nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hungary Scrap Gender Studies Indoctrination Courses

DickSwiveller Returns

Great news coming out of Hungary. Victor Orban's government have stopped universities offering courses in Gender Studies. It's about time these courses were exposed for the unscientific propaganda vehicles they are.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/orban-bans-gender-studies-courses-in-hungary-report-says-1.6365826

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

meeeeh

In more creative areas of advertising or marketing you often have people with social science degrees. How many engineers are actually able to sell their own products?

[Deleted User]

Rory28 wrote: »

My only concern is he signalled out one course. If he scrapped all state funding for courses that are not economically viable I'd agree with him. Signalling out one, even if I think its a pointless course, is where I have an issue.

But it wasn't just for economical reasons.

According to the government, such courses are not economically viable as they take resources away from other academic fields and produce undesirable graduates for the Hungarian job market, the report said.

Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, one of the only institutions in the country to offer the classes in Hungarian, will take the largest hit. Lorinc Nacsa, Orban's coalition partner, described gender studies as a "wasteful luxury" and "destructive" in a letter to ELTE's rector last year, Hungarian Free Press reported.

"We must raise awareness to the fact that these programs are doing nothing to lift up our nation. In fact, they are destroying the values-centered mode of thinking that is still present in the countries of Central Europe," Nacsa was quoted as writing.

Hungarian State Secretary Bence R has also questioned the legitimacy of the field, claiming that it is at odds with everything Fidesz's government stands for.

It's pretty clear funding was stopped because it's a load of pish.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

But it wasn't just for economical reasons.

According to the government, such courses are not economically viable as they take resources away from other academic fields and produce undesirable graduates for the Hungarian job market, the report said.

Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, one of the only institutions in the country to offer the classes in Hungarian, will take the largest hit. Lorinc Nacsa, Orban's coalition partner, described gender studies as a "wasteful luxury" and "destructive" in a letter to ELTE's rector last year, Hungarian Free Press reported.

"We must raise awareness to the fact that these programs are doing nothing to lift up our nation. In fact, they are destroying the values-centered mode of thinking that is still present in the countries of Central Europe," Nacsa was quoted as writing.

Hungarian State Secretary Bence R has also questioned the legitimacy of the field, claiming that it is at odds with everything Fidesz's government stands for.

It's pretty clear funding was stopped because it's a load of pish.

This time its a load of pish but it sets a precedent that he can pick and choose courses that get funded and that imo is very dangerous.

batgoat

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Then it's not useless - it got you a job.

Be proud!

That's the thing though, it was skills learned via it. Based on samples of module content by another user, it's not particularly different to any arts course. Eg studying anti and pro points on allowing sex work.(that's from Trinity in a masters) That requires critical skills when building essays around it and there's very much so divergent views on it. So it seems like people are just a bit oblivious to how such courses operate and what is actually studied.

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

Rory28 wrote: »

My only concern is he signalled out one course. If he scrapped all state funding for courses that are not economically viable I'd agree with him. Signalling out one, even if I think its a pointless course, is where I have an issue.

But it wasn't just for economical reasons.

According to the government, such courses are not economically viable as they take resources away from other academic fields and produce undesirable graduates for the Hungarian job market, the report said.

Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, one of the only institutions in the country to offer the classes in Hungarian, will take the largest hit. Lorinc Nacsa, Orban's coalition partner, described gender studies as a "wasteful luxury" and "destructive" in a letter to ELTE's rector last year, Hungarian Free Press reported.

"We must raise awareness to the fact that these programs are doing nothing to lift up our nation. In fact, they are destroying the values-centered mode of thinking that is still present in the countries of Central Europe," Nacsa was quoted as writing.

Hungarian State Secretary Bence R has also questioned the legitimacy of the field, claiming that it is at odds with everything Fidesz's government stands for.

It's pretty clear funding was stopped because it's a load of pish.

You came to that conclusion reading the statement? Not the bit where it's at odds with Central European values ( whatever those might be) and is against everything Fidesz stands for. In other words: we are not funding you because you didn't step in line with what government party deems acceptable.

DickSwiveller Returns

Lux23 wrote: »

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Yea, why do you have a troll account? What's the purpose?

a bit of gentle ribbing now and again. Is that harassment?

[Deleted User]

meeeeh wrote: »

You came to that conclusion reading the statement? Not the bit where it's at odds with Central European values ( whatever those might be) and is against everything Fidesz stands for. In other words: we are not funding you because you didn't step in line with what government party deems acceptable.

I was simply stating that it wasn't just economics involved. And I think it's pish, and they obviously think it's pish, so unless you want me to start going defining what that word means to everyone, then I think my post was fine.

PlaneSpeeking

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Lux23 wrote: »

a bit of gentle ribbing now and again. Is that harassment?

I've been told watching the new 50 Shades twice and taking no notice of the story - just perving - was "sexual objectification bordering on harassment" so who knows what the current mob of loonies believe!

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

You came to that conclusion reading the statement? Not the bit where it's at odds with Central European values ( whatever those might be) and is against everything Fidesz stands for. In other words: we are not funding you because you didn't step in line with what government party deems acceptable.

I was simply stating that it wasn't just economics involved. And I think it's pish, and they obviously think it's pish, so unless you want me to start going defining what that word means to everyone, then I think my post was fine.

Actually I am pretty sure pish is good enough as long as it creates government lackeys.

Das Reich

Orban Trump and Putin they will look very libertarian in comparison with the next president of Brazil called Bolsonaro.

B0jangles

meeeeh wrote: »

You came to that conclusion reading the statement? Not the bit where it's at odds with Central European values ( whatever those might be) and is against everything Fidesz stands for. In other words: we are not funding you because you didn't step in line with what government party deems acceptable.

I know; the quoted goverment comment is ridiculously similar to the stuff the actual, genuine Nazis said about modern art and apparently that's not in the least bit disturbing because the Nazis only exist in history and that sort of thing can't possibly happen again don't you know...

PlaneSpeeking

meeeeh wrote: »

In more creative areas of advertising or marketing you often have people with social science degrees. How many engineers are actually able to sell their own products?

James Dyson

DickSwiveller Returns

B0jangles wrote: »

I know; the quoted goverment comment is ridiculously similar to the stuff the actual, genuine Nazis said about modern art and apparently that's not in the least bit disturbing because the Nazis only exist in history and that sort of thing can't possibly happen again don't you know...

Nice to see the nazis invoked again. Modern art is **** btw.

Grayson

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Not everyone is cut out to be an Engineer, Software Developer, Accountant or Doctor. Academically or otherwise.

Jeez...this sounds like the type of bull**** I heard during the recession.

"Ah, let's just turn all the unemployed Builders into Software Developers."

I did two degrees in philosophy. I'm now a professional problem solver. Everyday I'm given something new to investigate and I'm good at it because I did philosophy. More than anything else those courses shaped who I am and what I do. It turned me into someone who looks for evidence and asks the right questions. I break down what I'm told into it's components and look for the errors, the mistakes. And I'm constantly aware of how I could be wrong, how my feelings could make an argument seem correct, even when it's wrong.

I also did an MSc in Business and a HDip in software development. Neither of them are actually that useful to me.

One of my philosophy degrees focussed strongly on philosophy of religion. It was in a religious college. However not once was I told what to think. Arguments would be explained and discussed. You looked for their strengths and weaknesses. You do a lot of reading and investigations yourself. Yet when you look at the titles of the courses you'd think that they would be indoctrination. That's what you'd expect from a philosophy of religion course in a catholic university.

It seems like some people here make that mistake. They never attended a gender studies course. they haven't read the authors on the courses but they assume because of the name "gender studies" it's something that involves indoctrination.

[Deleted User]

Rory28 wrote: »

My only concern is he signalled out one course. If he scrapped all state funding for courses that are not economically viable I'd agree with him. Signalling out one, even if I think its a pointless course, is where I have an issue.

I don't understand that TBH. If he had decided to ban a heap of courses, and remodeled the way other courses operate, I could understand the objections better. He would obviously then seeking to take complete control over the education at university level.

But courses are often dropped within Universities. Either because they don't receive the funding (internally or externally), the course doesn't receive enough students, there aren't enough appropriate lecturers etc.

I don't get the objection to his banning a single course that he deems unsuitable for his own country. It's not as if if most posters here are defending Gender Studies as a 'reasonable' subject to be studied, instead being outraged that he would ban a course at all.

Taytoland

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

PlaneSpeeking

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Creationism absolutely should NOT be taught in schools.

Taytoland

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Creationism absolutely should NOT be taught in schools.

Good, that settles it then.

DickSwiveller Returns

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Are you talking specifically about religion? Or creationism as a stand alone subject?

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand that TBH. If he had decided to ban a heap of courses, and remodeled the way other courses operate, I could understand the objections better. He would obviously then seeking to take complete control over the education at university level.

But courses are often dropped within Universities. Either because they don't receive the funding (internally or externally), the course doesn't receive enough students, there aren't enough appropriate lecturers etc.

I don't get the objection to his banning a single course that he deems unsuitable for his own country. It's not as if if most posters here are defending Gender Studies as a 'reasonable' subject to be studied, instead being outraged that he would ban a course at all.

I would see it differently. If he had of scrapped government funding to courses that are not economically viable but left to paying out of your own pocket I would have no issue with that. If the govt is to provide a grant it may as well see a return. Its precisely because he signalled one out is where I have an issue. A university dropping a subject is very different to what happened.

jmayo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

One of the Gender studies lecturers in UCD has taken the news well.

https://twitter.com/MaryMcAuliffe4/status/1027934366180286465

This is the blurb from the MA in Gender Studies in UCD.
BTW it was formerly known as MA in Women, Gender and Society.

One thing that is beginning to be noticeable thankfully, is that now when someone with the PC conducive narrative makes a pronouncement there are people challenging them.
It is noticable on the above twitter feed and also on the recent discussions about a freeloading leech from Tallaght.

There is finally a noticable backlash against the narrative been shoved down our throats by the media, lecturers, experts, politicians and selected commentators.

Graduates have become central members of local communities, key members of NGOs, employees in public-sector agencies, education and media organisations in roles such as: social researchers, project development managers, lecturers, journalists, and policy and advocacy officers.
Graduates work in Amnesty International, Immigrant Council of Ireland, Crisis Pregnancy Programme, Mcins Sans Frontis, National Broadcasting Authority, RTE, and the National Women’s Council of Ireland.

Now please tell me why we need more people working in NGOs (all sucking off the taxpayer teat) bar maybe people like doctors/nurses/etc, more eejits spouting shyte like una mullaly or louise o neill ?

Isn't it noticable how RTE is listed in there alongside those advocacy organisations.
And we wonder why their journalism is so shyte.

Taytoland

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Are you talking specifically about religion? Or creationism as a stand alone subject?

Was the planet made in 7 days and is it 6 thousand years old and should this be taught in schools? Not every subject has equal merit. Keep the wacky subjects to the dinner table or the Joe Rogan podcast.

DickSwiveller Returns

Taytoland wrote: »

Was the planet made in 7 days and is it 6 thousand years old and should this be taught in schools? Not every subject has equal merit. Keep the wacky subjects to the dinner table or the Joe Rogan podcast.

No, but you're dodging my question. Are you against religion being taught or just creationism?

dr.fuzzenstein

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Nice to see the nazis invoked again. Modern art is **** btw.

Well, if it walks like a duck...
The problem is, a university should decide what courses it offers. The government should keep it's fcuking nose out of that.
And art is subjective. It can't all be hot oil wrestling and monster truck rallies. Just because it's too boring and complicated for you, doesn't mean it can't exist.
Otherwise all that would be left is drag racing, since everything else would be too intellectually challenging.

Taytoland

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Was the planet made in 7 days and is it 6 thousand years old and should this be taught in schools? Not every subject has equal merit. Keep the wacky subjects to the dinner table or the Joe Rogan podcast.

No, but you're dodging my question. Are you against religion being taught or just creationism?

I can see no reason why either should be taught in education. If you want to learn about religion go to Church every Sunday or Bible classes at the local Church. When I was in primary school at a very young age I remember someone one in my class asking the teacher how do we know any of this is true and she reacted in an offended way as if shocked such a young person would ask such a thing.

If you can see it for what it is at that age then it should be kept to where it belongs.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

I did two degrees in philosophy. I'm now a professional problem solver. Everyday I'm given something new to investigate and I'm good at it because I did philosophy. More than anything else those courses shaped who I am and what I do. It turned me into someone who looks for evidence and asks the right questions. I break down what I'm told into it's components and look for the errors, the mistakes. And I'm constantly aware of how I could be wrong, how my feelings could make an argument seem correct, even when it's wrong.

I have a BA in Finance and a MBA. I have NLP Practitioner certification along with a host of minor diplomas related to negotiation, interpersonal communication, cultural training etc. I also have a variety of programming related diplomas, and software engineering courses. And I, too, was trained to break theory down into practical considerations.

I think you'll find that most people who have attended formal third level education and worked beyond their initial qualifications (or desired industry) will have the same ability you describe above. The difference is how they perceive their results and whether they believe their perception is an absolute.

It seems like some people here make that mistake. They never attended a gender studies course. they haven't read the authors on the courses but they assume because of the name "gender studies" it's something that involves indoctrination.

Strangely enough, it seems like people here like to make the assumption that we don't know what we're talking about even when we've actually written pages on the subject over years while debating it on boards. The area of Gender studies is not a new topic to boards. It has been discussed extensively on a number of threads over the years, with people referencing actual courses in the US or Europe, along with articles covering their own criticisms of the subject.

And then, there's the dismissive attitude that we must consider it to be indoctrination... and yet, here's the thing. Lecturers in a course teaching young adults (18-23) are presenting from a position of authority on the subject. Students expect the lecturers to be educated and knowledgeable about the subject matter, and few students are going to research a lecturers past attitudes on topics. The vast majority of students are going to attend lectures, and blindly accept what their lecturers say in class, because that determines their ability to pass the exams. The lecturers will correct their assignments and projects subject only to that lecturers opinion on the subject. The only time you're really going to get students arguing with Lecturers about course content is when they're actively encouraged to do so. (or when they appeal failed papers, and then the university will likely side with the lecturer on principle)

How do I know this? Well, like you as a student... but also through a decade of teaching at university level. I've taught MBA courses in China, Korea and Japan. I've also presented financial/business ethics classes in the UK with private business colleges.

So... indoctrination, no. But the beliefs of the lecturers on the subject matter of what they teach is important. It determines what students will be required to learn, how they approach the areas of assessment, and whether students will actually pass exams. It also determines whether students will receive recommendations from lecturers or the university itself when it comes to grants, scholarships, or employment applications associated with the University.

The truth is that Gender Studies is a very biased course with the recent history of being extremely pro-feminist, and intolerant of students who object. It's entirely possible that Gender studies will evolve into a subject that actually seeks to study gender practices in a unbiased manner, but that's not going to happen without criticism being allowed. Without it's use of questionable statistics or dodgy peer-reviewed material as fact. We should be encouraging that Gender studies programs be exposed to inspection, checking for any signs of either Misandry or Misogyny... seeking a fair and balanced viewpoint on the effects of Gender within society.

whisky_galore

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Gender studies is a Mickey Mouse course, creationism is just completely bogus.

cgcsb

slightly hysterical headline. Funding was pulled because it was of little/no value to the state. You used to be able to do 'Canadian studies' in UCD, as part of 'free' tertiary education. The state probably shouldn't waste it's resources on silly courses of no economic value.

Taytoland

whisky_galore wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Gender studies is a Mickey Mouse course, creationism is just completely bogus.

Both nonsense. That's the most important point.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand that TBH. If he had decided to ban a heap of courses, and remodeled the way other courses operate, I could understand the objections better. He would obviously then seeking to take complete control over the education at university level.

But courses are often dropped within Universities. Either because they don't receive the funding (internally or externally), the course doesn't receive enough students, there aren't enough appropriate lecturers etc.

I don't get the objection to his banning a single course that he deems unsuitable for his own country. It's not as if if most posters here are defending Gender Studies as a 'reasonable' subject to be studied, instead being outraged that he would ban a course at all.

Well its not just one course in isolation either iis it, he's also trying to ban entire universities and media outlets that don't toe his party line. It's all part of an authoritarian campaign