Why Do Men Need Male-Only Groups on Campus?

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Glen Poole

Glen Poole is an international expert on men and boys and author of the book Equality For Men. He is Director of the consultancy Helping Men, UK co-ordinator for International Men Day and host of the National Conference for Men and Boys in Brighton and Hove. You can follow him on twitter @equality4menUK and at www.equality4men.com.


  1. Tom Brechlin says:

    • This is worth repeating …. From mediahound “We’re still left with the problem of the category “man” and “masculine,” and all the assumed traits that go along with that category, being perceived as better than “woman” and “feminine.”
    Perceived by who?
    As soon as you drop the view that behaviour is not social but biological the whole set of value judgements of better and worse are meaningless – they are simply Biologically Appropriate and as mother Nature made um behaviours.
    You can’t have your feminism and eat it!”

    GREAT response!!!!1

    • GREAT response!!!!1

      Well I do wish that some would do their homework and keep the basic rules of academic dialogue straight. There is nothing worse than people playing Yuri Geller with the Rule Book. Heather is a class example of it. She seems to have taken every course of every subject expect Logic and Reason 101. The ice-cream parlour school of academia with every flavour in the bowl and more and more nuts on top can only be tolerated so long.

      It is tiring watching the sport as they keep shifting goal posts – changing rules – and so much being made up as it goes along. Don’t like the argument and world view – shift goal posts to the left field – Kick ball away from everyone else – and then claim it’s a goal and the goal posts have always been there!

      It just reminds me of what Gelles said after decades of research and work in Domestic Violence as an internationally recognised expert. It’s all so NIne Factoids and a Mantra! You sit and watch, you try to figure out the rules, how the game is being played and then you have to ask what is the game called. Eventually you get told – It”s TEGWAR – The Exciting Game Without Any Rules.

      In the 1970s movie, Bang the Drum Slowly , two of the main characters—a star pitcher and a team coach—engage in a small-scale swindle in the lobbies of the hotels the baseball team stays in during road trips. The pitcher and coach sit in a conspicuous spot in the lobby and begin a heated card game. Pretty soon a few observers gather to watch the game. Eventually, a curious observer, thoroughly confused by watching a game that he has never seen played before, asks the pitcher and coach what they are playing. “TEGWAR,” they respond. After a few more minutes, the onlooker asks if he can play and is invited to sit in. The newcomer wins a few hands, but still has no clue what he is doing. The hands get faster and faster, the cards fly, and eventually the newcomer gets on a losing streak—still completely befuddled by the game and what exactly is happening. When another team mate asks about the game and asks what TEGWAR stands for, he is told it means, “That Exciting Game Without Any Rules.”

      As intimate partner violence (IPV) evolved from a private matter hidden behind closed doors into a significant policy, practice, and research issue, I came to understand that policy and practice seemed to be more influenced by ideologies and political values than actual research and evidence. National legislation, state legislation, and government and foundation funding flew as fast as the cards in a game of TEGWAR. While it took years to get Congress to enact the Violence Against Women Act (1994), once the ice was broken amendments and revision of laws were easier to accomplish. The new federal law also guided state and local practice and established funding streams for programs for victims,
      but rarely for offenders.

      This article, which somewhat whimsically applies the TEGWAR metaphor, examines the rather serious issue of how research is utilized, abused, and misused in policy and practice in the area of IPV.

      THE POLITICS OF RESEARCH: THE USE, ABUSE, AND MISUSE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA—THE CASES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Richard J. Gelles Family Court Review, Volume 45, issue 1 (January 2007), p. 42-51. ISSN: 1531-2445 DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00127.x Blackwell Publishing Inc

      Gelles is such a Gentleman in the subtlety of his comment! I call matters Fraud – especially when supposed academics and experts keep shifting the goal posts – and we have had that “Here” so often I have actually had to ask those doing it if they understand the terms Pious Fraud and even Mala Fides (Bad faith). There, of course was, no answer, and they have not been heard of since – well not here!

      So many are tired of the Rigged Game and the Bully Girl Tactics as they Reinvent TEGWAR… sorry …. Reinvent Feminism to yet again control and abuse! It’s why I confuse the hell out of the TEGWAR players – as a Pouf with no interest in The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could – other than it’s revelations and even celebrations of Females as Sexual Abusers of children – so odd to be anti rape and pro Good Rape “Whilst there are reasons why feminists limit discussion on the subject of women abusers, these reasons are valid only to feminism.” … more TEGWAR!

      I do academic and see through the bias – and then afterwards, I go home and Smoke Cigar.

  2. David May says:

    It has been apparent to me for several years that a brand of feminism has emerged, one with sole purpose of defending an orthodoxy that flies in the face of scientific knowledge (e.g., male and female brains *are* in fact different, not identical). Like all orthodoxies it has, on occasion, devolved into brand anti-intellectualism (as was seen in the attacks on Camille Paglia some years ago) that smacks of Marxism and/or religious fundamentalism in its extremity. Such feminists are, apparently, threatened by men’s groups in the same way so many men in the 1970s were threatened by feminism, equating it in their subconscious with castration. Similarly, it seems, that the more extreme forms of feminist thinking equates men’s groups, a free discussion between men, with rape. Just as the anti-feminist backlash was one motivated by a fear of new ideas, so these attacks on any discussion of men’s issues or male studies must also be motivated by fear. Extremism is by definition anti-intellectual, and it is the last thing one wants to see on a college campus.

  3. Ricardo Segreda says:

    This whole article is predicated on the naive assumption that “men”, on campus or off, are a monolithic whole, and that our similarities as men outweigh any differences between men and women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hey, I went through college, and I don’t recall that the jocks and the nerds ever had much to say to each other, with each other. Not to mention factions as disparate as campus evangelicals and campus gays. Not to mention campus liberals and campus conservatives. Mr. Poole might want to venture out of his head a little bit and see what the world is really like.

  4. when one side loses, both sides lose


  1. [...] This is a comment by Alastair on the post “Why Do Men Need Male-Only Groups on Campus?“ [...]

  2. [...] Why Do Men Need Male-Only Groups on Campus? [...]

  3. [...] distinction that you can see being played out in the way some feminists resist initiatives like men’s issues groups on campus and explains why social media has become a useful platform for some anti-feminists to spread [...]

  4. [...] month we reported that violent opposition to a series of talks on men’s issues at the University of Toronto has become a cause célèbre for men’s rights activists around the [...]

  5. [...] month we reported that violent opposition to a series of talks on men’s issues at the University of Toronto has become a cause célèbre for men’s rights activists around the [...]

  6. [...] of aggression displayed by protesters, and the protests made headlines far beyond Canada, including here at the Good Man Project. As someone who was there in person, I can honestly say that the videos and descriptions don’t [...]

  7. […] wrote about the story at the Good Men Project and facilitated a public discussion between two men on opposing sides of the […]

Speak Your Mind