You may argue that these courses aren't useful individually (I neither agree or dis agree) but the people who part take these courses are a fundamental part of wider sciences, such as those in Biology experiments, and even chemistry, i.e they Identify a behaviour (Maybe not in humans always) and that prompts biochemists to search what causes this.

Reply 26

the mezzil

3

Original post by shadowdweller

It's not all that offensive

Posted from TSR Mobile

The poster was claiming that any society ran by males are backward and likened them to a cess pit. That is offensive. The poster was claiming that women are better than men in running society, that is sexism.

The poster is a sexist backward person if they hold those sort of views. Makes me sick.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 27

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

21

Original post by the mezzil

The poster was claiming that any society ran by males are backward and likened them to a cess pit. That is offensive. The poster was claiming that women are better than men in running society, that is sexism

Posted from TSR Mobile

No, he said that a society with men and women running it is better than one where it's only men

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 28

Dragonfly07

18

A thing doesn't need to be universal or obsolete for it to be considered "science". In fact most things in science are far from obsolete.

Go on google scholar and search for any key word you want, look at the conclusions of the first paper you find, and I can guarantee that 99.9% of the papers don't have a concrete conclusion, regardless of the "type" of science involved.

Humanities and sociology are simply harder to study as sciences because of the difficulty of coming up with controls, and also the fact that studying people's behaviours in laboratory settings wouldn't necessarily reflect their actions in real life (which by the way is something that they acknowledge every time they make a laboratory behavioral experiment - it is simply a model and is likely to model real life to a certain extent, but not completely).

But just because it's difficult to carry out scientifically doesn't null them from being a science and in fact I see those subjects as some of the most important and the most fascinating.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 29

Dragonfly07

18

Anyway I think it's barbaric for the government to ban anything that doesn't harm anyone.

To ban something simply because you think it's "useless" is stupid and infringes on the freedom of choice of the people.

Reply 30

the mezzil

3

Original post by shadowdweller

No, he said that a society with men and women running it is better than one where it's only men

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thats bs and you know it, the poster was not saying that at all. Dont try and defend them, you and I both know exactly what they were really trying to say.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

21

Original post by the mezzil

Thats bs and you know it, the poster was not saying that at all. Dont try and defend them, you and I both know exactly what they were really trying to say.

Posted from TSR Mobile

"Men exist, too, and they wear the trousers in the more backward cultures that inhabit the cess pits of this Earth, which are worth studying if you want to know how not to run a society"

It seems to just be saying that men shouldn't be the sole runners of society...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

felamaslen

15

Original post by You Forever

You come across a bit sexialist

You've misunderstood me. I believe any society which discriminates based on gender is backward, and most cultures do this. I believe people should be treated as individuals regardless of gender, and no laws should be put in place which condone discrimination (of any kind, in either direction). I think, on balance, that makes me the opposite of sexist, don't you?

Reply 33

felamaslen

15

Original post by the mezzil

The poster was claiming that any society ran by males are backward and likened them to a cess pit. That is offensive. The poster was claiming that women are better than men in running society, that is sexism.

The poster is a sexist backward person if they hold those sort of views. Makes me sick.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I should be clear. I don't mind whatever roles men and/or women have in society (as long as they are not forced into those roles and are allowed to escape them on an individual level); what I think makes a culture backwards is when females are dominated by males (or the other way around, if that were the case). OK, maybe "wearing the trousers" was too ambiguous and mild a phrase to use. I meant a domineering culture in which people are not allowed to freely express themselves as individuals.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I think women are better than men at running society. If anything, it is the other way around. That has nothing to do with liberal individualism, which is what I'm advocating.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 34

You Forever

Original post by felamaslen

You've misunderstood me. I believe any society which discriminates based on gender is backward, and most cultures do this. I believe people should be treated as individuals regardless of gender, and no laws should be put in place which condone discrimination (of any kind, in either direction). I think, on balance, that makes me the opposite of sexist, don't you?

wait hold up you think women is equal to men?

Reply 35

medbh4805

20

Are there actually any Gender Studies/Women's Studies undergraduate degrees in the UK? I thought it was something generally taught as part of other degrees (e.g. sociology, anthropology) or else studied in its own right at postgraduate level? :curious:

Reply 36

SNichol

6

Original post by medbh4805

Are there actually any Gender Studies/Women's Studies undergraduate degrees in the UK? I thought it was something generally taught as part of other degrees (e.g. sociology, anthropology) or else studied in its own right at postgraduate level? :curious:

That was my assumption too. I'm currently studying for a BA in English Studies, and whilst I must admit that studies around Gender/Women/Feminisms do take part in specific modules (which may I point out, are optional), it is not something that is forced upon us.

If they are studied in their own right at postgraduate level, for the most part the tax payer is not paying and therefore it's none of their concern.

Reply 37

bluebird60460459

Just because you do not think gender studies is useful, does not mean other people don't want to do it or find it interesting, useful or inspiring. Sociology, Psychology and History, only partly cover gender related things and if you want to specifically study gender just choosing one of them is not going to work for you.

ALSO some sociologists do not want to even be considered a science.(interpretivists) And all subjects should be thought of with respect, because students have found something they're interested in or good at.

Reply 38

ukmed108

7

Original post by RoryRorrzShikari

First of all I'm pretty sure the OP has just posted this to get attention- positive or negative. Secondly, I love the fact science students label arts students as 'less intelligent' or not smart enough to study science when a lot of science students would really struggle to write an English/History/Politics essay.

I'd say so but from what i've noticed, arts students have fewer class hours, have more time to party and I had an arts student tell me he doesn't need to study for exams, he just makes sure he can write an essay by just memorizing a few essays. All this while I was studying day and night for my medicine exam.

I wouldn't call arts students necessarily less intelligent, but they sure have an easier time in uni.

Reply 39

felamaslen

15

Original post by You Forever

wait hold up you think women is equal to men?

If you take women as a group of people, and take men as a group of people, obviously there are major differences in the average, in, say, height. The average male is taller than the average female.

My argument is that this is not sufficient justification to treat women differently than men: you must treat men and women as individuals regardless of gender, and judge them on their own merit.

If you still don't understand this concept, suppose you had a fairground ride which had a minimum height limit of six feet. You'd be correct to say that almost all women would not be tall enough. But you should not put in place a policy which bans women from entering the fairground ride (read: occupation), because one day a woman might turn up who is over six feet tall - they do exist, they are just a minority in the group we call "women". Of course they would not be a minority in a group of "over 6-footers" though. People are individuals, not groups.

Should we ban women's studies/gender studies?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you