Gender Studies - what is taught in gender studies courses?

[Forty Two]

Hey - our gender studies is bigger than your gender studies, so there! Look! http://www.sussex.ac.uk/gender/

On a more serious note if I was a young woman with an ounce of intelligence and realised what a fucked up male world this is, I would seriously consider signing up and what is more becoming a so called 'radical feminist'.

The War that should be fought is the war on Testosterone!

.... if every person signing up for gender studies curricula would simply enter the STEM field, medicine, finance, or legal fields, there would be no issues... I don't mean "every" one, of course. Some of those folks are bound to be not too academic... so, the nonacademic ones can help remedy the dearth of female trash collectors, septic system drainers, plumbers, electrical linespeople, embalmers, hazardous waste removers, pest controllers, high rise window washers, coal miners and oil riggers.... I think there was a rally the other day protesting the disproportionately low female participation in those fields....

[pErvinalia]

Fuck off.

I suspect that the reason you don't post even one or two examples of this mountain of reasonable, rigorous gender studies publication and research, is that you are unaware of any. You want to say they're out there, but you don't know of any. Isn't that right?

I mean, the easiest thing in the world would be to just post a quick link, citation, etc. Even just name a title and author, such that it can be independently located.

What the fuck are you on about? I said that you often post sarcastic biased articles/videos. You do. None of your subsequent wibble changes that.

I am on about the fact that you can't post one or two examples of the reasonable, rigorous gender studies publication and research to which you referred above. If you can, then link it. If you have no interest in the conversation and therefore can't be arsed to participate in it, then go fuck off instead of continually posting in threads you say you don't care about.

Again, fuck off. I'll point out the credibility of your articles/videos whenever I want. If you don't like it, you can call the waaambulance like you usually do.

[Forty Two]

I'm not asking you about the "credibility" of articles/videos. I will point out that you made no attack on the "credibility" of the article in the OP.

You made an assertion. I'm just asking you to back it up. Since you won't, then there is no reason to take it or you seriously on the issue. It's just you trolling again - you like to sit around and poke, poke, poke and "ask questions" as you make demands for evidence, etc. But, you hardly ever, if ever, deign to back up your own claims. That's your way. Your way is not very sporting, Vizzini.

[pErvinalia]

What claims are you inventing that I've made this time? It's like a fucking broken record with you. You can't even read plain fucking English.

[Forty Two]

It's up to you if you want to respond. You obviously don't, so I'm not following you down this path again. You're full of shit, and you know it. The thread speaks for itself.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then go fuck off to a thread you're interested in. If you're sticking around just to make your usual stupid-ass comments, that's up to you, of course, but your comments are unsupported and stupid.

[pErvinalia]

The only claim I made was about the sarcasm/reliability of YOUR articles. I made no claim about one single other article. When you learn to read basic English, get back to me.

[Forty Two]

Bullshit. Reread the thread.

[pErvinalia]

I have. I only made a claim about YOUR articles/videos. Sorry, dude, but you don't get to invent your own facts (not that that dissuades you from trying repeatedly... )

[Forty Two]

Bullshit -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1680833

In that post you alleged that "it depends which articles you are reading..." and you said that the articles I post are not rigorous and are biased.

I asked you to cite to or reference the other articles - the ones you were alluding to -- the rigorous ones that are not biased.

If you are not suggesting that there are such other articles that are rigorous and unbiased, then your statement "it depends on which artlcles you are are reading..." is baseless. If you have no such articles to reference, how could you know that that there are such other articles? You're just declaring that it depends on which articles you read, and declaring mine to be the nonrigorous and biased ones.

Not only do you not show any lack of rigor or bias in the article I posted in the OP -- you just declared it -- but also, you've not shown a single article or source that you believe to be rigorous and unbiased.

Then you go on your little diversion, claiming that you made no claims at all and so you don't need to back them up. Well, if you'll go on record as confirming that you are not aware of any rigorous or unbiased sources to demonstrate that "it depends on which articles you're reading..." then that will just confirm what anyone reading this thread already knows. You're talking out of your ass.

[pErvinalia]

Bullshit -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1680833

In that post you alleged that "it depends which articles you are reading..." and you said that the articles I post are not rigorous and are biased.

I asked you to cite to or reference the other articles - the ones you were alluding to -- the rigorous ones that are not biased.

If you are not suggesting that there are such other articles that are rigorous and unbiased, then your statement "it depends on which artlcles you are are reading..." is baseless.

You really suck at logic. Jim could have been reading sensible unbiased articles that I have not seen.

So again, I made no claim about anything but YOUR articles/videos.

[Forty Two]

If you've not seen them, then how in the world could you possibly know that, in reality, it depends on which articles and sources one reads? For all you know, there are no such rigorous and unbiased sources. You just declare they exist, without knowing of any?

Or, do you know of them, but you just don't want to disclose them?

You absolutely made a claim. You made the claim that it depends on the articles/sources you read. That's a claim. That's a claim made by you. You aren't backing it up.

You say "Jim could have been reading sensible unbiased articles..." indeed, he "could have." But, I wasn't talking about what Jim said, I was talking about what YOU said. And, YOU said that it depends on the sources/articles one reads... -- what sources does it depend on, pErvin?

Possible answers?

A. The following are examples of the rigorous unbiased sources/articles I'm referring to...:
B. There are no such sources/articles of which I am aware.
C. I know of such unbiased and rigorous sources, but I decline to provide them.

Which is it?

[pErvinalia]

If you've not seen them, then how in the world could you possibly know that, in reality, it depends on which articles and sources one reads? For all you know, there are no such rigorous and unbiased sources. You just declare they exist, without knowing of any?

Yes, what a leap in faith it must be to imagine that there are sensible unbiased articles on a subject. How could I have possibly imagined such a crazy possibility?

You absolutely made a claim. You made the claim that it depends on the articles/sources you read. That's a claim. That's a claim made by you. You aren't backing it up.

So now you are shifting the goal posts on what I claimed. You couldn't prove that I said I read reasonable articles, so you've shifted to something else. You truly are one of the most pathetic internet personas I've ever come across.

So if that's the new claim you want to dig yourself into a hole over, then fine. How would you expect one to back up an internally coherent statement? You do realise there is nothing that needs backing up? It would be like you asking me to back up the statement "ask your mother".

You say "Jim could have been reading sensible unbiased articles..." indeed, he "could have." But, I wasn't talking about what Jim said, I was talking about what YOU said. And, YOU said that it depends on the sources/articles one reads... -- what sources does it depend on, pErvin?

The sources for Jim's reading.

And it doesn't matter that you weren't talking about what Jim said. You are contesting a comment I made ABOUT SOMETHING JIM SAID.

[Forty Two]

If you've not seen them, then how in the world could you possibly know that, in reality, it depends on which articles and sources one reads? For all you know, there are no such rigorous and unbiased sources. You just declare they exist, without knowing of any?

Yes, what a leap in faith it must be to imagine that there are sensible unbiased articles on a subject. How could I have possibly imagined such a crazy possibility?

I can imagine just fine that there are articles which you consider sensible and unbiased. Imagining the possibility, however, is completely different than proving the fact.

In addition, just because YOU think an article is sensible and unbiased doesn't mean that it is, in fact, sensible and unbiased. If we don't have your examples, then we can't assess their rigor or bias.

If the issue was "could it possibly be that there are articles out there that pErvin would describe as sensible and unbiased?" Sure, that is not in dispute. Of course there could be such articles. It's a logical possibility that cannot be denied. However, that's a wholly different issue from the issue of (a) there are such articles, and (b) here are examples of those that I consider unbiased and sensible.

If you are unaware of any such extant articles, then just say so. You keep evading, as usual.

You absolutely made a claim. You made the claim that it depends on the articles/sources you read. That's a claim. That's a claim made by you. You aren't backing it up.

So now you are shifting the goal posts on what I claimed. You couldn't prove that I said I read reasonable articles, so you've shifted to something else. You truly are one of the most pathetic internet personas I've ever come across.

Absolute nonsense. The goal posts have not shifted. You made the claim in the linked post that "it depends on which articles...." I'm asking you to cite or reference those articles which are rigorous and unbiased. You're the one who said it depends on which articles. If there aren't any extant articles of which you are aware ,then you can't know that it depends on which articles one reads.

So if that's the new claim you want to dig yourself into a hole over, then fine. How would you expect one to back up an internally coherent statement? You do realise there is nothing that needs backing up? It would be like you asking me to back up the statement "ask your mother".

LOL - which articles are rigorous and unbiased, pErvin. If it depends on which articles one reads because the ones Forty Two cites are non-rigorous and biased, then tell us what the rigorous and unbiased articles are.

I've gone out on the limb that you can't, because you're not aware of any. You just wanted to declare that there are, and move on, without backing up that claim. You did not just declare that "it depends which articles one reads, which may possibly exist but of which I'm not aware...." you declared that it depends on which articles one reads. In order for it to so depend, there must be rigorous unbiased articles. If there aren't, then it does not depend on whether one reads them.

You say "Jim could have been reading sensible unbiased articles..." indeed, he "could have." But, I wasn't talking about what Jim said, I was talking about what YOU said. And, YOU said that it depends on the sources/articles one reads... -- what sources does it depend on, pErvin?

The sources for Jim's reading.

And it doesn't matter that you weren't talking about what Jim said. You are contesting a comment I made ABOUT SOMETHING JIM SAID.

Nope. I'm commenting about what YOU said. You said it depended. What does it depend on? Some "possibly" extant articles that are rigorous and unbiased? Or do you know of some? Even one. Just ONE rigorous and unbiased article.

here's a blank: ______________________________ -- [insert title and author of rigorous, unbiased article or source]

If anyone can fill in that blank for pErvin, please do.

[PsychoSerenity]

Here you go Coito:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gender+studies

[pErvinalia]

If you've not seen them, then how in the world could you possibly know that, in reality, it depends on which articles and sources one reads? For all you know, there are no such rigorous and unbiased sources. You just declare they exist, without knowing of any?

Yes, what a leap in faith it must be to imagine that there are sensible unbiased articles on a subject. How could I have possibly imagined such a crazy possibility?

I can imagine just fine that there are articles which you consider sensible and unbiased. Imagining the possibility, however, is completely different than proving the fact.

I didn't state a fact. You really struggle with simple logic, don't you?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you can "imagine just fine that there are articles which you consider sensible and unbiased", then why the fuck did you just say "you just declare they exist, without knowing any?". Stop trying to prove that black is white, ffs.

If the issue was "could it possibly be that there are articles out there that pErvin would describe as sensible and unbiased?" Sure, that is not in dispute. Of course there could be such articles. It's a logical possibility that cannot be denied.

Thank you. So you agree with me. Now stop trying to make an argument out of nothing.

You absolutely made a claim. You made the claim that it depends on the articles/sources you read. That's a claim. That's a claim made by you. You aren't backing it up.

So now you are shifting the goal posts on what I claimed. You couldn't prove that I said I read reasonable articles, so you've shifted to something else. You truly are one of the most pathetic internet personas I've ever come across.

Absolute nonsense. The goal posts have not shifted.

Yes they have. You originally said I claimed to have read certain articles. Now you are asserting something else now that you realise that was a bullshit assertion from you.

You made the claim in the linked post that "it depends on which articles...." I'm asking you to cite or reference those articles which are rigorous and unbiased. You're the one who said it depends on which articles. If there aren't any extant articles of which you are aware ,then you can't know that it depends on which articles one reads.

As I said, I'm making the extraordinary leap of faith that there are sensible article on the subject, like there are sensible articles on EVERY SUBJECT IN THE HISTORY OF SUBJECTS! And you agreed above that this isn't actually that big a leap to make. So you are just arguing now for the sake of arguing.

You say "Jim could have been reading sensible unbiased articles..." indeed, he "could have." But, I wasn't talking about what Jim said, I was talking about what YOU said. And, YOU said that it depends on the sources/articles one reads... -- what sources does it depend on, pErvin?

The sources for Jim's reading.

And it doesn't matter that you weren't talking about what Jim said. You are contesting a comment I made ABOUT SOMETHING JIM SAID.

Nope. I'm commenting about what YOU said. You said it depended. What does it depend on?

On what articles Jim has been reading.