly even matters that she is a female and it matters still less that her ostensible subject is "masculinity". What matters most is that she is part of an entire academic industry whose output consists of nothing but worthless tripe filled with SJW boilerplate about "heteronormativity", "hegemony", "intersectionality" and other meaningless but insidious tokens.

This whole industry has nothing to do with science or research -- not even with good faith research in the social sciences, such as they are -- and is merely a mechanism for giving generations of SJWs a sinecure from which they can waste private and public money and poison the atmosphere as best they can. It is, at best, a useless blight on the face of society, and in many cases something far more dangerous and malicious than that.

Post: #55

(05-13-2015 08:29 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  True enough, but in this case it hardly even matters that she is a female and it matters still less that her ostensible subject is "masculinity". What matters most is that she is part of an entire academic industry whose output consists of nothing but worthless tripe filled with SJW boilerplate about "heteronormativity", "hegemony", "intersectionality" and other meaningless but insidious tokens.

This whole industry has nothing to do with science or research -- not even with good faith research in the social sciences, such as they are -- and is merely a mechanism for giving generations of SJWs a sinecure from which they can waste private and public money and poison the atmosphere as best they can. It is, at best, a useless blight on the face of society, and in many cases something far more dangerous and malicious than that.

Do you actually have any experience with the academic world?

Because this is such a bizarre outlook on it and is so far from my experience with academia I don't understand how you even came to this perspective.

Post: #56

Why do so many (mostly white, mostly male) parents keep footing the bill for their sons to go to universities like these? I don't get it.

Food for thought: it's not just white males who are treated as "white males" by the (mostly white) academic left. If you're not white, but your politics or ideas aren't aligned with theirs, you also will be considered an "angry, old, white male". i.e.... the rooshv forum is just a bunch of old, angry white men.

Post: #57

Wow, single white female feminism in blackface.

I just find it sad black feminism will carry on the ideals of white female feminism; then again, they got used.

Post: #58

(05-13-2015 01:57 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm tempted to start mailing turds to people like this I see in the media.

OH PLEASE DO IT!!

Post: #59

(05-13-2015 09:16 PM)Americas Wrote:  Do you actually have any experience with the academic world?

Because this is such a bizarre outlook on it and is so far from my experience with academia I don't understand how you even came to this perspective.

Post: #60

(05-13-2015 06:33 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Quote:In other recent tweets, she said, "Deal with your white (expletive), white people. slavery is a (asterisk)YALL(asterisk) thing,"

OK - despite the obvious disadvantage that blacks had in US & European history, the situation is not nearly as black and white as sold.........

This may be one of the largest bait drops I've ever seen...
You almost got me...

Post: #61

(05-13-2015 05:15 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Have a class or two in it if it interests you, but going into debt for it and not being able to obtain a job in the field is just a bad investment. If you really like psychology, become a psychiatrist and really do well (one requires and MD and real science, the other does not.).

This is a problem with the overpriced, money-grabbing education system though. People shouldn't have to go six figures in debt to get a degree, period.

The reason there's no need for these degrees in the job market is because they pushed everyone to go to college and get one (lining their pockets along the way), so now there's not enough jobs to go around.

The fact that college costs more and more while being worth less and less is an economic issue.

And the rest of what is being described are cultural problems. Take away the humanities, and these crazy bitches will just invade the STEM fields in the same way. The only reason they haven't taken over the sciences, engineering, etc. is because they don't have any reason to yet, not because those programs are filled with a bunch of masculine alphas who are holding them off.

We've already seen what these women will do in the world of video game design, which would fall under STEM.

(05-13-2015 05:19 PM)Fortis Wrote:  I don't think he's saying they don't have practical applications, but when was the last time you ever heard anyone say, "I'm really looking to hire a new Poly sci major fresh of out college?"

Most of those guys end up going straight into law school to bolster their studies with something that will get them paid.

Definitely, but we still need scholars, writers, etc.

I mean, how many of the men who are prominent on this site or throughout the manosphere actually have STEM degrees?

There's Roosh, but I believe Rollo has bachelor in fine arts and a masters in psychology (?), I believe Mike Cernovich studied philosophy before moving on to law school.

Obviously a lot of these programs are too watered down at this point to develop real thinkers and scholars, but that is again a problem with the education system and culture itself, not the actual fields of study.

Post: #62

(05-13-2015 01:53 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  Also known as the taint, the gooch, or in masculine cases, the barse.

My personal favourite is the ABC - the Anus-Bollock Connector.

Post: #63

(05-14-2015 02:44 AM)Enigma Wrote:  This is a problem with the overpriced, money-grabbing education system though. People shouldn't have to go six figures in debt to get a degree, period.

The reason there's no need for these degrees in the job market is because they pushed everyone to go to college and get one (lining their pockets along the way), so now there's not enough jobs to go around.

The fact that college costs more and more while being worth less and less is an economic issue.

And the rest of what is being described are cultural problems. Take away the humanities, and these crazy bitches will just invade the STEM fields in the same way. The only reason they haven't taken over the sciences, engineering, etc. is because they don't have any reason to yet, not because those programs are filled with a bunch of masculine alphas who are holding them off.

We've already seen what these women will do in the world of video game design, which would fall under STEM.

Definitely, but we still need scholars, writers, etc.

I mean, how many of the men who are prominent on this site or throughout the manosphere actually have STEM degrees?

There's Roosh, but I believe Rollo has bachelor in fine arts and a masters in psychology (?), I believe Mike Cernovich studied philosophy before moving on to law school.

Obviously a lot of these programs are too watered down at this point to develop real thinkers and scholars, but that is again a problem with the education system and culture itself, not the actual fields of study.

I agree with much of what you wrote.

However with the advent of the internet, I don't see why you have to go to school to be a scholar or a writer.

You can take courses on line for a fraction of the cost and can purchase any book you want online.

Universities are obsolete institutions. They have large overhead and everything they do can be done cheaper online. You could even outsource lab time to a third party.

Post: #64

If you want to scramble your brain with a mixture of stupefication, rage, and despair, go read the jezebel article about her and the following comments.

A few questions for these dummies:
1. Why are we still talking about slavery? It's been 150 years. Plus, your facts are wrong.
2. If racism is about power (which it isn't), why isn't it racism when a woman has power over the people she discriminates against?
3. Why can't you ever be anything but total hypocrites and devoid of logic?

Post: #65

(05-13-2015 08:29 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 07:58 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I have a hard time accepting the fact that a woman--any woman from any race or national origin--is qualified to write about "masculinity."

True enough, but in this case it hardly even matters that she is a female and it matters still less that her ostensible subject is "masculinity". What matters most is that she is part of an entire academic industry whose output consists of nothing but worthless tripe filled with SJW boilerplate about "heteronormativity", "hegemony", "intersectionality" and other meaningless but insidious tokens.

This whole industry has nothing to do with science or research -- not even with good faith research in the social sciences, such as they are -- and is merely a mechanism for giving generations of SJWs a sinecure from which they can waste private and public money and poison the atmosphere as best they can. It is, at best, a useless blight on the face of society, and in many cases something far more dangerous and malicious than that.

Anything that involves this jargon isn't political science at all. I shudder even to call it humanities. They have a special phrase called "identity studies", which may be the most useless field ever, considering they don't even cater to the biological realities of people and how their hormones/bodily functions effect them. It's basically free reign to make up shit based on how you feel.

I'm still doing political science and my research involves the feasibility of implementing democracy in post-Soviet nations. It's absolutely fascinating analyzing election research, corruption data, foreign money inflows and cultural precedent. My research had to be triple checked and proofread to a T, and my advisor let me know that "the less jargon, the better".

So when I see bullshit like this, it really makes me angry. This is not my field. My field is an ancient field, and will never die while governments still exist. Some people may not like humanities... but for me it feels like the only thing I was meant to do.

Post: #66

(05-13-2015 09:16 PM)Americas Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 08:29 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  True enough, but in this case it hardly even matters that she is a female and it matters still less that her ostensible subject is "masculinity". What matters most is that she is part of an entire academic industry whose output consists of nothing but worthless tripe filled with SJW boilerplate about "heteronormativity", "hegemony", "intersectionality" and other meaningless but insidious tokens.

This whole industry has nothing to do with science or research -- not even with good faith research in the social sciences, such as they are -- and is merely a mechanism for giving generations of SJWs a sinecure from which they can waste private and public money and poison the atmosphere as best they can. It is, at best, a useless blight on the face of society, and in many cases something far more dangerous and malicious than that.

Do you actually have any experience with the academic world?

Because this is such a bizarre outlook on it and is so far from my experience with academia I don't understand how you even came to this perspective.

First, yes, I have a great deal of experience with the academic world -- a great deal, LOL.

Second, no such experience is required to see the truth of what I wrote. It is enough to observe the "work" that much of this world produces -- of which Ms. Grundy's tendentious garbage "study" is an excellent example -- to understand what is going on. One can also read the articles that representatives of this world write in the media at large and conclude that they are, by and large, rabid ideologues committed to promulgating a "progressive" Year Zero agenda. One can also see how so many of these people have hungrily supported the current rape hysteria and witch hunts on US college campuses; how they have, time and again, betrayed their own male students and cheered on the internal kangaroo courts and at times on actual corrupt and baseless prosecutions. Nor is this anything new -- recall the utterly shameful way that Duke faculty, particularly certain parts of it, have behaved when their own students were slandered by a false accuser -- piling on, denouncing and demanding the baseless prosecution of their own students, all in the cause of curbing "male privilege".

These things are all a matter of public record; no special "experience" is necessary and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. This world can be judged perfectly well by those outside it; insiders have no special privilege.

Third, there is no "academic world" tout court -- one must distinguish between different parts of it. There are the hard sciences and mathematics, where some of the best and most important work of any kind in the world gets done -- not that all of it is good, or all of it is equally valid and rigorous, and there is a great deal of work in the softer parts of this world (increasingly infested with females), such as parts of the biological sciences or such bastard disciplines as "climate science", which is entirely worthless -- but much of it is superb and valuable. And then there are the social sciences and the humanities, and while there is some decent research being done in these disciplines, particularly in some of them and in certain departments, vast swaths of them have been taken over by Year Zero ideologues whose "research" consists of nothing but promulgating a fanatical and poisonous agenda -- especially in such bottom of the barrel "disciplines" as "women's studies" or "critical theory".

Finally, if any of these rather obvious observations seem in the least "bizarre" then I think you have very little common ground with the majority of posters on this forum -- and that's putting it mildly. To defend the sewer that is today's SJW dominated academic world of the social sciences and humanities is to defend our enemies -- those who are responsible for dreaming up outrageous misandrist laws like "Yes Means Yes" and others, and those who wish, and have attempted to do, real harm to normal men in this country and most particularly to the kind of men who post here. It is to defend the indefensible.

Post: #67

Forget everything else. The only way you need to know this "professor" is full of shit is that if the exact same script reversed the protagonists, she'd be out of a job by now.

It all goes back to the privilege hierarchy theory of human worth. See my post alluding to left wing human worth via money.

Straight cis white men are pennies. No one cares about them. Often times stores will ask "no pennies please." Anyone remembering that recent incident where no white men were allowed at first?

When you drop a penny, how often do you pick it up? How often did you use pennies as a kid to experiment on with a mixture of things you called "chemicals?"

Does anyone ever do this with a $100 bill? No way.

It's easy, and even cool to be wasteful with pennies. So no one cared about this bint.

Of course, these hierarchies of human worth are nothing new and stretch back to ancient times. What we're experiencing now is just the distinctly left-wing flavor because "equality."

Post: #68

(05-13-2015 05:06 PM)Americas Wrote:  There is something ironic about posters from this board shaming a scholar that researches and writes almost exclusively on (black) men and masculinity though.

7 day ban, possible sleeper feminist

Post: #69

I would like to clarify that I am not putting down non STEM majors. I just view college as financial investment and a job as work. However you choose to enrich your mind is you business, I just stated an opinion based on ROI not love of the material. I personally learned more history from Quintus Curtius and Oliver Stone in my free time and enjoyed it, vs paying for in college. I did not intend to insult anyone and was just stating my opinion as a guy who does have student loans and is on his third career.

Post: #70

The humanities are a great way to instill certain values in the younger generation IF taught properly. For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching The Emperor's Club, a great movie about this very topic. It's about a Roman history prof. who runs a tight ship at an all-boys private school. Kinda reminds me of Quintus.

Post: #71

^ Weird how obscure this is considering the actor. Will check it out.

A St. John's of Annapolis-style "elitist" curriculum would, after all these years, still be an ideal way to educate junior high schoolers. That is, if learning to think were really a goal of contemporary education.

Post: #72

^ Nope. Can't have smart boys who question things running around. They're not "in touch with their feelings" or "sensitive enough."

They tend to "offend" weaker minds who aren't nimble enough to come up with proper rebuttals to thoughtful points. Instead, they rage and rang about how "offended" they are.

My boss is super feminist, and I once remarked that I found the idea that "people are reading too many books by white people" to be preposterous. This idiot said, "well the author has a point...." I was flabbergasted and realized she was too indoctrinated to ever have a real conversation with another human being.

Till this day, my boss talks about writing this great book idea she has. Everyone once in a while I ask her how that book is coming along. Alas, she has made no headway. And she wonders why straight, white males corner the writing market? They're writing fucking books. Want to oust them from that position? Write something worth reading.

For the record, I read any book I want. One of my favourite authors is Margaret Atwood. Feminist or not, she can write some Sci-fi.

Post: #73

Americas Wrote:I also probably don't align with others on this board in that I don't think much of the humanities and social sciences are useless. Because they aren't.

Worthless Humanities and Social Science degrees are worthless, worthwhile Humanities and Social Science degrees aren't. The question is how do you tell the difference?

For an exercise in telling the difference: using first principles of logic and reason, find out what's wrong with this statement:

Quote:This qualitative study explores formations of masculinity among students at a historically black all-male college, offering insights into how the institution crafts the manhood of its students in accordance with gender and class ideologies about black male respectability, heteronormativity, and male hegemony.

I'll give you a hint: Make a list of the assumptions and premises, and try to identify clearly in normal human words the actual questions this researcher is asking. And then, explain how you would expect such an enquiry to actually produce knowledge, as opposed to mere persuasive rhetoric.

In my experience, feminist and feminist-like papers tend to fall into two categories:

1. Unmitigated Pablum. Impressive-sounding rhetorical gymnastics and insane twisted logic that takes enormous effort to unravel and discover that there's literally nothing underneath.

2. Narrow research on one specific manifestation of sexism.

The real problem is that these two types of papers cite each other, and no one seems to have the time or energy to sort through the mess. Type 2. papers shamelessly cite Type 1. papers in their introductions and conclusions to promote personal agendas, while Type 1. papers deliberately use Type 2. papers to give the illusion of evidence supporting arbitrary crackball theories, whether their conclusions actually follow from the evidence or not (they usually don't). The result is a gigantic tangled mess of citations that look like research to a casual observer, but is mostly just smoke and mirrors hiding the complete lack of consistent first principles, rigorous foundational knowledge, and dedication to intellectual honesty.

Post: #74

Good call Roosh!

His posts in this thread:
/thread-47413.html

definitely reek of being those of a beta/mangina if not out outright government goon shrill.

Verdict: Ideal candidate for the ban hammer.

(05-14-2015 09:14 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 05:06 PM)Americas Wrote:  There is something ironic about posters from this board shaming a scholar that researches and writes almost exclusively on (black) men and masculinity though.

7 day ban, possible sleeper feminist

Post: #75

Unfortunately the real issue here is that the times of a true University being a place where progressive scholars can go and pursue unadulterated knowledge and truth is far, far behind us.

Higher education is a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that. Special interest and maintaining profit margins has been fueling modern academia for a long time now. The motivation and intentions for people to attend college/university, teach, and administrate are far removed from the romantic vision of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists seeking answers and going against the grain of common-thought to discover and enrich themselves and the world.

You think the environment surrounding your average young adult in the Western world today promote pursuit of knowledge and truth?

I have a degree and I know many others that do as well. I have been to higher learning institutions and they are not the sanctuaries of true progressive thought that should be expected of them. They are not scholarly havens where you can go to question common doctrines and engage in objective debate in pursuit of new ideas.

The only part of a campus where real knowledge can be pursued is in the privacy of a dorm room, or select small class rooms where a maverick professor has the balls to ignore faculty guidelines - because to voice your ideas and question the dogma in a classroom is the last thing you are expected to do.

If you want to be a "scholar" and "pursue knowledge" and "seek the truth" then pick up a book. Go to a library. Open a webpage or two. Observe the world and have an open mind. You don't need to pay money to have some delusional, subjective, racist cunt like this with an axe to grind and some bullshit degree from some other university feed you her opinions about masculinity when she doesn't even have a dick between her legs.