SO this just happened

SO this just happened

>polsci student
>course on debates in international relations theory
>debate between neoliberal institutionalism and realism
>blast the other side because I basically specialised in Realism and the other side was ill prepared
>at the end a girl raises her hand and complains that the discussion culture is patriarchal and male-dominated
>lecturer (female) who is usually quite good agrees
>talks about slowing the speed down
>another guy raises his hand saying that some are trying to prove their imaginary penis by participating
>another one says those who know a lot should be silent
>lecturer says that she will try to implement that

Honestly I find these arguments so ridiculous that its hard to reply anything to it. I just plan to continue showing off as long as nobody else does.
Most are simply not prepared and too lazy in my experience and I am really unwilling to lower the standards of the class.
Any arguments that there are in your opinion to counter these claims and the general assumption of a male-dominated discourse? I really felt like leaving but I need the course for a module.

feminism gives free contraceptives to women, while they do nothing for those for men, especially they never fought for them to be free of charge
and they never encouraged free drugs to fight against the erectile dysfucntion, as you must have a boner before even putting a condom, while they advocate sexual jouissance for every woman on earth

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independance as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

So you won an argument and people started shouting "YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE MALE"

>I didn't lose because I'm an idiot who didn't prepare, the "discussion culture" was rigged against me
>Participating in a debate is participating in a pissing contest
>Those who know their shit should be silent so the retards can circlejerk
>Lecturer agrees

Nice. I take it you're in an American college?

Too much effort to write "I'm autistic."

Just write that and move on with your shitty life.

nigger

Not trying to sound edgy here but I would sincerely consider and start planning throwing a brick trough the window of at least one or possibly all of the people you mentioned.

Because rational arguments in this environment stand no chance of succes, but it would be unjust to let these people get away with what they are doing.

let's blame this all on [politics related thing]

no this is something that always happens when someone's clearly wrong but too committed to admit it. I was briefly hoping we could have a good thread about that before i realized you made this all up so you could post about /pol/itics.

Reading the OP the most upsetting part is

>another guy raises his hand saying that some are trying to prove their imaginary penis by participating

A guy being this passive aggresive must be a total bitch

I think you're samefagging, but it sounds more to me like the story is completely made up. If it isn't, than OP is autistic and was making everyone uncomfortable but was unable to read body language.

I don't think any level of autistic floundering could justify someone saying the discussion was patriarchal and male dominated

I'm in a university outside of the US and someone seriously saying that is pretty unimaginable. People would be horrified

I can easily imagine a hundred scenarios where that would happen, but I never took the "red pill."

Nope not the OP.

Assuming the story is real, it doesn't matter how autistic OP was being. A guy shouldn't be such a passive aggresive bitch. Tell teh guy he's being autistic, or that you think he's being a douche.

I'm sure you could.

Yeah, no. You're autistic if you think you should shout at autists in a college classroom, "SHUT UP AUTIST!"

That's not how real life works.

I would love to hear them. how could calling a discussion patriarchal and male dominated ever be justified unless the lecturer was discouraging women from speaking, which from OP's story is very doubtful?

This is not supposed to be an angry rant even though I am upset to be honest. I don't know if there is a way to prove to you that it happened without providing you with information to consult my institute (German by the way) which would reflect really negatively on me.

angry rants are fine. stories that didn't happen are fine. /pol/ is not fine. no one expects you to prove shit, but deny the accusation that matters.

Nice strawman. I totally said that the guy should stand up in class and start shouting, so you refuted me very well.

Now get serious with me please or fuck off.

Whatever causes you to think someone is "trying to prove their imaginary penis by participating", is something you can put into more polite words and express directly to the person you feel is doing this. Being this passive aggresive about it is being a little bitch, and honestly very rude and not at all socially acceptable behaviour.

To clarify this: the format of the course decided on by the lecturer is a debate in which everyone takes side and tries to win the argument. Of the 740 or so documents in my reference manager at least 110 are of Realist thought and I wrote three term papers using it already. And personally I prefer a course in which I try to drive the discussion instead of 90 minutes in which nobody says anything. I also like Realist' thought and am upset how it is always treated as inferior to post-positivist theory just because it is positivist and power-based and so forth. Therefore I enjoyed discussing it and was relatively engaged for that reason. The girl who complained said nothing aside from that even though the lecturer asked multiple times whether or not anyone wants to say something to defend neoliberal institutionalism (cases were the Crimea crisis and China's behaviour in the South Chinese Sea).

I also intentionally didn't post on /pol/ and am interested in arguments that I can use against it because from my viewpoint it is really ridiculous, aims at lower standards and may be the pretext for silencing people who are active who being active (and male). I consider getting a PhD in IR in the US and this kind of development really turns me off.

Anti-intellectual memesters are a growing problem with their practice of labeling attempts at intellectually rigorous discourse as autistic.

I think the best think you can do is keep arguing in the way you do, try and develop your own arguments against the people who cry dominated discourse, and consider straight up calling out people when they say "people who know stuff are bad" and "that guy we all know we are talking about but won't mention by name is a dick for knowing more than me and i am perfectly entitled to passive aggressively insult him because i can't successfully argue against his points"

new poster and I dunno about patriarchal, but male-dominated is easy to happen.
Women, partly because of education, are more reluctant to talk loudly and interrupt people. If that's what it takes to be heard, then males can dominate the discussion.
Discussing more calmly and letting others talk is not an unfair sacrifice.

I don't know if that was problem here.

>discussion culture
Bloody wew.

Making your discourses rigorous according to your criterias, and them only, is quite autistic.

This is always happening in my politics debates, men screaming, beating women over the head, flinging shit at each other.

That's what I planned to do and I regret not immediately asking him whether he is talking about me or not. Next time then
We neither talked loudly nor interrupted each other but I see what you mean. Still that is kind of a general assumption on the basis of which one would justify a severe limitation of the discourse quality in my opinion. I also don't know how one would separate it from the low level of preparedness and missing knowledge of those who didn't participate. There were like 25 people in the class (women v men, 35% v 65%) and only like 5 men participated. But as I said the lecturer at multiple points in time slowed the discussion down and asked around whether anyone wanted to say something.

>Women, partly because of education, are more reluctant to talk loudly and interrupt people.
this is utter bullshit. even if it is true there is no reason to accommodate it. are women really incapable of adapting as you suggest? if this is true then such experiences are an opportunity for growth for women where they are encouraged to move beyond what "the patriarchy" has taught them

You people just hate disagreement, and would be perfectly fine with your own criterions. The only reason you'd describe it as autistic in someone else is because you don't like the other criteria.

>We neither talked loudly nor interrupted each other but I see what you mean.

I know that fucking feel m9

Was basically told I was being argumentative when I was making a conscious effort to speak slowly, allow my opponents to opportunities to speak, and allowing them to just about lead the debate by responding as they brought things up rather than leading the debate myself.

Guess the gender of who made up the majority of my opponents and the professor?

The conversation was justification of atomic weapons use during my Q&A portion following my argument for the disarmament of nuclear weapons in light of smart weapon's systems and the changing landscape of war between

Do you think it gets better once you graduated?

Sounds like you got a little too emotional and attached to your supposedly academic argument. Are you a woman?

Your ear is off freund

probably not

>didn't finish
between superpowers/hegemons.