A "PhD in Manosphere Studies"

So I am hiking and in the back of my mind a thought or observation is trying to get out. It's centralled around the purpose or reason why one would get a degree in "Women's Studies." And I don't know if it was a neuron that was jolted into place or perhaps the Rumpleminze finally wore off of one of my neuron receptors, but the epiphany finally exploded to the frontal lobes:
BLAMO!

"How stupid would a PhD in "Manosphere Studies" be?"

The question seems obvious or maybe simple. People have been kicking around a "male studies" department recently and most of us on some level know to poo-poo the idea because it is outlandishly stupid.  "What would be the point" most men would ask, and we'd dismiss the idea and its originator as stupid.  But the epiphany is not so much in the question being asked, but taking the same logic, consequences and ramifications of asking that same question and applying it to "women's studies."

If it sounds ludicrous to offer a "PhD in Manosphere Studies" then how galactically stupid of an idea was it for somebody to come up with "women's studies" as some kind of viable or legitimate field?  Additionally, how naive and gullible did millions of sheeple have to be in order for it to grow legs and make it this far a legitimate academic field?  In short, the idea of a man (or a woman) getting ANY kind of degree in "Manosphere Studies" is so outlandish, so stupid, it provides the clear vantage point, void of blinding politically-correct bias, needed to realize the true foolishness and stupidity in treating "women's studies" as a legitimate field.

And so Lieutenants, Agents in the Field, and Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or Otherwise Economists, let us go down into this rabbit hole with the intent of fully exploring it and snuffing this rabbit out.

First is the inanity of the idea.  To offer a study of one's traits half the population are born with is on the level with offering a college program in studying the color of the sky.  As I said in "Worthless" (SPECIFICALLY warning minorities and women about the pitfalls of spending $100,000 in studying hyphenated-American studies that have NO job prospects) traits are something you are born with.

You're not special because you're "female."

You are not special because you're "Hispanic."

You're are not special because you're "straight."

You are not special because you are "male."

And you are not special because you're "black."

You just simply ARE these things.

You didn't "work" at becoming them.  You didn't study or engage in academic rigor to hone your skills at being "male" or "black."  You just "are."  So to study mere traits you had nothing to do with and then somehow champion them as "skills" or something to have "pride" in or (worse) to turn these mere traits into "achievements" deserving of reward is nothing more than a childish, lazy, selfish, self-absorbed, ego-driven, love-fest.  It serves no practical purpose except to stroke your ego.  It's ludicrous.

But again, don't listen to mean ole sexist me, view it from the perspective of majoring in "Manopshere Studies."

Not only would I, but every other guy out there (I'm guessing) would say,

"Why the hell would I study myself?  I already know enough about myself, live with myself 24 hours a day, and I don't really define myself by my race or gender.  I'd rather study something new, develop a skill or consume new knowledge.  What could I possibly gain by paying some washed up professor $4,500 a class to learn about "being me" or "being male?"  It's stupid."  

Regardless of which approach we want to use, ANY study of a person's gender has no practical application.  The concept of such studies is point blank absurd.  They should/should have NEVER existed in the first place.

Second, the absurdity and the lack of any outside, practical purpose in women's studies behooves the question:

What type of people major in this crap?

But before we can ask who majors in it, I have a very thought-provoking question - who started it and how did it all get started?

I mean, who woke up late at night with a brilliant idea, rushed to their bedside table, broke out the pen and paper and wrote down:

"Let's create a college program so poor female college students can spend thousands of dollars getting a degree in themselves!  And not just that, but we'll offer MASTERS and DOCTORAL programs in what it means to be female!  Of course there will be no employment prospects to such a degree.  And of course the same could be achieved merely in reading books about female philosophy and psychology.  And heck, it's not like we don't converse about this anyways amongst ourselves.  No, let's make women PAY FOR IT!"

I want to know who came up with that idea.

And, on a related note, how do you just "poof" make a new college program without "experts" or "predecessor experts" who established the study?  Who were the first professors? Without PhD's in women's studies, did some women just self-decree themselves as the "lords" or "masters" of the "field?'

Well Cappy Cappites, what do you think?

I already looked it up (and DAMN am I good), but let's see how good you are at predicting what the "founding mothers" of the first "women's studies departments" looked like (not physically, I'm talking profiles, backgrounds, psychologies, education, resumes, etc.)

I'll give you a couple seconds.

Go ahead, jot down your predictions.

Think hard.  Take from lessons the ole Captain has provided you before.

Couple spaces so nobody cheats.










Are you ready?

OK, here we go.  From Wikipedia (which I know some of you have a problem with, but just let me roll here):

The first accredited Women's Studies course was held in 1969 at  Cornell University.  The first two Women's Studies Programs in the United States were established in 1970 at San Diego State College (now San Diego State University) and SUNY-Buffalo. The SDSU program was initiated after a year of intense organizing of women's consciousness raising groups, rallies, petition circulating, and operating unofficial or experimental classes and presentations before seven committees and assemblies.^[2] Carol Rowell Council was the student co-founder along with Dr. Joyce Nower, a literature instructor. The SUNY-Buffalo program was also the result of intense debate and feminist organizing led by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, and it was eventually birthed out of the American Studies department. In 1972, Sarah Lawrence College became the first institution to grant Masters degrees in Women's History. Throughout the later 1970s many universities and colleges created departments and programs in women's studies, and professorships became available in the field which did not require the sponsorship of other departments

So right there, the women's studies department was just created out of whole cloth by a bunch of 60's hippie activists. There was no precedence for the "study."  There was no demand for such a field.  It wasn't in response to societal need for it.  It wasn't an outgrowth of an already-existing field that warranted its own department or program.  And there certainly was no practical application for a field outside academia.  It was merely a bunch of activists who didn't want to grow up, face the real world and get real jobs.

But what I get a kick out of (and what you should have jotted down on them there notes in front of you) is the profile of some of the people in the entry:

Worthless majors - (BA's in anthropology, Masters in Art History, etc., proving they never had any intention of working real jobs in the first place)

No Real Work - (all jobs are in academia, government or non-profit, they need OTHER people's money to live, they are NOT independent)

Crusaders - (by the fact they decided to create an unneeded program, financed by taxpayer money, NOT to help women, but merely to help themselves first and foremost)

Upper middle class/rich - (my favorite is the one where her daddy was a NEUROSURGEON.  Yes, "independent" I'm sure she'll claim to be)

In short, they are nothing but crusaders.

So "let us be clear."  The founders of "women's studies" departments had no desire to "bring about justice and equality for women."  They are crusaders, they are hypocrites.  They care FIRST AND FOREMOST about themselves and have no problem abusing a GENUINE noble cause (in this case, the equal treatment of women) so they can profit from it at taxpayer expense.  They are spoiled, upper income, brats who absolutely FEARED mathematical and genuine academic rigor and instead NOT ONLY chose to major in worthless, cake easy fields, but to CREATE A NEW ONE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.  They merely used the "oppression of women" as the Trojan Horse to rationalize it and no politician would dare call them out on it in fear of being labelled a sexist. It's the same game plan socialists, leftists, feminists, liberals and communists have been playing this entire time.

So to answer the previous question - what type of people came up with/major in this nonsense?

Answer?

Not adults, these are politically motivated charlatans.  These are little children who are the opposite of independent.  They are scared little children who never wanted to compete toe-to-toe, on a level playing field in the real world, and they certainly don't want to produce anything of value society might want (though I'm sure they're happy some STEM majoring nerd created their government-financed Apple products).  They are hypocrites claiming to be independent (while needing constant outside sources of financing for their "careers" as they hide in academia and the public sector) and are doubly so when they claim to be for "women" (when in reality they use women for their personal profiteering and really couldn't care less about women's happiness and success).  Ironically, contrast that with the theoretical would-be founders of "Manosphere Studies" and you're pitting public sector economic deadweight against engineers, programmers, doctors, soldiers, accountants, entrepreneurs, economists, husbands, fathers and laborers who actually do produce something of value in society, are genuinely independent and because of this CERTAINLY have more authority and legitimacy in starting a "Manosphere Studies" program than any feminist founder ever did a "women's studies" program.

Now, third.  As my posts are prone to do, they flare up emotions (the secret ingredient is "truth"). I know truth and reality have the tendency to make people who are living lies get upset because we expose the type of people they really are. But perhaps a different approach will convince you I'm truly not biased or have some kind of vendetta against women, but perhaps (GASP!) I might actually care about women (in that I would prevent the likes of this from happening).  So allow me to introduce some humor, though I'm no less serious about what I'm about to say.

The PhD's passed out at The University of Man should be recognized by the National Association of Accredited Colleges and Schools as just as legitimate as the PhD's in "women's studies" passed out at "accredited" institutions.

Not joking, I'm as serious as a heart attack.  The Manosphere is just as legitimate, if not, a superior "institution" to most women's studies departments.

One, just as much intellectual thought and debate goes into the Manosphere as the average women's studies department. Matter of fact, we're more intellectually honest (in that we're acknowledging a PhD in Manosphere studies would be pretty freaking stupid) and we have no ulterior motive (sayyyyyyyy extorting the taxpayer for make-work-government-financed academia jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value?)  Two, unlike women's studies, the Manosphere's aim is not political, but practical.  It is NOT the oppression or subjugation of women, but merely the maximization of happiness between the sexes.  Unlike women's studies, it is not an "us vs. them" or a "right the wrongs of our oppressors," but an intense desire to find out and establish the truth as to what is the optimal relationship between men and women in all aspects of life (work, marriage, friends, sex, social, etc.) so that men and women may prosper and be happy.  Three, we do have more legitimacy in our founding in that the majority, if not ALL of the members of the Manosphere are independent men (and women) who work for a living and are not hypocritically willing to go through the charade of creating a whole academic department just to score ourselves some government cheese.  And fourth, the fact the open-source nature of the Manosphere in it's unprofessional, non-accredited, unordained form, is providing such an intellectually equal rival or "challenge" to "women's studies" is NOT an argument for a "male studies" department, but rather, quite the opposite.  It's an argument to eliminate every "women's studies" program out there because it exposes just how inane, stupid, absurd, worthless and useless those programs actually are. 

Besides, even if you tried to make "Manosphere Studies" a legitimate college program you could get a degree in, it wouldn't work.  Real men couldn't stomach the hypocritical and parasitical reputation that would come with it.

(This post sponsored by "Worthless."  Want to irk a liberal arts major who no doubt is going to increase your taxes?  Buy "Worthless" 100% guaranteed to anger, enrage and peeve your Unicorn Studies-majoring friends!  But Worthless now!)