Post: #1

It kind of seems like liberal arts profs are the main reason women are the way they are these days.

The vast majority of women go to school to study ideological subjects like sociology, rather than theoretical subjects like physics or practical subjects like engineering. The result is that most of them come out of school having been indoctrinated into the politically correct paradigm, and naturally feel the strongest affinity for the PC 'subsidiary' that's closest to their own identity: feminism.

Seriously, can you remember your senior year of high school? Can you remember your first year of college, when everyone was taking electives instead of high-end "critical theory" courses? There were NO feminist women in my group when I was that age.

Post: #2

Don't blame the arts and letters.

Post: #3

(10-06-2012 12:19 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Don't blame the arts and letters.

Only blame when women start to think they can dominate this manly sacred sphere.....like music and religion.

Post: #4

(10-06-2012 12:19 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Don't blame the arts and letters.

I'm not blaming "the arts and letters," I'm blaming the arts and letters as taught in top schools.

I guess it's worse in sociology than it is in the classic humanities like literature or philosophy, but even in english lit you have shit like "new criticism," 90% of which is about finding feminist themes in great works.

Post: #5

There's nothing wrong with arts and philosophy.

It's the hijacking of the humanities (particularly in Sociology and Political Science) by feminists and the distortion of some of the literature that is the main problem. It doesn't help that more and more humanities professor are women since fewer and fewer men are going into colleges. I had a couple of older male professors, since retired, who taught humanities as gender neutral as they could. Most of my classes have a 1:4, male to female ratio. Some 30-40% (possibly even 50%) of the literature that we are required to read are basically feminists literature, focused around the "poor plight" of white females. Some schools or some departments in schools have more of a feminists leaning than others. In my school and seminar discussions, I have to be very careful of what I say. There is a price to pay (eg. failing/poor grade) if you are labelled as a misogynist. And that term is thrown around very loosely these days, not just by women but also by beta males.

However, I have to say its more of a North American/Western European phenomenon than anything. Some of my buddies studying in top universities in Asia do not have any feminist literature in their curriculum. I'm all for gender equality, but not at the expense of men's rights.

Post: #6

Universities are brainwashing institutions, no matter what you major in, but of course some majors (women's studies) are more indoctrinating than others (physics).

Give me four years, several hours a day (while you pay me large sums, by the way), and I can give you an "education" that can mold you into just about anything. Takes about 10 years to deprogram yourself from that.

A lot of liberal arts (not the classics, but today's flavor) is not much more than training you to close your eyes off to reality and embrace your tyrant.

Post: #7

Quote:A lot of liberal arts (not the classics, but today's flavor) is not much more than training you to close your eyes off to reality and embrace your tyrant.

How does that work?

Post: #8

I think it works bc the students are 1) young and impressionable, 2) likely to embrace something that feels "rebellious" and 3) dependent on the professors for grades.

Post: #9

(10-06-2012 04:41 PM)RobP Wrote:  I think it works bc the students are 1) young and impressionable, 2) likely to embrace something that feels "rebellious" and 3) dependent on the professors for grades.

Just about sums it up, yeah.

Post: #10

(10-06-2012 04:41 PM)RobP Wrote:  I think it works bc the students are 1) young and impressionable, 2) likely to embrace something that feels "rebellious" and 3) dependent on the professors for grades.

I was asking more about how it is done rather than why it is or isn't successful. In the previous post it sounds like there is a deliberate and systematic method in which university goers are being indoctrinated.

I'm not sure what Roosh meant by "training you to close your eyes off to reality and embrace your tyrant", but I'm guessing he might be referring to academics telling you you can major in Latin and get a job, support for communist ideas in academia, feminist ideas/campaigns, or the student population believing that their degrees will get them office drone work that will make them happy.

Who is the tyrant anyway? Corporate world, advertisers, leftists, rightists, what?

Post: #11

Leftists and crony-capitalists/advertisers. Feminists provide the votes for the leftists.

Post: #12

(10-05-2012 11:34 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  It kind of seems like liberal arts profs are the main reason women are the way they are these days.

The vast majority of women go to school to study ideological subjects like sociology, rather than theoretical subjects like physics or practical subjects like engineering. The result is that most of them come out of school having been indoctrinated into the politically correct paradigm, and naturally feel the strongest affinity for the PC 'subsidiary' that's closest to their own identity: feminism.

Seriously, can you remember your senior year of high school? Can you remember your first year of college, when everyone was taking electives instead of high-end "critical theory" courses? There were NO feminist women in my group when I was that age.

Liberal arts is a pyramid scheme, universities need mandatory lib arts electives to fund their lib arts departments, and this talk of receiving a "rounded education" by taking four semesters of underwater basket weaving is hogwash.

Why people (especially women) are pulled towards as low a return on investment as a lib arts degree is another question altogether, one which is touched on here.

Post: #13

This makes me glad that the professors I had in college were 99% red pill males. Not to mention I went to a 2-year tech school and built a healthy comraderie with males. What a blessing. The only downfall is all of this debt that I am in. I'd rather be in debt with years of positive upbringing than to fall victim to blue pill, Femi-nazi indoctrination from most of the other female-centric American colleges.

Post: #14

Serious question. Am not trying to be political:

Why are they called "Liberal" Arts in the US? Why not just Arts, or something else?

Post: #15

(10-10-2012 12:37 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Serious question. Am not trying to be political:

Why are they called "Liberal" Arts in the US? Why not just Arts, or something else?

derives from latin, like the majority of academic lingo

"In classical antiquity, the "liberal arts" denoted those subjects of study that were considered essential for a free person (Latin: liber, "free")[5] to master in order to acquire those qualities that distinguished a free person from slaves"

Post: #16

"Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor’s degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did degrees in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics (3 percent to 1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to 10 percent). Bachelor’s degrees in business, which promise the accumulation of wealth, have skyrocketed. Business majors since 1970-1971 have risen from 13.6 percent of the graduation population to 21.7 percent. Business has now replaced education, which has fallen from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as the most popular major."

Post: #17

Liberal arts are hugely important. They teach you to think critically; everyone should have a grounding in them to be considered a well-rounded, critical thinker. The ancients knew that democracy is doomed without liberal arts. We need to go back to teaching liberal arts as they were intended.

Liberal arts were, rightly, at the core of education - both in high school and college. Then came a wave of postmodernist scholars like Michel Foucault (who apparently liked to lay in the gutter and be pissed on in the gay bathhouses of San Francisco), the Frankfurt school (neo-Marxist social theory), post-structuralists like Baudrillard, and deconstructionists Jacques Derrida (who gave rise to a whole genre of pseudo-intellectual wank disguised as literary criticism that to this day dominates many English departments in the US).

Once these men had paved the way came waves of feminists who took their ideas and applied them to gender.

Because of how fuzzy postmodernist / poststructuralist theories are it's easy for third-rate academics to build careers writing derivative mumbo-jumbo. 'Radical' philosophers' ideas were extended into absurdity; feminists followed Derrida and 'deconstructed' literature to uncover phallic references and subtle patriarchal oppression where sane readers only saw well-crafted prose and interesting characters.

This happened while there was a huge expansion in college attendance. New academic jobs were created as the middle and working classes became eager to better themselves and educate their children.

These kids were (and are) betrayed by their teachers who instead of giving them the tools to think for themselves taught them fashionable but useless theory. It becomes self-perpetuating as professors hire believers in their chosen theories to take over when they retire. New hires toe the party line if they value their career. It's a vicious cycle and the work that comes out of these places is so piss-poor that academics don't even understand the incomprehensible papers their colleagues are churning out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The first wave of critical theorists wasn't that bad. Their grounding in classical philosophy meant they understood the tradition they built on, what came before. Their theories were wacky, but they were interesting enough. However, because of how fuzzy and useless these ideas were mimicking them became the path of least resistance to tenure and their followers multiplied. Critical theory turned into a cult with its own language and unexamined founding assumptions. Worse, more and more of their students were never given the tools to challenge these assumptions.

The academy turned into an orthodox monoculture; privileged academics considered themselves perpetual victims. They joined Foucault in the gutter and abdicated their responsibility to educate. They turned their students into a bunch of Don Quixotes looking for imaginary oppressors behind every line of text. Instead of being taught responsibility and leadership, they are taught to be powerless victims. Instead of being taught history and rigorous thinking, they learn to build theoretical castles in the sky that have nothing to do with reality.

These self-styled leftists let down their own. Instead of equipping kids from modest backgrounds to better themselves, they give them semiotic fireworks. Instead of giving the next generation of leaders the tools to improve the world, they give them navel-gazing and self-pity.

Bad things happen when the ruling class is made up of 'victims' who live in theoretical neverland instead of responsible leaders and thinkers grounded in history and at ease with their privileged status.

If you're interested in this stuff I highly recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-M...003719GL8/
- About the importance of liberal arts and how 'progressive' professors in fact undermine students' ability to think for themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Temptation-Inn...892941562/
- About the Western epidemic of victimization and abdication of responsibility and leadership.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Mumbo-Jumbo-Co...008GOBPXS/
- Entertaining, not particularly profound look at postmodernist quackery and the abandonment of rational, common-sense discourse.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolt-Elites-...393313719/
- How the divergence between 'progressive' attitudes among educated elites is creating a rift in America. He's equally skeptical of proponents of unfettered capitalism and New Left influenced liberals.

Post: #18

OK. So given that modern Arts education may have been hijacked how does a modern man from a Business, Science or Engineering background go about rounding out his knowledge so he can be a Renaissance Man in this environment?

Would self-study and personal experience be enough to reach a deep understanding of the arts?

Post: #19

(10-10-2012 02:28 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  OK. So given that modern Arts education may have been hijacked how does a modern man from a Business, Science or Engineering background go about rounding out his knowledge so he can be a Renaissance Man in this environment?

Would self-study and personal experience be enough to reach a deep understanding of the arts?

You can definitely do it with self-study. In fact, you'll probably get more out of it than the average undergrad since you have more life experience to reflect on as you read.

Think of it as a life-long process of self-improvement to understand yourself and the world better.

I'm not qualified to come up with a list of the great books. There are different programmes. Here's one example of a reading list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books#Sample_list

If you even read 10% of what's on that list you'll have read more of the important works than your average liberal arts grad.

Harold Bloom has written about why and how to read the classics. 'The Western Canon' is good because it introduces you to a lot of the key works along with why they're important and what to look for:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Western-Canon-...573225142/

This collection of essays on why reading the classics is important is quite absorbing:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Read-Classics-...679743499/

Post: #20

^^^ Caligula

Thanks for the list and book recommendations. Had heard of Bloom's "The Western Canon", but not the other one. The list of great books is definitely comprehensive. Surprised to see only a couple of Russian novelists on the list, since I thought most scholars regarded them highly.

Post: #21

If you believe that civilizations occur in cycles it's all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler%27...tion_model

http://www.amazon.com/Decline-West-Abrid...f+the+west

Post: #22

(10-10-2012 01:56 PM)Caligula Wrote:  Liberal arts are hugely important. They teach you to think critically; everyone should have a grounding in them to be considered a well-rounded, critical thinker. The ancients knew that democracy is doomed without liberal arts. We need to go back to teaching liberal arts as they were intended.

Liberal arts were, rightly, at the core of education - both in high school and college. Then came a wave of postmodernist scholars like Michel Foucault (who apparently liked to lay in the gutter and be pissed on in the gay bathhouses of San Francisco), the Frankfurt school (neo-Marxist social theory), post-structuralists like Baudrillard, and deconstructionists Jacques Derrida (who gave rise to a whole genre of pseudo-intellectual wank disguised as literary criticism that to this day dominates many English departments in the US).

Once these men had paved the way came waves of feminists who took their ideas and applied them to gender.

Because of how fuzzy postmodernist / poststructuralist theories are it's easy for third-rate academics to build careers writing derivative mumbo-jumbo. 'Radical' philosophers' ideas were extended into absurdity; feminists followed Derrida and 'deconstructed' literature to uncover phallic references and subtle patriarchal oppression where sane readers only saw well-crafted prose and interesting characters.

This happened while there was a huge expansion in college attendance. New academic jobs were created as the middle and working classes became eager to better themselves and educate their children.

These kids were (and are) betrayed by their teachers who instead of giving them the tools to think for themselves taught them fashionable but useless theory. It becomes self-perpetuating as professors hire believers in their chosen theories to take over when they retire. New hires toe the party line if they value their career. It's a vicious cycle and the work that comes out of these places is so piss-poor that academics don't even understand the incomprehensible papers their colleagues are churning out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The first wave of critical theorists wasn't that bad. Their grounding in classical philosophy meant they understood the tradition they built on, what came before. Their theories were wacky, but they were interesting enough. However, because of how fuzzy and useless these ideas were mimicking them became the path of least resistance to tenure and their followers multiplied. Critical theory turned into a cult with its own language and unexamined founding assumptions. Worse, more and more of their students were never given the tools to challenge these assumptions.

The academy turned into an orthodox monoculture; privileged academics considered themselves perpetual victims. They joined Foucault in the gutter and abdicated their responsibility to educate. They turned their students into a bunch of Don Quixotes looking for imaginary oppressors behind every line of text. Instead of being taught responsibility and leadership, they are taught to be powerless victims. Instead of being taught history and rigorous thinking, they learn to build theoretical castles in the sky that have nothing to do with reality.

These self-styled leftists let down their own. Instead of equipping kids from modest backgrounds to better themselves, they give them semiotic fireworks. Instead of giving the next generation of leaders the tools to improve the world, they give them navel-gazing and self-pity.

Bad things happen when the ruling class is made up of 'victims' who live in theoretical neverland instead of responsible leaders and thinkers grounded in history and at ease with their privileged status.

If you're interested in this stuff I highly recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-M...003719GL8/
- About the importance of liberal arts and how 'progressive' professors in fact undermine students' ability to think for themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Temptation-Inn...892941562/
- About the Western epidemic of victimization and abdication of responsibility and leadership.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Mumbo-Jumbo-Co...008GOBPXS/
- Entertaining, not particularly profound look at postmodernist quackery and the abandonment of rational, common-sense discourse.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolt-Elites-...393313719/
- How the divergence between 'progressive' attitudes among educated elites is creating a rift in America. He's equally skeptical of proponents of unfettered capitalism and New Left influenced liberals.

The last time this cultural Marxist crap was shoved down student's throats this happened:

Nazi book burnings



Libs are playing with fire these days... literally.

Post: #23

I think the worst thing is the way the subject is taught.
Bear with me here:
I have a degree in philosophy. Yes, the subject matter is not especially useful unless you review movies for a living, (lol) but the methods definitely are: Induction, deduction, modus tollens and modus ponens, critical thought and exercise are valuable skills, but the trouble is that too many teachers use the classroom as their own soapbox, and assign their unreadable textbooks as core texts which never get read. In any liberal arts subject, the skill you supposedly take away is the ability to think something through, to weigh and measure, and to argue your corner against an opposing view.

The trouble starts when you get wrapped up in the content rather than method, and spend your life thinking that knowing the difference between theism and deism makes you a better, skilled, employable person.
That, and the fact that classes are too fucking big compared to engineering, physics etc means that too many graduates (i'm in the UK, but i doubt things are better stateside from what exchange students tell me) leave university
knowing a great deal and knowing how to do very little, and convinced that any opinion is worthwhile and equal.
Some philosophers-Hume, Hobbes, Bacon, Kant, Ayer-will actually be worth reading and discussing. They make up about 1% of books in the humanities, however, and assessing on worth would mean a degree in letters was about six months long. So again, they teach letters to maximise profit rather than employability.

My sister is 18 next month, and her birthday present will be this: http://www.amazon.com/Worthless-Young-Pe...1467978302

The best university is a good library, particularly if you just want to read Atlas Shrugged or worse still, Camille Paglia, and pass yourself off as a philosopher or social theorist.

Post: #24

Apologies for bumping this thread that's been lying in dormant after 7 years. Figured this is an appropriate place to post something interesting and crazy.

I first heard of James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian on the JRE podcast. Supposedly, the three left-wing academics - the third being Helen Pluckrose from England - "published seven intentionally absurd papers in leading scholarly journals in what has become known as 'The Grievance Studies Affair'".





This is the "The Grievance Studies Affair" video Joe Rogan was talking about.




Also, read their full papers and project fact sheet about the whole thing here: http://bit.ly/2OsWnnH

Other interesting videos.

Post: #25

I am a tenured professor.

I have soft and hard degrees.

The problem is not liberal arts per se.

The problem is that the feminists on campus have hyjacked the university system and the government agencies that fund R&D.

University administrations are terrified of feminists, and the feminists have used the committee system to gain power across universities. They make sure that hiring committees give hiring preference to globohomo candidates.

Government programs, especially the NSF, mandate that you abide by the globo homo agenda to receive funding. So if you don’t play by their rules, then you can’t get funding. You will lose your job or can’t receive pay raises. Consequently, I work with minority students that are sub-par compared to other students on campus. I basically give them a desk to at at where they can’t fuck anything up.

Now, all of this comes with a big consequence: Professors are leaving academia at an alarming pace. Also, research quality is at an all time low. I have witnessed famous scientists fabricate reports to the government to receive funding and mis-analyze research data intentionally to find favorable results for publication.

One supporting article, many others since 2010 can be found with a Google search.

https://thenewstack.io/the-misguided-rus...ain-drain/

In my college, at a major R01 university, we have had 20 tenure professors leave in the past year! It’s like rats fleeing a sinking ship. In fact, I am jumping ship soon as well. 80 hour weeks, feminist agenda, and undisciplined entitled students that cry every time they earn a B. It was tolerable for years, but it continues to get worse. Everyone is going to biomedical, banking, or tech.

So its not the liberal arts, its the feminist agenda that has deep roots in the government and academia.

The Jordan Peterson STYLE/ type arguments work well against these dipshits. Its easy to run circles and embarrass these people publicly because most do not understand statistics, study design, or causal inference.

I think academia will implode in the next 5 years. With all the big earners fleeing (scientists and engineers), the universities won’t be able to stay afloat without big budget increases from State and federal governments.