Ok...

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

Now this sort of attitude is, to say the least, unproductive.

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
-- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto

That's just plain offensive. You should read the SCUM Manifesto and get back to me...

Dear Joseph, i would like to be able to be happy about your work but there are a couple of problems with it so far.

1, radical, extreme, loony, left, fauxmanistas have been saying good things about it. Which should alert any reasonable person that it may be going in the wrong direction or is just another exercise in rebadging of communist social engineering or renaming the rhetoric or trying to paper over the treasonous, damage that fe"man"nazi, communists have inflicted on modern western democracy.

2, you state there is nothing anti male in your work, but then go on to say there is something wrong with masculinity &/or there has been a conspiracy guiding us to behave incorrectly.

There never was anything wrong with masculinity. Left wing, socio psychopaths said there was.

The work you seek to do has already been done by world renowned sociologist Dr Warren Farrell, who has already debunked every myth created by the fauxmanistas so far.

http://www.warrenfarrell.com/

The "Big Sister" NWO, conspiracy has also, already been exposed by Henry Makow PhD.

http://www.cruelhoax.ca/#top

I have to confess that the thrust of the article escaped me, in that I couldn't quite make out who were supposed to be the villains and who the heroes. (Do we still say "heroines", by the way? I notice that no-one is an "actress" any more).

Still 'n' all, there was one big take-away for me, that I am pretty sure I will be employing on other threads.

"Barkun identifies three key aspects to conspiracy theories, which are worth spelling out. First, nothing happens by accident: there is always intent behind actions; the willed nature of reality is paramount. Second, nothing is as it seems: the source of a conspiracy tends to conceal its activities through the appearance of innocence or misinformation. Third, everything is connected: patterns abound in conspiracy; exposing conspiracy is about unveiling these hidden connections. Barkun sees this type of thinking as ultimately resulting in paranoia: a closed system of ideas that 'defeat any attempt at testing' due to the assumption that all the evidence countering the conspiracy must be part of the conspiracy, and therefore rejected."

Gotta love it. The conspiracy nuts' bible, in a nutshell.

Apologies for the interruption. Please ignore me and carry on as you were.

Pericles

Perhaps part of the mythos to which to which Joseph Gelfer may be assessing is the cultural, religious, tribal or gendered habit of division into "villian" or "hero", "us" or "them" and specific roles applied with rigid definitions.

I haven't yet linked to Joseph's website. But time permitting will endeavour to do so this afternoon.

One thing I do know for sure is that I have a lot to learn - and that applies irrespective of gender.

While I think that this isn't a very good article - largely because the notion of 'conspiracy' is too pejorative to be used productively as an analytic model to examine ideologies and practices of masculinity - that's no excuse for the orgy of misogynist vitriol that it seems to have elicited from the bitter and twister male loser set. Settle down fellas, those conniving women aren't really out to get you.

However, like Pericles, I'm grateful to Joseph Gelfer for pointing us to Barkun's model of conspiracy theories, which looks like it'd be quite applicable to some of the other nonsense regularly posted at OLO.

C J Morgan,
Is there any post you have ever made that did not contain name calling and abuse of other posters. About the only person you have never abused is yourself.

The author had best read biology before considering the human species, as the human species is not that different to many others.

However, a major point is how can a university teach science in one section of the university, and social science in another.

The two are entirely the opposite.