Why Do Men Need Male-Only Groups on Campus?

higher education, feminism, men's rights, men's groups, Canada, University of Toronto, male studies, protests against men's groups, Warren Farrell, Men's Issues, glen poole, international men's movement,

At universities around the world, men’s groups are banned.

The widening gap between the proportion of men and women who attend university seems to be coinciding with a rise in militant opposition to men and men’s issues on campus.

Have our alma maters really become so matriarchal that men now need to take action to reclaim the campus? Recent events in Canada certainly suggest that something is amiss.

The University of Toronto has become a symbolic battleground in the gender wars, with violent opposition to a series of talks by leading experts on men’s issues rapidly becoming a cause célèbre for men’s rights activists around the globe.

CityNews Toronto described the controversy as “an ugly battle of the sexes involving allegations of hate speech, bullying and even violence.”

Protestors clash with police chanting “this is what men’s rights looks like” and men’s rights activists circulate footage of the protests with the title “this is what feminism looks like”.

A recent broadcast by CityNews Toronto described this controversy as “an ugly battle…a battle of the sexes [that] includes allegations of hate speech, free speech, bullying, harassment [and] even violence”.

The video footage of protestors trying to prevent Dr Warren Farrell, the creator of the proposed White House Council on Boys & Men, from delivering a talk on ‘the boy crisis in education’ is certainly shocking.

So is this an isolated drama stirred up by a handful of troublemakers who see it as a perfect opportunity to vent their political grievances, or is it symptomatic of a more widespread anti-male campus culture?

♦◊♦

Internationally, education is clearly one of the first areas where women make ground and overtake men when nations make the transition towards greater gender equality.

In the UK, the University of London became the first to admit women in 1878 and by 1900, 30 per cent of graduates at the university were women. Just over a century later, women graduates outnumber their male counterparts all over the developed world.

Female graduates outnumber men in 89 of the world’s leading economies says World Economic Forum.

The World Economic Forum, which produces a league table of gender equality in more than 130 countries, reveals that two thirds of those countries send more women to university than men. Ironically, some of the biggest university gender gaps are found in the countries that are rated as the most gender equal. In New Zealand, for example, 46% more women go to university than men, in Sweden it’s 54% in Norway 63% and in Iceland 87%.

It is too simplistic to suggest that the drive towards gender equality is pushing men out of university as participation rates have increased for both men and women. And the fact remains that women graduates now outnumber men in 89 of the world’s leading economies.

According to the UK’s Universities Minister, David Willetts, this is “the culmination of a decades-old trend in our education system which seems to make it harder for boys and men to face down the obstacles in the way of learning.”

♦◊♦

So what exactly are the obstacles that men and boys face when it comes to learning?

As the conflict in Canada has shown, there is certainly fierce opposition to men’s issues being discussed on campus. At the University of Toronto, the Student Union wants to ban the Men’s Issues group, which invited experts like Farrell to speak.

At nearby Ryerson University, the students’ union (RSU) is one step ahead of the game and has successfully prevented three students—two of them women—from setting up a men’s issues club on campus.

Samuel Greenfield, a Ryerson student, says the decision is political:

“There are gender guards who report any male-positive activity deemed as anti-female and favoring males.”

“The principle is this: if you challenge official narrative, you don’t have the right to speak. It’s as if the spirit of closed-minded religious dogma has jumped into bed with modern political correctness to prevent blasphemy against RSU ideological orthodoxy.”

There is of course a distinction between hostility to men’s issues in general and hostility to men specifically. So is this political resistance, personal to men?

Miles Groth, a psychology professor at Wagner College, New York, who edited the anthology “Engaging College Men: Discovering What Works And Why”, suggests that the resistance to men’s issues is consistent with a campus culture that tends to opposes “male positive” activities. He told me:

“The formation of men’s groups on campus is discouraged. At Wagner College, as most places, there are ‘gender guards’, faculty who report any activity that would be considered male-positive since such activity is deemed anti-female and indicative of continuing to favor males.”

Warren Farrell, who has led anti-sexism workshop sponsored by feminist organizations on college campuses in the past, also believes that some aspects of university life are anti-male saying:

“Freshman orientation alone has had a distinctively anti-male cast for years: heavy emphasis on date rape, stalking, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual harassment amount to an unmistakable message that males are patriarchal oppressors and potential sex criminals.”

♦◊♦

And there lies the heart of this problem. Where does being pro-female become anti-male and where does being pro-male become anti-female?

According to the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU) “free speech ends where hate speech begins” and UTSU believes that the Male Issues campaign crossed that line by providing a forum for Dr Farrell who they say spreads “misogynistic, hateful theories”.

Student Samuel Greenfield provides a different perspective:

“Some fear that the discussion of men’s issues will somehow silence women’s voices. No one is saying women’s issues shouldn’t be discussed. But if women’s issues can be discussed, then the tent ought to be large enough for men too.”

Some fear that the discussion of men’s issues will silence women’s voices.

That fear was clearly felt by Ryerson Students Union (RSU) who introduced a new policy that helped block proposals for a university men’s group. The student newspaper described the move as “an effort to guard the empowerment of women’s voices on campus” by “rejecting the concept of misandry—the hatred or fear of men”.

Sarah Santosh, one of the female students who co-founded the men’s issues group said:

“The ironic thing is my voice is being silenced right now because I can’t even form a group without having to face this really back-handed deal that’s really attacking our group.”

♦◊♦

As we start to unpick what seems to be happening on campuses in Toronto and beyond, it becomes clear that this isn’t so much a gender war as a gender ideology war.

When you filter out the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides of the argument you find men and women who simply want some space to view things and do things differently.

One such man is Dennis Gouws, a Professor of English and Director of Arts and Education, of the Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies (AIMHS).

Gouws is one of a group of scholars who are working to pioneer a male-positive approach to academia in America, Australia, Canada, South Africa and Europe. Their initiatives include publishing an international journal on New Male Studies, promoting men’s centres on college campuses and developing post-graduate courses in Male Studies which are due to launch in 2014.

“Throughout my life I had never really thought about a male positive approach to anything.”

Gouws has developed a British-Literature course on Victorian Manhood that offers students a male-positive approach to understanding the texts. He has found that the course gives both men and women fresh insights into literature, history and the way they view men.

One of his students, Alex, summed up the experience as follows:

“Throughout my life I had never really thought about a male positive approach to anything. I will always read and analyze stories with a slight male-negative view out of habit, but now I know to stop and look at the same story from a male-positive view in classes and in life.”

As a result of taking the course, Alex said he was committed to becoming “a better me based on what I want and not on what others project onto me.”

There can’t be many university courses that leave young men wanting to be “a better me” and yet this male-positive, non-feminist approach to understanding men is so at odds with mainstream gender studies that its proponents have called it ‘male studies’ to distinguish it from pro-feminist ‘men’s studies’.

♦◊♦

For some people there is a ‘right way’ and a ‘wrong way’ to think about gender and this fundamental belief can drive them to violently oppose those who they think are looking at gender in the ‘wrong way’.

It is too simplistic to say that this fundamental view of how gender should be viewed is causing more women to go university than men. There are, after all, still plenty of courses where men are in the majority.

“It’s shameful to me that women and men can’t talk about their individual issues without it being against somebody else.”

But when it comes to tackling our failure to educate men and boys to the same standards that we educate women and girls, surely we are more likely to address this gender inequality by encouraging the discussion of men’s issues on campus, rather than opposing such activity.

The Toronto students are not the first to campaign against men’s groups. A similar storm broke out in England in 2009, when a student at Manchester University, Ben Wild, set up the MENS Society with fellow students (male and female).

Jennie Agg who was editor of the city’s student newspaper at the time said:

“A whole lot of valuable feminist energy has been directed at prohibiting groups like these – and to what end? It seems that all that has been achieved is a rather soured relationship between those defending women’s rights and those who would tackle enduring male stereotypes. Hardly a brick in the road to true gender equality.”

Reflecting on his experience four years on, Ben Wild told me:

“The resistance that we encountered was initially surprising, however with dialogue came understanding and acceptance. My advice for those setting up their own initiatives would be: first, develop your ideas and learn from others. Those that will initially oppose you are not usually crazy or ill-willed. They are almost always people with genuine motivations and concerns, so treat them as such.”

“Those that will initially oppose you are not usually crazy or ill-willed.”

One of the benefits of protesting is that it can bring greater attention to a problem and cause people to think more deeply about the issue in question. It’s too soon to say whether the Toronto protests will cause more people to oppose men’s issues being discussed on campus or have the opposite effect.

Right now, those who have witnessed the demonstrations in Toronto see little hope of reconciliation between the two sides. As local TV reporter, Avery Haines, said:

“Both sides feel harassed and bullied by the other and neither show any signs of backing down. It’s shameful to me that women and men can’t talk about their individual issues without it being against somebody else.”

 ♦◊♦

If you want to contribute to The Good Men Project’s international men’s movement section then please email me at [email protected]

All well-written contributions are very welcome, including those previously published elsewhere. Submissions should be between 500-1500 words long and follow Good Men Project Style Guidelines.

Wherever you are in the world, whatever your viewpoint, if you are committed to improving the lives of men and boys and have something to say on the matter, then I am waiting to hear from you.

—Photo: andymoss461/Flickr

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 features editor at the online magazine www.inside-man.co.uk. You can follow him on twitter @insideMANmag.

Comments

  1. John Armstrong says:

    This is beyond sad. How can we truly regard a University as a beacon of higher education when they are unable to use intelligence to critically assess this issue. I have lost all respect for U of T. Clearly I would not want to spend a fortune getting an education from a school that can’t resolve this situation in a mature and responsible manner.

    • Daniel Murtha says:

      John, there’s simply more to this than a SU banning a men’s rights talk. Many of the people invited and involved with the talk are associated with sites like A Voice For Men, which frankly, judging from the atmosphere in its forums I would deem a hate site, or at the very least an extremist group in the men’s rights movement. I simply don’t believe the term, let alone the movement, is something men need.

      Women are definitely far more worse off than men are in general terms. The statistics on higher education quoted in the article are not enough to paint a full picture of the place and lot of women in western society. The events in what is now my home town are in some ways regrettable, in that the loudest voices were the most extreme, and the real people that lost out were (mostly) young men who wanted to hear opinions on the identity of modern men and masculinity.

      But the events also raised awareness, and judging by the reactions in the two camps since that day, I have to say that men have come off far worse; the harassment and vitriol directed towards the women involved is disgraceful.

      • “Women are definitely far more worse off than men are in general terms. The statistics on higher education quoted in the article are not enough to paint a full picture of the place and lot of women in western society. The events in what is now my home town are in some ways regrettable, in that the loudest voices were the most extreme, and the real people that lost out were (mostly) young men who wanted to hear opinions on the identity of modern men and masculinity.”
        By what measure? Because men are FAR worse off with violence since men die 4-6x more from violence.

        AVfM itself isn’t a hate site, they do have a heavy anti-feminist tone but pretty much ever major feminist site has the same level of hatred of the MRA.

        “But the events also raised awareness, and judging by the reactions in the two camps since that day, I have to say that men have come off far worse; the harassment and vitriol directed towards the women involved is disgraceful.”
        Really? Do remember that not all of the trolls harassing the women are MRA’s. But what I do see are videos of females calling men scum, rape apologists, women haters, etc simply for attending. I also see online there is doxxing, a lot of harassing comments, etc, but how do you know who is mra, who is feminist? Is the redheaded lady a feminist? Is the woman in the video telling the guy he is fucking scum a feminist? The men who tried to start a men’s group, even the women who tried to start a men’s group have been silenced, and had outright bigotry thrown at them yet feminists are still free to make their own groups on campus and you want to say the women get it worse? Hah.

      • >I have to say that men have come off far worse; the harassment and vitriol directed towards the women involved is disgraceful.

        People have a cognitive bias, when women misbehave and misbehave against men, it flys under the radar. In reality, the bad behaviour was not coming from the mens movement, they were absorbing bad behaviour.. The harassment of women these groups are alleging, is mainly false accusations and deliberate fearmongering, which is pretty standard practice for these types of groups.

      • John Anderson says:

        “associated with sites like A Voice For Men, which frankly, judging from the atmosphere in its forums I would deem a hate site”

        I’ve visited AVFM and don’t consider it a hate site. It’s typical of many people against the MRM or MRAs to say something like it’s the atmosphere because they can’t point to anything actually said to be problematic. Please explain why a men’s movement is not needed. Men are killed 4 times more frequently than women. Men are raped in prison at 4 times the rate of women and 40% of their rapists are not other prisoners, but female staff members. 80% of staff on prisoner rape is female staff raping male prisoners. Men die 90% of industrial related deaths and 80% of suicides. According to the CDC 2010 NISVS, 40% of the victims of rape were men raped by women. They’re not classified as such.

        Though individual feminists may support the joint parenting standard advocated by many father’s rights group, on the whole that standard is opposed by feminists. Feminists have opposed the right of men to establish paternity for their children. The MRM has fought to close loopholes allowing mother to essentially steal a man’s child by placing them for adoption without his consent. 95% of staff on prisoner rapes in juvie are female staff raping male inmates. Why haven’t women’s access to the juveniles been restricted yet. It’s because the groups you depend on to solve men’s issues are more concerned with protecting and getting jobs for women than preventing the rape of men and boys.

        As far as historical grievances are concerned, we’ll see what happens in the military since women are allowed in combat now. Will future drafts be restricted to women as men have had to suffer the brunt of draft injustice? Will women be sent out on patrol to more dangerous locations in significantly greater proportion to their number as men have been facing the brunt of this in the past. Women were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1/6th their representation. I suspect feminists won’t bring up historical discrimination.

        • The statistics you cite on men being raped by women in prison are ludicrous. They are largely raped by men. On males being killed, this is mostly by other men. On men dying in more industrial accidents, maybe, but feminists have addressed the “dangerous jobs” gotcha that is designed not to help men, but to prove that women don’t have it so bad afterall; feminists are not the ones who are really happy about the extremely restictive gender roles that cause men to choose those sorts of jobs, or causes women to subtly, or not so subtly, be pushed out. And we all know that men have higher auto insurance because they take less care; does carelessness or possibly overconfidence play a roll, as well? There are a lot of things to look at, but I feel like people won’t get very far if they pay attention to the typical MRA myths. MRA, on the whole, is not about men’s rights, they are anti women. There has to be a way to be pro-man and pro-woman without being anti the other, plain and simple. In that way, there should be mens clubs and support groups on campus, but if they go around and spread hate lit about how all rape accusations are false (they’re not- what’s the benefit when there are so few convictions?) they should get shut down. If you’re going to be a club for men, be a club FOR men.

          • John Anderson says:

            “The statistics you cite on men being raped by women in prison are ludicrous. ”

            http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4312

            Page 5

            “About 5.4% of former state prisoners reported an incident that involved another inmate”
            “About 5.3% of former state prisoners reported an incident that involved facility staff”

            About half the rape was staff on prisoner according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

            Page 6

            “Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, 79% were males reporting sexual activity with female staff An additional 5% were males reporting sexual activity with both female and male staff.”

            Ludicrous because women don’t lie about rape, but men do or is it rape is rape unless perpetrated by a woman against a man? You say MRAs don’t believe the victims of sexual assault. I’ve never called them liars. Can you honestly say the same thing after your statement that their reports are ludicrous?

            “And we all know that men have higher auto insurance because they take less care”

            And yet feminists would fight charging women more in social security taxes though women outlive men by 5 years and utilize more of the benefit. Only men have to pay for what they use.

            “On males being killed, this is mostly by other men”

            I see so many feminists claim that their pro-men. They see women’s body image issues not as something women do to themselves, but something society teaches them. Yet if men have issues with violence something which arguably society teaches them also, it’s not a concern because it’s just men killing other men. When women hurt themselves it’s a legitimate concern, but when men are hurt by others, not so much so.

          • Mr Supertypo says:

            “The statistics you cite on men being raped by women in prison are ludicrous. They are largely raped by men. On males being killed, this is mostly by other men. On men dying in more industrial accidents”

            And what is your point? matter of fact there are people who get raped and killed. Whoever is the responsible its a secondary matter. We should focus on the real elephant in the room, and that is….men gets raped and killed in row. So what can we do about that?

      • They are a hate site. They register Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte as bigots right beside child molesters and murderers? Elam writes articles about how rape victims enjoyed the experience. As long as CAFE keeps company with monsters they’ll get treated like them.

        • Not buying it says:

          When it comes to ( Jessica Valenti & Amanda Marcotte ) , their own writings & legal stand points when it comes to the civil right’s of males is what makes them bigoted not the feminist ideology which is repugnant in the views of an ever increasing number of people (males & females) , so rightfully so they are called on it & not as bigots, mind you not only by AVfM.

        • That is disappointing. I’ve never read anything by Elam that I considered to be out and out extremist (though sometimes close), but, of course, the absurd view that rape victims enjoy being raped would change my opinion of him. Do you have a link to where he said that? I did a bit of Googling, but nothing turned up.

          Elam aside, is it not a little unfair to characterise an entire site based on one writer? This site recently had a post by a father who told his four year old that an unwanted kiss was rape. Should I assume that the entirety of GMP is of that ridiculous opinion?

          • It’s interesting. I’ve seen a few people call Elam a racist and other names, and now we have him saying victims enjoy it. Funnily enough, I have never seen a single shred of proof of any claim against him.

          • I’m pretty sure she refers to this article, which is used a lot as “ammunition” against AVFM

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/study-reveals-female-rape-victims-enjoyed-the-experience/

            But the only thing it reveals is some people’s inability to read an article completely before reacting.

            This is the first paragraph in the article (please keep reading the comment after reading it, it gets better)

            “A university study, Romeo, Felicia F. “Acquaintance Rape on College and University Campuses,” AAETS. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.” The study of female rape victims concluded that the majority – 57% – of women who were raped on college campuses, reported feelings that were described as “positive” and “satisfied,” about the experience.”

            and this is the last paragraph

            “All this should be considered, however, with the caveat that the Romeo study found no results whatsoever as presented in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, and the fact that the Kale & Weiser and Fisk studies are not extant.

            These items, indeed this entire article, are illustrative examples of what Murray Straus identified as “Evidence by Citation” and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by feminist ideologues. They were presented here as an example of their destructive use.”

            SO THE ARTICLE ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CITED STUDY SAYS NO SUCH THING, and is written to show how easy is to commit fraud by incorrectly citing a study.

            So I have two questions for D

            1. Did you read the article yourself? Or did you hear what someone else said and believed it?
            2. If you read it yourself, did you stop reading before the conclusion?
            3. If you’re referring to something else, please post links to this other point where Elam says what you say he says.

            • Woozles and Fallacies or is it Phallacies?

              You refer to Strauss and Evidence by Citation, and both Gelles and Strauss have been banging the drum on Woozles since the 1980’s – in fact they were first raised by Beverly Houghton in 1979 – “Review of research on women abuse.”. annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia.

              The grasp and nature of Woozles has grown over the years as has the issue of Gender Bias associated with them:

              “Woozles are usually not simply a matter of authentic misreporting. They also reveal a desire to read into the data an a priori position that is really not there, what Bacon calls “idols of the theatre”. … All the data reporting mistakes I have found in the literature, without exception, were made in the direction of supporting feminist preconceptions.”

              Rethinking Domestic Violence, By Donald G Dutton, Ph.D.

              Of course what would us men know about reading and checking facts? DUH – Silly me for thinking and having a brain! I must get permission from a pet feminist prior to using Brain Cell!

              Oh and then we do have the “Houghton Woozle Fallacy” named in honour of Ms Beverly Houghton:

              “As one works towards the resolution of a primary Woozle the probability of another person defending the primary Woozle by use of a secondary Woozle approaches 1, resulting in an “Idiot’s Woozle”

              You never know this idea of doing Academic things at University could catch on – it can be quite infectious!

        • Agreed. There are many many posts there that include hate, contempt, anger, and loathing for feminists, women, and women’s sexuality. There has been doxing and more.

          • Being published at A Voice for Men shouldn’t be interpreted as being hateful. Likewise, Amanda Marcotte is published in feminist journals that we should not discredit for this association. Each writer, and each of their writings, can be examined separately as well as in a context, less simplistically. Paul Elam has actually been published on the GMP. Does this mean we’re also a hate site?

            • Agreed. Its funny how one MRA can ruin the entire movement or site but try to say the same about feminists and all of a sudden that line of logic is unfair.

              Between Dean Esmay, TyphonBlue, and Erin Prizzy there are plenty of other people publishing at A Voice For Men. But for some odd reason people thing that Elam is the only person publishing there.

              But even about Elam himself. I think that its pretty odd that for all the negative talk about him at least he was able to point out something. When Santhosh tried to start her men’s group at Ryerson University, the Student Union quite literally created new policies to block her group.

              Part of the logic for blocking the group was the assumption that a men’s group would silence women’s voices. It wasn’t feminists that pointed out that the only people silencing women in that situation weren’t MRAs or men’s advocates. No the only people silencing women were the Student Union.

              I guess women’s voices don’t matter when they are trying to help men?

            • Not buying it says:

              @ Danny
              “Agreed,..”, !!!??
              Who is a declared a bigot (male or female) is a matter of opinion about how we see other people’s political stances specially when it involves taking away their civil rights (presumption of innocence) , it seems hatred is in the eye of the beholder, can feminist ideology advocates be bigots & get called on it or is it along the lines that only men can be, it’s seems hypocritical.

            • I said agreed because I agree with Justin that, “They published _____! That means they are a hate site” is flawed logic.

              Think about it.

              Here at GMP:

              1. Marcotte had free reign to call PUA embittered losers that aren’t getting the pussy they think they deserve, regularly mischaracterize MRAs in an effort to make feminism the answer to everything.

              2. Hugo Schwyzer has almost supported paternity fraud.

              3. Dr. Nerdlove has decided that the hard ships men face in dating don’t matter because “women have it worse”.

              Does that make GMP a hate site? (It doesn’t to me. It says that they the site has published some unhealthy and sometimes hateful sentiments, but that doesn’t make the site itself hateful).

              When Jill Filipovic was crying from one end of the internet to the other about GMP being a site for rape apologists does that mean GMP is a hate site? (No that meant Filipovic and her supporters didn’t know what the hell they were talking.)

            • Mr Supertypo says:

              Good point Danny….

          • John Anderson says:

            @ Julie

            “There are many many posts there that include hate, contempt, anger, and loathing for feminists,”

            And I’ve seen many posts on feminists sites contemptuous and angry at MRAs. Are they hate sites as well? I’ve seen feminist sites support the gender biased definition of rape. Feministing the site Jessica Valenti founded highlighted that infographic from enliven on rapists. Where were the little stick figures in skirts?

            The CDC found that 80% of male victims of rape were raped by women. The DOJ found among staff (a mixed setting as prisons have male and female staff, but inmates are generally segregated by sex so I’m not looking at inmate on inmate sex) the rate of female perpetration was the same about 80% and in Juvie it was 95%. They weren’t classified as rape victims and this is usually the excuse that feminists use, but to repeat the statistic without challenging or qualifying it is supporting the highly gendered definition of rape.

            You can’t in good conscience claim to be concerned with male victimization and ignore 80% of the victims. When you tell 80% of the victims that their experience is not valid, how is that not classified as hate?

            • Not buying it says:

              The question is poised is do men have the right to discuss issues affecting them in an academy sitting just like women do ????

              Logic, fairness & equality as a principal dictates that they do, but it seems a dominant hypocritical academic narrative says men do not have that right, way is it??

              My guess is that enforcing that narrative in academia & society as whole can be the only reason to the detriment of men, AVfM & CAFE are independent of each other & are not affiliated, even if they agree at least on that goal, I believe the reason is exposing the fallacies in the political gender narrative.

            • There is a huge difference between hating someone because of their social or political views (MRA, feminist, or whatever) and hating them because of their gender.

              I have seen many articles on MRA sites that I would argue express hatred toward women as women. Many of the MRA writers (I’m not even talking about the comments, but the articles) argue that women are mentally and morally inferior to men as a matter of biology. Many MRA’s seem to long for a world where women are kept “in their place” (subordinate to men) and where women are relegated to the “natural” order of providing sex and children for the benefit of men. There are extremely hostile attiudes expressed about women in general being too fat, too ugly, too old etc. (but nevertheless being able to have sex and relationships, which seems to infuriate the MRA’s) and how the young attractive women are too full of themselves and should be taken down a notch (a lot of overlap with PUA sites in that regard). It’s really gross, frankly. None of this hostility has anything to do with said women being feminists. It’s just raw hostility toward women and women’s sexuality.

              Of course there are feminists who hate men too. Not dating there aren’t. But the hatred of women seems particularly pervasive on MRA sites.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ Sarah

              “Many MRA’s seem to long for a world where women are kept “in their place” (subordinate to men) and where women are relegated to the “natural” order of providing sex and children for the benefit of men. There are extremely hostile attiudes expressed about women in general being too fat, too ugly, too old etc. (but nevertheless being able to have sex and relationships”

              I’m not disputing what you saw. I do want to point something out. As far as I know everyone in the “women’s” movement identifies as feminist. There may be a few who identify as radical feminist, 2nd wave feminist, 3rd wave feminist, etc, but they all accept each other as feminists.

              The MRM is more splintered. There are MRAs, masculists, etc. There is one segment known as men going their own way. It is generally accepted as part of the MRM, but is very distinct from MRA. They essentially address the issues men face in society by advocating that men essentially withdraw from relationships and society. MRAs don’t withdraw from society, but attempt to change it.

              As an MRA what I’ve come to believe is that masculinity is defined by each man. Since each man determines what traits are masculine, there is essentially no gender binary. Each man has the right to seek out what makes him happy and to live a life that makes him happy. That’s why I see MGTOW as part of the MRM. If living lives separate from women makes you happy, it’s your right. If pornography is preferable to relationships as long as he’s satisfied, more power to him.

              I don’t agree with their position, but I’ve never seen them advocate hostility toward women just separation from and as long as they treat women with the respect and courtesy they deserve in polite society in public, I don’t care how they live their private lives. I understand though how a woman might see their writings as hate.

            • @Sarah

              I haven’t seen that, in fact I have seen several sites where several members are women. There are even several “prominent” MRAs that are women, like Typhon Blue, WoolyBumblebee and GWW.

              I have heard this “MRAs want to keep women in their place” claim, and I have never seen a MRA saying that.

              I’m going to ask for links and/or evidence of this articles (not comments but articles) where hate of women for being women is espoused. I would especially like a quote where a MRA says that “women are mentally and morally inferior to men as a matter of biology.”

            • @ Altair
              I’m going to ask for links and/or evidence of this articles (not comments but articles) where hate of women for being women is espoused. I would especially like a quote where a MRA says that “women are mentally and morally inferior to men as a matter of biology.”

              Oh – But that is just so unfair and UN-chivalrous – asking someone to Prove Outrageous and Emotive Claims they have made whilst blogging under the influence of feminism! You Cad!

              Anyone would think you believe it’s reasonable to expect proof and even reality! You do have such quaint Academic ideas – you must have wasted all that time at college and university studying and learning rather than being a revolting student and protesting the price of the Vegan Yam Chowder in the refectory!

        • John Anderson says:

          @ D

          If you’re talking about register-her, from what I saw they specifically state why that person is added to the registry. If Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte have written articles that can be seen as hate speech and having read some of their articles I wouldn’t be surprised, then they should be called out. Why should they be given a free pass?

        • It’s not uncommon to see rampant bigotry towards the group “MRA” from feminists, nor is it uncommon to see rampant bigotry towards the group “Feminists” from MRA’s. I see articles posting MRA’s as a hate movement, bigots, literally generalizing about the movement, manboobz and the like post Paul Elam’s comments and call him all sorts of names so how is that different to the register-her stuff? Do those people singling out Paul Elam never discuss rapists, n others?

          This site has posted sympathetic articles towards rapists and has been deemed a hate site by many, do you support this site? Should we start viewing feminism as a hatemovement because of Valerie’s S.C.U.M Manifesto and her violent past, even the vagina monologues has a story of child sexual abuse and how she enjoyed it, do you think those particular feminists are a monster for keeping company with AND promoting the vagina monologues?

          Care to post proof that Paul Elam wrote about rape victims enjoying it? What is the context? Was it satire to illustrate a point? If the fact that ONE of their many authors writes controversial stuff makes them a hate site, then feminism obviously is a hate movement right because they have at least 1 man-hating bigot writing for them right? Is that how your logic goes?

          • Solanas is a tired example from 40 years ago. It is not taught in any women’s studies course, anywhere. Feminsm, on the whole, is knowledgeable that men can be raped, etc., and criticizes the gender roles that say that the dangerous jobs, etc., should only be done by men. Solanas is a very rare example, and considered marginal. I don’t think most feminists under the age of 40 even have a clue who she is. MRA forums are full of “vaginamoney” and “look- women in combat… good thing there will be sperm receptacles on the front lines.” Type comments. The frequency of these comments by anti-feminsits (called MRAs in this day and age) is 100 to 1. Maybe more. You may not agree with every so-called feminist opinion out there, but it is not filled with this kind of invective. I do not come across anything like this in my reading of Shakesville, Fanniesroom, books, newspapers, etc. Nothing. It wouldn’t even be tolerated.

            If you feel that the focus of feminism is misplaced, or too woman centric, or whatever, that’s one thing. But I just don’t know who these manhating feminists are. I simply do not know any. But you know you could come up with tens of thousands of threats, vulgar comments, etc. about women from antifeminists (so called MRAs) online right now. On the terminology MRA- because the majority are antifeminists, I don’t think it is misleading or unfair to say that about the term. This is nothing like the Men’s Movement of the 70s and 80s, which really was about men.

            • John Anderson says:

              I’ve been to MRA sites and question whether you really understand what an MRA is. I constantly see feminists state that the PUA community is the MRA community. That is patently false, but feminists choose to purposefully mislead in an effort to maintain female advantages.

              “Feminsm, on the whole, is knowledgeable that men can be raped, etc.,”

              And yet feminists constantly deny this same thing. You yourself said it’s ludicrous that men are raped in prison by women in vast numbers. The male victims say something entirely different, but your position is consistent with feminist positions I see all the time unless there’s penetration it isn’t rape.

              Every major feminist outlet trumpeted enlivens infographic on false rape accusations. Although every study I’ve seen show that the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of male rape are women, not a single feminist outlet questioned why there were no stick figures in skirts. As I’ve said if you repeat statistics based on a gendered definition of rape, you support that definition. If you choose to ignore 80% of the male victims of rape, you can not honestly claim to care about male rape victims.

            • “But you know you could come up with tens of thousands of threats, vulgar comments, etc. about women from antifeminists (so called MRAs) online right now.”

              But how do you prove they are actually MRA’s and not trolls? Also MRA does not equal anti-feminist, they’re 2 separate things. You can be pro-feminism and pro-MRA, in fact most people are a pro-feminism + MRA since they believe both genders should have equality. I can easily find lots of misogynistic comments with anti-feminist tones but that doesn’t prove they are MRA’s. Show me masses of ACTUAL mra’s who identify as such, or at least talk on a well-known MRA website vs anon youtube comments. I don’t doubt there is a lot of hate out there and I dislike it, just as there is a lot of hate in the radfemhub, jezebel comment sections (unknown who is actually feminist there in the comments without them saying so, etc. But how do we prove someone is an MRA, feminist when they say hate online? It’s probably safe to assume Paul Elam is an MRA and Valerie is a feminist but what about randomperson59 saying misogyny or misandry? There is huge amounts of bigotry between quite a lot of feminists and anti-feminists and the MRA’s, feminists writing articles on jezebel trying to justify misandry because some guys act like assholes, the utter generalizations about the MRM/MRA movement by major feminist sites who complain the MRA/MRM are misprepresenting feminism and are bigots yet those particular feminists do the exact same thing to the MRM/MRA/MHRA/whatevertermisusednow.

              I do believe there are a lot anti-feminist trolls and some probably quite seriously threatening feminists, there are also feminists who are actually being violent at protests against the recent Warren Farrel discussion, etc. Are MRA’s being violent towards feminists offline, face to face? (Note, I mean MRA’s, not anti-feminists). You say you don’t know any man-hating feminists? I don’t know any woman-hating MRA’s, pretty much every MRA I’ve seen simply wants equality but there are quite a few that dislike feminism’s failings which does not make them woman-haters. I’ve seen plenty of trolls but I cannot identify if they are feminist or MRA or whatever. Of the MRA’s I’ve seen on this site they seem to be egalitarian based, just as the feminists on this site appear to be.

              The major difference however is only one group has significant power and who’s actions have indirectly caused harm to men (duluth model unless that was not feminists who brought that failure about, or the early VAWA and primary aggressor laws getting men arrested automatically even if they were the victim). I have NEVER seen a single MRA influence a law that has harmed a female ever. Online threats are a massive issue but who are the people threatening really? I won’t even call you a feminist because I haven’t seen you self-identify as such. A lot of people I read online could easily pass for both feminist and MRA because they believe in equality for both genders and support both men n women. But applying the label to them without them identifying as such is fucking insulting, hell I’ve been called both feminist and MRA before yet I am neither.

              Can you link me to well-known MRA’s posting extremely misogynistic content? There are a few well-known feminists that have written content that has misandry, Valerie for instance with her “comedy” book or whatever it was meant to be, Dworkin, etc. In fact who are the most well known MRA’s? I know Warren Farrel get’s called one but he’s a feminist last I heard, Paul Elam maybe? Seeing that the MRA/MRM are still in the early stages I don’t think they’ve got anywhere near the numbers that feminism has, nor even 1/100th the publicity to actually get them known enough to be a common name like Valerie, Dworkin etc.

            • Archy you are so Chivalrous – and you keep falling into that old D.A.R.V.O. Trap – my response is quite simply = “Prove It” – when they make false claim it’s their job to Prove the claim … and they only waste your reserves when you agree to prove that they are wrong. It’s always the hard road proving the negative and they treat you like a pack horse and beast or burden every time they make massively false claims and leave you to soldier on making the massive counter points and arguments.

            • Just goes to show who puts effort in 😉

            • Robynn, I learned about the SCUM Manifesto at the University of South Florida in the mid-90s. It’s a historical artifact of radical separatist feminism.

              But you can’t prove anything about the ideologies of the men’s groups being proposed on campus, based on the actions of internet trolls. MRA forums are probably about as angry, closed-minded, and blood thirsty as their counterparts among so-called feminists. Coming back to the academic setting, it’s simply not enough or an appropriately respectful response to tell those who want to study men’s issues that no, you can’t, because the feminists are already doing that. There is room to study more than one subject on a university campus. Knowledge is the farthest thing from the zero sum game that seems to inspire the fear and lashing out, on both ends of the extremist spectrum.

            • I do not come across anything like this in my reading of Shakesville, Fanniesroom, books, newspapers, etc. Nothing. It wouldn’t even be tolerated.
              I can tell you my own experience says otherwise. There are feminists have no problem engaging in some of the very same personal attacks, insults, and negative behavior and it won’t be just tolerated but actively defended.

              If you feel that the focus of feminism is misplaced, or too woman centric, or whatever, that’s one thing. But I just don’t know who these manhating feminists are.
              Of course you don’t….

            • IN Sweden virtually teh entire feminist establishments supports school children being forced to view the SCUM play. It is still highly relevant but you hardly need to rely on it as long as you have radfemhub, Ensler and tons of other feminists expressing hateful attitudes.

            • “Solanas is a very rare example, and considered marginal”

              Let me make that point extra clear. Solanas is Swedish feminisms MAINSTREAM.

            • KC Krupp says:

              “Feminsm, on the whole, is knowledgeable that men can be raped, etc.,”…

              …by other men.

              Or “can” as in “female-on-male rape happens once in such a small infinitesimal amount, like .00000000001% of the time, that it’s not even worth talking about so why do you menz keep bring it up and taking away from the much more important women.” This ignores data that suggests the contrary.

              You’re also ignoring the very common argument in feminist discourse that argues that a woman can never rape a man because there is not the “same level of violence” involved because the man is not penetrated.

              A second argument commonly used to deny that men can be raped by a woman claims that rape is not just non-consensual sex because it has to be viewed through the lens of systematic gender violence and oppression. It goes on to argue that since men have not been historically been oppressed by woman, a woman forcing a man into sex has not committed rape.

              Many people still believe that a man biologically get up unless he wants it. “He must have wanted it” (victim blaming.)

              So, no. Feminism as a whole is NOT knowledgeable that men can be raped.

            • Well it’s interesting cos so many feminists quote a study where male students were asked about raping … and after 10 years some researchers finally got the funding and ethics permission to ask the same questions of the ladies.

              Anderson, P. (1998). Variations in college women’s self-reported heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10(4), 283-292.

              A few figures – “From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors“.

              …as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion, and over 50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol ..”

              Puts that dear colleague letter in a whole new light – and I hope any male student dragged before a Star Chamber in an US Educational Institution has this reference handy to show just how likely it is he was taken advantage of as any claim made against him!

              Seems like the sort of issue that men should be talking about on campus and making sure that Justice is for both men and women and not just for one group who believe they own the Railroad and can railroad anyone anytime!

        • As is documented by another poster a little furhter down the thread the article by Elam actually says no suhc thing but rather the oposite. This says one or two things about your sources. As I am sure they are not dumb they are either willfully lying about Elam to slander AVFM or they are so emotional they can not process what is plainly written. Regardless whoever is your source has absolutely zero credibility and you should start taking that into account when reading them. Will you?

        • Hi, D!

          Maybe you haven’t seen my comment downstream (http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/is-it-time-for-men-to-reclaim-the-campus-international-mens-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-506494)

          If you have the time, I’d like a response about the claim that Paul Elam wrote that rape victims enjoyed the experience. Given the information I posted, I’d like you to either point to a different article where he does that, explain how the new information squares with your claim or retract the argument entirely.

          Thank you.

      • Women are definitely far more worse off than men are in general terms. The statistics on higher education quoted in the article are not enough to paint a full picture of the place and lot of women in western society. The events in what is now my home town are in some ways regrettable, in that the loudest voices were the most extreme, and the real people that lost out were (mostly) young men who wanted to hear opinions on the identity of modern men and masculinity.
        But hold up. I thought it wasn’t a matter who “who has it worse”. Simple fact is there are places where men are lagging, lacking, and hurting. There are groups that are trying to address those things and they are facing opposition that would rather imagine ties to extreme MRA elements than actually hear them out (like what happened at Ryerson University).

        But the events also raised awareness, and judging by the reactions in the two camps since that day, I have to say that men have come off far worse; the harassment and vitriol directed towards the women involved is disgraceful.
        That’s only because the hateful men are the only ones that are being talked about. Well of course it will seem like the whole is horrible when you choose to only acknowledge the horrible ones of the bunch.

      • John, there’s simply more to this than a SU banning a men’s rights talk.

        Yup people with closed minds don’t help. Have you ever considered trying to open your own and do some basic reading and self education on the subject?

        “….far more worse off …” – is that over emphasis to make up for lack of in depth knowledge, or just excess gilding on the lilly? Eduction just aint what it used to be …. cue the Grumpy Old Men!

  2. I am surprised by this however I can respect the logic given by RSU that this kind of group could be used as a kind of “trojan horse” for something like “A voice for men” to gain a wider following. I don’t think men are by any means trampled from having a voice in the university environment and things like “Uni Lad” show the damage that encouraging men to separate themselves from women and feel somehow cheated by women gaining rights will do. Feminist societies are more than welcoming to men that are interested in joining and men are at a natural linguistic advantage to put their points across in that kind of scenario. Creating “men’s issues” groups will just lead to remarks like the title of this article “men to reclaim the campus” this “battle of the sexes” thing really is something that people in education should move away from. Articles like this just make people feel as though they are being cheated out of their education and perpetuate an effort to maintain male prestige in an educational environment, it isn’t that the education system is “feminized” and men cannot fit into it it is that men are being given conflicting answers on how to act. University teaches everyone to be a “better me” and to be more accepting of people. Articles like this teach people that if you think being a better me is treating people with a vagina with respect you lower yourself and they might have more chance of getting a degree than you, but hey don’t worry men still far surpass women in employment. I didn’t think this was what the good man project was about.
    What is your opinion on this group:
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Spotted-Sexism-on-Campus/121332004721623

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Maisie

      “I am surprised by this however I can respect the logic given by RSU that this kind of group could be used as a kind of “trojan horse””

      So feminists are saying that we should trust women to maker the right decision on abortion, but we shouldn’t trust men to make the right decisions. Just proves that feminism isn’t about equality.

      “Feminist societies are more than welcoming to men that are interested in joining”

      Wrong, women’s centers don’t allow men in them, but more to the point feminist organizations silence male voices when they bring up men’s issues. They get accusations of what about the mehns.

      “Articles like this teach people that if you think being a better me is treating people with a vagina with respect you lower yourself and they might have more chance of getting a degree than you, ”

      Because feminism believes that gender disparities are only a problem when women are disadvantaged otherwise you’d be pointing out solutions to equalize the enrollment rates on campuses instead of criticizing others for offering solutions.

      “and perpetuate an effort to maintain male prestige in an educational environment”

      Women are nearly 60% of the under graduate and post graduate students in the U.S. Women have privilege in college. Your own feminist teaching should inform you that you’ll have difficulty seeing your own privilege so why not listen for a moment?

    • To say that men are welcome in feminist groups is to reinforce the ideological reclamation that the original title (see URL) of this article suggested: a reclamation of the educational battleground that is the academic pursuit of the study of gender performance. College is more than a place to get a four year degree; it’s where many young people find out who they are. Boys and men have as much of a right to understand their own gender through a similar lens as feminism has brought to women’s lives.

    • John Anderson says:

      “but hey don’t worry men still far surpass women in employment.”

      A “men’s issues” website decided as a response to equal pay day (the extra days women would have to work to earn as much as a man in 2012) to look up department of labor statistics and determine what day equal risk day (the extra days women would have to work to experience the same level of risk as men in the workplace in 2012. I’m assuming based on workplace fatalities) would be. They determined that equal risk day would be April 18, 2020 or about 8 additional years to match the level of risk men faced on the job in 2012.

      http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2013/04/15/equal-risk-day-noh/

    • “Creating “men’s issues” groups will just lead to remarks like the title of this article “men to reclaim the campus” this “battle of the sexes” thing really is something that people in education should move away from.”

      Using scarequotes around men’s issues is insulting, not to mention it makes me disbelieve your entire comment that men are welcomed there. Are feminist groups on campus free from people like the redheaded lady in the youtube screaming at the cameraman n others she thinks are MRA’s?

    • Adam Blanch says:

      Feminists groups are only welcoming of men who agree with feminist viewpoints. As the video of the Warren Farrell ‘protest’ shows, Men who do not agree are or who do not express an opinion either way are abused, vilified, and assaulted.

    • I am surprised by this however I can respect the logic given by RSU that this kind of group could be used as a kind of “trojan horse” for something like “A voice for men” to gain a wider following.
      That logic is being forced into the equation even when it is not actually there. There have been attempts at starting men’s groups at campuses and before the plans are drawn and the people starting the groups can make their case the first response is to assume anti woman hatred. So that leaves people that want to help men (or at least people that want to help men outside of feminism) in a awkward catch-22.

      People that want to help men need to show that they are not anti-woman BUT being pro-man is INHERENTLY interpreted as anti-woman.

      . I don’t think men are by any means trampled from having a voice in the university environment and things like “Uni Lad” show the damage that encouraging men to separate themselves from women and feel somehow cheated by women gaining rights will do.
      When trying to form a group and the instant response is to assume anti-woman sentiment then I’d say yes they are being trampled. The damage of men separating from women wouldn’t be so bad if women didn’t jump to the worst possible conclusion whenever men tried to get together on something.

      And that’s the problem. How can you expect men to get together to work on anything positive when today’s men are still assumed to be like men from past generations?

      Feminist societies are more than welcoming to men that are interested in joining and men are at a natural linguistic advantage to put their points across in that kind of scenario. Creating “men’s issues” groups will just lead to remarks like the title of this article “men to reclaim the campus” this “battle of the sexes” thing really is something that people in education should move away from.
      So how does that work out when its feminists themselves that are simultaneously saying that men shouldn’t have their own spaces, women’s voices must be at the forefront of feminist spaces, and that men need to do their own work? Again when women do their own thing its not considered “battle of the sexes” but as soon as men try to do the same its assumed to be engaging in that battle.

      University teaches everyone to be a “better me” and to be more accepting of people.
      As long as you’re a part of the right groups apparently….

      …..but hey don’t worry men still far surpass women in employment….
      Again. I can’t help but notice that when encountered with some metric in which men are behind women on the response isn’t to actually talk about that metric and try work on it. No the response is to go find some metric where women are behind men, which of course needs to be addressed. Translation: As long as there are places where women are behind men it either doesn’t matter that there are places where men are behind women, the places where women are behind men are a higher priority, or its actually good that there places where men are behind women. (I think you are going with the second one.)

    • Adam McPhee says:

      For a Ryersonian’s perception of what’s gone on at the RSU:

      http://eyeofwoden.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/ryerson-student-union-and-the-boogey-mens-issues-groups/

      Feel free to let me know if I seem like a trojan horse.

  3. If this is true

    ” University teaches everyone to be a “better me” and to be more accepting of people”

    Then the UoT and Ryerson are failing terribly.

  4. Funny how the people making all these false accusations about justifying rape, calls for violence and harassment of women are from the same and only group that are being violent.

  5. QuantumInc says:

    The title of the article had me worried, and the use of the word “matriarchy” even more so. However I completely agree the final quote, which seems to summarize the thesis, “Both sides feel harassed and bullied by the other and neither show any signs of backing down. It’s shameful to me that women and men can’t talk about their individual issues without it being against somebody else.”

    I really believe that we need a movement that can tackle the widespread issues of both men and woman. A lot of these issues are intertwined. Women are judged on their ability as parents, men are judged on their ability as wage earners. One gender role couldn’t exist without the other. They need to be tackled together. The feminist movement has done wonderful things for women, but have practically ignored men’s issues. Well, they haven’t completely ignored it, most feminists will acknowledge that patriarchy hurts men, they might even name several specific ways it hurts men, but female feminists don’t devote a lot of energy to helping men. If we want a movement to help men it will have to be led by men. Which means things like the men’s groups mentioned above.

    Feminists can be quite paranoid about the implications of things like a men’s group on campus or the male positive Literature course on Victorian Manhood. On one hand, of course you would want to look at the good side of it, of course you would want to seen Victorian era men as they saw themselves; on the other hand the Victorian era was the worst time in history for women. I would speculate that women were better off in the dark ages. Obviously those attitudes that robbed women of almost all agency are going to be reflected in what you teach in such a course.

    Still there are plenty of times that such paranoia goes too far, but the article mentions that often getting past such initial paranoia is simply a matter of reaching out with friendly intent and getting to know each other. I heard a women’s studies professor show concern over a series of meetings for men known as “The Huddle” however I also immediately realized she had zero knowledge of what “The Huddle” is like or it’s intent. (Actually, despite flyers everywhere, nobody goes to those meetings, I went once and it was only myself and a psychology intern). She was also worried that the WoMen’s center (which hosts The Huddle) had been renamed the Men’s Center, which seems utterly false. So yeah, I kind of want to yell at her “Just go over there! It’s only 200 feet away!” On the same day I met a woman’s studies student who expressed the importance for a gender neutral approach to sexual violence. So maybe it’s easier to reach out to some feminists (younger feminists?) than others.

    While feminists are partially to blame, the so-called “Men’s Right Movement” has clearly decided that feminists are teh evil!!!1 They simultaneously misrepresent feminism and blame it for all their problems. You read a list of “feminist lies” and half of it are things feminists fight against. Sometimes they’ll correctly identify a sexist trend, but embrace it. There are MRAs who blame feminists for the “pussy cartel” but it’s clear they only want cheaper prices for sex. They fail to realize that the commodification of sexuality is a bad thing, and the real source of their frustration. They’re too busy trying to get laid to effect real change.

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      We have been really thinking about the title. Do you think the new title more accurately reflects the thesis? We think there is a need for this conversation, but don’t want to be divisive.

      • Adam McPhee says:

        My concern with the title is the thought that starting men’s groups will reclaim the entire university (not happening). I would personally think something along the lines of why there is so much hate / opposition to the very notion of men having groups focused on the male perspective.

        The RSU said it is women’s voices that should be centred in discussions about gender. Should it not be men’s voice if the conversation is about men? Alternatively, should it not be a shared conversation? I wouldn’t provide marriage counselling in which I centred one partner’s voice over the other, why would we centre one gender’s perspective over the others?

    • Agreed, men’s rights groups have legitimate issues to talk about but when I’ve visited their websites, the real issues seem drowned in a flood of bitter complaints about hot women either being too slutty or not slutty enough and/or how too many women are too ugly for sex. Imagine if feminists spent all that energy basically complaining that men are bad in bed or lousy on dates.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        Yeah, Sarah, I agree. “Men’s Rights” is not the same as talking about “men’s issues” or “issues of masculinity”. The brand of “Men’s Rights” is something totally different.

        • I hear often that “Men’s rights have poisoned the well;” the solution is to ignore that, because it’s tautological and intended to discredit the men’s movement, and go on discussing men’s issues and fighting for the space to do so. The GMP seems one natural place for this to take place.

          • There is a deliberate campaign to poison the well that has being going on for decades now.

            When fathers advocate for rights – they are painted as an abusers lobby, when abuse victims point out the system discriminates – they were painted as abusers .. these days its manboobz and his quote mining and these groups in Toronto falsely accusing Warren Farrell of being pro rape and incest .and so on. Earlier tonight I posted details about how make rape victims are being deliberately erased by gov data collection and I got paragraphs of abuse and quotes from Manboobz “proving” that I really belong to a hate group. A lot of the violence and viterol these mens groups are experiencing in Toronto has being talked up in deliberate well poisoning campaigns like Manboobz.

            • John Anderson says:

              If there is a hate site manboobz would qualify.

            • Please don’t mention that place.

              Its full of propaganda. They take things that are true hatred and paint them as representation of the entire bunch. They take commentary out of context. They aren’t above lying. They selectively ignore anything positive that comes from MRAs. And when caught on it the fix is to throw up a “snark” tag.

              They are doing almost (if not more damage) to the gender discourse as negative MRAs.

          • I hear often that “Men’s rights have poisoned the well;” the solution is to ignore that, because it’s tautological and intended to discredit the men’s movement, and go on discussing men’s issues and fighting for the space to do so. The GMP seems one natural place for this to take place.
            I have a hard time believing that from feminists.

            Despite our experiences with feminists we are still expected to not treat all feminists that way and to give each one a fair chance. Why aren’t we given that same consideration in return?

        • Not buying it says:

          ” presumption of innocence – the right to face your accuser ” when it comes to VAWA/ DEAR COLLEAGUES/FATHERS ACCESS,…etc, are not just men’s issues, they are men’s rights plain & simple, Joanna, & unlike the the top 1% males who seem to hold the attention of feminists, the average Joe doesn’t have any male privilege to check when asking to be treated fairly & equal.

      • Sarah

        Manboobz is not the best place to learn about the mens movement, in the same way the places he generally mines the quotes that he pretends typify and characterize the men’s movement are not the best places to get information on feminism.

      • If that is the case then why aren’t feminists more open to MRAs that don’t engage in that hatred?

        Even when those of use who don’t engage in that hatred bring that stuff to the table it is brought to the table anyway as a way to keep us out of the conversation.

    • Well, they haven’t completely ignored it, most feminists will acknowledge that patriarchy hurts men, they might even name several specific ways it hurts men, but female feminists don’t devote a lot of energy to helping men.
      Agreed. Thing is they shouldn’t have to. I’m MRA myself and I’ll be the first to agree there are a lot things that are harming women and its not right to expect women to devote their work and energy to men’s issues. However…..

      If we want a movement to help men it will have to be led by men. Which means things like the men’s groups mentioned above.
      A good number of them do seem to devote a surprising amount of energy to railing against any advocacy for men that is not done under the banner of feminism.

      While feminists are partially to blame, the so-called “Men’s Right Movement” has clearly decided that feminists are teh evil!!!1 They simultaneously misrepresent feminism and blame it for all their problems.
      My problem with this is that while there are portions of MRAs that engage in that feminism is evil routine there are those among us who don’t and those of us who don’t are getting lumped in with the negative ones. It’s not Paul Elam that’s saying I’m bad and hate women because I take on that label and its not Paul Elam somehow making feminists call all MRAs bad and hateful of women. That’s feminists themselves choosing to be hypocrites by generalizing in a way they would not stand for if done to them.

    • On one hand, of course you would want to look at the good side of it, of course you would want to seen Victorian era men as they saw themselves; on the other hand the Victorian era was the worst time in history for women. I would speculate that women were better off in the dark ages.

      Pretty much all female privileges originated in this era. And it saw the reversal of the woman = bad man = good, into what it is today woman = angel man = devil.

      It did rob women of agency, but it gave agency all to men, while making them to be inherently evil.

      I’d much prefer to be the “look pretty side” than the “don’t be evil now side”.

  6. Joanna Schroeder says:

    I also think we should all slow down before we start talking in the binary. I don’t like the implication that universities are becoming “matriarchal” Glen and I think it’s even absurd. Who are the administrators? The majority of university presidents? The majority of instructors? Members of boards of trustees? Wouldn’t Matriarchy be used to determine not just that women do WELL, but also that they are in charge? And beyond that, that women are solely in charge?

    As much as I want to support this conversation, and as much as I believe men’s groups should be on campus, the idea of even using the word “matriarchal” and not immediately shooting it down in the article is troubling to me in how far it is from the truth.

    • John Anderson says:

      “As much as I want to support this conversation, and as much as I believe men’s groups should be on campus, the idea of even using the word “matriarchal” and not immediately shooting it down in the article is troubling to me in how far it is from the truth.”

      Sometimes it depends on a person’s experience. At my school just over 60% of the undergrads are women, about 70% of the graduate students, over 60% of the deans, and about 80% of the senior administrators are women. Most of the professors are liberal / feminist / progressives and about half are women. The athletic director is a woman. The president is a man, but the provost is a woman. Odd that it never felt like a matriarchy. That’s probably because things aren’t broken down by gender. There is no men’s or women’s center. There is a student’s center.

      Some schools may be run by men, but if they’re run primarily for the benefit of women and to the detriment of men, I could see why people may view it as a matriarchy. Michele Bachmann was running against like 10 men in the Republican primary. There was no democratic primary for president; yet women did not cross over to vote for her in the Republican primary. Had she won, I’m sure feminists would still refer to this as a patriarchy even though it would be headed by a woman based on how the person governs rather than the person’s gender.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        To the detriment of men?!

        How are universities to the detriment of men?

        • I think he’s saying some not all. Hell I can point you to my old highschool that was starting to go the road of pushing the girls up to the detriment of boys (leaving them behind + sexist views towards them). To the detriment would be shit like having women’s groups but no men’s groups. And before the bigot brigades come in to deny misandry and deny men needing groups because of some false comparison to whites….men have a shitload of issues harming them before taking into account equality. I wouldn’t say there is a matriarchy on campus or anywhere, I’d sya there is maybe chivalrous actions or extreme pro-feminist actions which are tunnel visioning people into not ensuring men also are catered for. Someone said Obama cheered the fact 60% of graduates were female, if that is true then that is the tunnel vision I speak of where we boost one group up so much without making sure the other group is supported appropriately and that group ends up slipping behind. I really wouldn’t be surprised if we see boys n men helped and people tunnel vision n forget to keep women up to the same level as gendered actions like this tend to tunnel vision n fail I find.

        • John Anderson says:

          @ Joanna

          We can point to statistical evidence like enrollment rates and graduation rates, but there are other things we can look at. Looking at Canada, we could point out the lack of men’s centers. We can look at micro aggressions like women’s only gym or pool times. Although all students benefit from coaching, a study by Bettinger and Baker indicated that men benefit to a greater extent.

          “Across the various measures, the impact was greater on male students than on female students. After six months of coaching, for example, the impact of coaching added 2.5 percentage points to female students’ retention rates, and 6.1 percentage points to the rates for men.”

          http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/10 study_finds_value_in_coaching_college_students_on_academic_and_life_issues

          When schools notice disparities in female enrollment, they have no trouble adopting mentoring programs exclusively for women.

          “The Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science was able to expand its undergraduate major from 7 percent female to 42 percent female in the span of five years by doing more to actively recruit female applicants, changing admission requirements to include less prior experience with programming, and changing the “peer culture” of the major. A study that looked at physics department with larger-than-average female enrollments, as well as at historically black colleges and universities and women’s colleges, found that active recruiting, departmental social activities, and informal mentoring groups for female students and faculty could help attract and retain female majors.”

          http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/22/stem

          Where is the response addressing the disparities in men’s enrollment and retention? Absence of action is a choice also and can be just as detrimental.

    • Not really, Joanna. Margaret Thatcher was no feminist. She upheld the status quo, making her an ideal figure to promote within a movement that wants to prove it does not discriminate on sex, only on ideology or ability to serve. What prevails in academia and in the administration on campuses in this article is a belief that a particular brand of feminism is the truth, instead of allowing room for discussion outside that ideology.

    • Agreed. So many problems with this.

    • Mark Sherman says:

      “The video footage of protestors trying to prevent Dr Warren Farrell, the creator of the proposed White House Council on Boys & Men, from delivering a talk on ‘the boy crisis in education’ is certainly shocking.”

      Yes, it is. And for those who haven’t seen it, here it is.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
      Keep in mind that, as the author says, Farrell was on campus to talk about “the boy crisis in education.”

      “According to the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU) ‘free speech ends where hate speech begins’ and UTSU believes that the Male Issues campaign crossed that line by providing a forum for Dr Farrell who they say spreads “misogynistic, hateful theories.’”

      I don’t want to get into issues of patriarchy and matriarchy, but the fact remains that women are a significant majority on American college campuses. That is, as far as college campuses are concerned, men are a clearly a minority group, plain and simple. To not allow a minority group to have a place to meet and talk about their issues just isn’t right. (And to base this denial on claiming that concern about male issues is hate speech is an insult to the term “hate speech.”)

      For anyone with sons or grandsons, all of this is really something to think about – whether your children or grandchildren are already in college or heading there.

      And as for college presidents, I’d like to point out the presidents of half of the eight universities in the Ivy League are women. All the Ivies are all prestigious and influential centers of higher education.

      • Tom Brechlin says:

        What, did anyone watch the video? Can anyone tell me when they have seen MRM’s conduct themselves the same way? Did you hear what these feminists said to these “guys” what they said to the police? THIS IS feminism today? I hear all the time from the moderate feminists in this forum how feminism today is only interested in the best interests of men and women and then we have this.

        WATCH the clip. To the feminists here at GMP, open your eyes. The views that were shown at this protest ARE the views of today’s feminist.

        What are feminists fearing? That which they have feared for a very long time and have been able to hide for a very long time . A realistic view and true facts.

    • Adam Blanch says:

      I’ve attended 3 universities over the last 6 years. At the first my class was told by a sociology lecturer that if we wrote an essay that did not support the feminist perspective we would be failed. At the second I saw my distinction plus average dive to a low pass in one class because I kept objecting to the lecturers anti male propaganda (same quality of work). At the third I am currently in conflict with a lecturer because she continually bring her feminist beliefs into the class room and tries to tell me that my objections are oppressing her because I’m a white male..

      I agree that it is not Matriarchy,it’s Feminarchy – the promotion of a sexist dogmatic religion through the education system.

      • @Adam

        @Mods: Could you explain why on Earth you would censor my post below? Seriously, you mods need to move communist China. Unbelievable.

        I wish I could say I was surprised. Universities, at least those focused on the humanities, have turned into Orwellian thought control factories. (I’d also now like to include the Good Men Project in this category, too.) It’s why the value of BA decreases each year. At this point, I would only consider hiring a graduate from one of the STEM fields.

        • Chances are your comment got caught up in the automatic filtering system for having a specific keyword in it. When that happens a human moderator has to fish it out and approve/decline it. Unfortunately there aren’t that many human moderators so a truly innocent comment could get stuck in the moderation queue for a long time.

    • If a matriarchy requires women to be solely in charge, then we haven’t had a patriarchy for a LONG time. If a patriarchy caters mostly to men (hence male privilege), wouldn’t a matriarchy cater more towards women? One can easily see certain areas where women get disproportionate attention and are catered for (anti-violence, anti-rape, anti-abuse, the 90’s crisis of girls in education, college ratios, etc). Or maybe we’re in a kyriarchy where some areas privilege women, others privilege men.

    • wellokaythen says:

      I would compare “matriarchy” with “patriarchy” and request a comparable measuring stick. It won’t do to measure them with a double standard.

      An institution can be *patriarchal* even if there are some positions for women, even if there are cases in which a woman has authority over men, even if there are some cases of women flourishing in such an environment. Hell, you could even have a patriarchal system with a woman as the chief executive — Britain under Thatcher, for example. Patriarchy can be a general structure with lots of exceptions.

      So, by the same token, an institution could still be matriarchal if there are a few men on the board of directors, even if there was a male president. Even if there were lots of male success stories. Even if the graduation rates were only a little different, even if men were “only 15%” less likely to graduate as women.

      It reminds me of some of the historical legal rulings about monopolies. At one point a judge ruled that a company did not have a monopoly on a market because it “only” controlled 98% of the market. Monopoly means literally only one, but there was still room for the 2%, so therefore not a monopoly. Being matriarchal does not mean that women control every single thing.

      • I have not been following this conversation, but I am commenting on the terms “matriarchal” and “patriarchal.” Yes, a system in which a bunch of women are in charge can be patriarchal, and a system in which a bunch of men are in charge could be matriarchal. The point is whether the system makes it easier for a man or a woman to gain positions of power. In the case of politics, it’s clearly easier for men to gain positions of power. In the case of education, it’s still easier for men to gain positions of power. As Alistair’s comment of the day pointed out, simply having women graduate at a higher level isn’t actually changing the structure of power within universities.

        • John Anderson says:

          “it’s clearly easier for men to gain positions of power. In the case of education, it’s still easier for men to gain positions of power. As Alistair’s comment of the day pointed out”

          Alistair has made many points. Some seemingly contradictory. For example, Alistair states that college favors male traits like thinking outside the box then says that college favors female traits such as collaboration and group work. It seems contradictory, but can a patriarchy develop into a matriarchy? Can higher education have been a patriarchal institution in the past and a matriarchy today?

          • If you read my comments again, you should see that I distinguish the environments of primary and secondary education from that of tertiary education. The former privileges more typically female traits to a degree that the latter does not.

        • wellokaythen says:

          What the article describes is not necessarily a matriarchy.

          It reminds me more of a theocracy, with priestesses in charge, something along the lines of the Terimites in Dave Sim’s _Cerebus_ series. (Okay, an extreme example, but he’s Canadian too, and it’s the first thing that popped into my head.) Whatever the feminine form of the word “ayatollah” is, that’s what I suggest he uses for the authors of the RSU policies about men’s groups. The men’s issues groups appear to be facing the equivalent of a fatwa.

        • wellokaythen says:

          Then, if higher graduation rates do not change the balance of power, you wouldn’t mind if the university graduated men at higher rates than women?

  7. Some points on men and women in higher education.

    First, we should distinguish between the position of male students on campus and the place of male students in university. My impression is that the sort of issues that male students as a group might face on campus are fairly minor compared to those faced by female students. This is not to deny that there are issues that affect male students, or that these issues are worthy of attention, but just to point out that men, while a minority, are very, very far from being a persecuted one.

    Second, the situation really varies from field to field and at different stages of education (here is a helpful diagram of PhDs awarded by gender for each subject in 2009 in the US). Male students really have the advantage in many disciplines. In the diagram I just linked, it can be seen that woman really dominate in the social sciences, education, and in language and literature. However, in engineering and the hard sciences, men represent the vast majority of doctorates. Only 37% subjects have a gender ratio of 2:3 or closer to parity. In short, while the overall number of PhDs awarded in the US may be close to gender parity, further education has quite pronounced gender polarities for particular disciplines.

    Third, not all disciplines are equal when it comes to career opportunities, prestige, or future remuneration. Levels of funding will also differ from discipline to discipline. On each of these fronts, male-dominated disciplines tend to do considerably better than female-dominated disciplines. Even with women-friendly hiring policies, men will typically find it easier to get tenure track jobs and are considerably less likely to have to sacrifice having a family for an academic career. Even within fields, women often predominate in the less prestigious sub-disciplines.

    Fourth, men typically dominate highest faculty positions and at the top of fields. Men are much more likely to experience career success in academia.

    Fifth, when we look at the figures relative to particular points in education, it might become clearer that males actually aren’t doing all that badly in higher education at all. While about 33% more women than men may enter higher education in the US, slightly more men are receiving doctorates, and the gender difference becomes even more pronounced after that point in men’s favour. This would seem to suggest that men may even be thriving.

    It would also suggest that the real problem for males doesn’t seem to lie in higher education, but in secondary and primary education. I could suggest a number of reasons for why males seem to outperform females at the top levels of education, but underperform at the lower levels. Here are a few:

    1. The fact that higher education favours a different style of intelligence and learning from lower levels of education, privileging assertive, vocal, challenging, independent-minded, confident, combative, disputational, creative, and risk-taking thinkers, rather than thinkers who conform to set expectations and demands. These character traits are more common among males and, while often stifled or under-appreciated in lower levels of education come into their own at the highest levels of education.

    2. The fact that most teachers at lower levels are female, while faculties in higher education are dominated by males.

    3. The fact that primary and secondary education are typically non-competitive, egalitarian, conformist, inclusive, highly sensitive, communal, non-physical, quiet and sedentary, non-confrontational, affirming, and are test and grade-oriented. This doesn’t exactly play to boys’ strengths and tends to lead to the stigmatization of many male traits.

    3. The fact that the male population has a greater level of variance than the female population. As a result, men are more likely to dominate at the top and at the bottom. In the lower levels of education, the greater level of male variance will lead to a greater number of boys failing. However, as the cream of the cream is only selected in the very highest levels, it is here that the other side of the greater male variance will come into its own.

    4. The kicking in of the differences resulting from women’s motivations, choices, and self-investments in light of marriage, pregnancy, and child-rearing.

    5. The lower motivation for women to assume the greater personal and professional costs and risks associated with pursuing a career in academia.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      Thank you for this, Alistair.

      I hope everyone reads and addresses your points, as you are making a logical, well-researched and sound counter to the article.

      I’d love to hear some folks address these questions directly, especially the author of the piece.

      • Alastair says:

        Thanks, Joanna. As you can probably tell from my comments here and elsewhere, I think that there are very important concerns on both sides of this particular discussion and that we are best off when we bring these various arguments into a forceful and fruitful collision, from which the best arguments emerge strengthened, honed, and qualified, taking the valid concerns of other perspectives fully on board, while poorer arguments are weeded out and abandoned. Unfortunately, we all have a tendency to form shrill echo chambers instead, contexts that will encourage bad arguments from all of us.

        There is a complex web of factors at play in the shaping of higher education and I really don’t think that any side is justified in claiming straightforward oppression. Most of the time it is more a matter of an untidy system that tries and fails to reconcile and harmonize a host of different competing and mutually limiting concerns, leaving everyone stifled and disadvantaged in some respects as a result. The problems of such a system won’t be solved by presenting one party as being unilaterally oppressed and stifled by others and calling for equality and redress, but rather by recognizing that we all come with different needs and concerns, and that this boot isn’t comfortable on any of our feet. We need to bring our differing perspectives into lively dialogue to produce something that is better for all parties.

        It seems to me that part of the solution may involve the recognition that one size will never fit all, we are not all the same, and rather than pursuing a simplistic equality, we should seek an equitable solution where a variety of different but constantly related contexts are provided within which all parties have somewhere where they can thrive.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Alastair @ Joanna

      “1. The fact that higher education favours a different style of intelligence and learning from lower levels of education, privileging assertive, vocal, challenging, independent-minded, confident, combative, disputational, creative, and risk-taking thinkers, rather than thinkers who conform to set expectations and demands. These character traits are more common among males and, while often stifled or under-appreciated in lower levels of education come into their own at the highest levels of education.”

      And yet men dominate in fields like STEM where there are rules and women dominate in fields like art where creativity is king. Research has shown that men do worse in schools that are heavily tilted toward art regardless of their major.

      • Alastair says:

        Thanks for the response, John.

        First of all, the main point of those remarks was that the playing field for higher education is that the characteristics associated with success in higher education are quite different from those associated with success in lower levels of education. There isn’t anything like a straightforward gender split in traits. Some of the traits that become important in higher education may favour women, others may favour men. However, these traits are often definitely weighted according to gender and when it comes to the set of traits that higher education favours in the aggregate, male traits start to come to the fore in a way that they don’t in lower levels of education.

        Second, STEM subjects are not uncreative or unimaginative. To succeed in such areas you need to develop an imaginative grasp on the rules, rather than just following them in a formulaic fashion, and apply and deploy them in original ways in practical situations to solve real world problems. STEM subjects can be some of the most profoundly creative subjects of all.

        Third, while art is definitely creative, there are different types of creativity. The sort of creativity that I am highlighting here is creative genius. Standard creativity is able to employ established styles, media, methods, and genres in effective and creative ways, achieving good results within an established tradition of art. In contrast, creative genius is highly independent and innovative. Creative genius invents truly new things: new traditions of art, new genres, new styles, and new methods. However, when we look at the history of almost any area of human creative endeavour (visual arts, literature, architecture, music, food, fashion, cinematography, design, technological invention, etc.), the cutting edge, ground-breaking creative geniuses have been and predominantly remain male. Geniuses, by their very nature, are typically self-confident, driven, highly independent, risk-takers and these traits are far more common among men.

        For instance, while men and women play and study music equally, if you look at music theory and composition in the PhD chart, you can see that only about 20% of doctorates in the area are gained by women. Both musical composition and improvisation tend to be male-dominated activities.

        None of this is to deny that many female geniuses exist. People often think that genius is just high intelligence. However, there are people who have ridiculously high IQs without being true geniuses and people with lower IQs who do have genius. Genius isn’t just high intelligence, but a high level of agentic and independent-minded intelligence. This form of intelligence is more common among men and is the form of intelligence that will always be at the cutting edge of culture.

    • John Anderson says:

      “2. The fact that most teachers at lower levels are female, while faculties in higher education are dominated by males.”

      According to the BLS 48.2% of post secondary teachers are women so 51.8% are men. If that’s domination then how would you categorize a female enrollment of 57% as opposed to a male enrollment of 43%?

      http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf

      • Alastair says:

        According to the same statistics you link, 98.1% of preschool/kindergarten teachers, 81.4% of elementary/middle school teachers, and 57.3% of secondary school teachers are female. Only 48.2% of postsecondary teachers are female. However, if you break that down further into levels of associate professor, professor, etc., you will see my point amply borne out. Men predominate at the very highest levels of education, women at the lowest levels.

    • John Anderson says:

      “3. The fact that primary and secondary education are typically non-competitive, egalitarian, conformist, inclusive, highly sensitive, communal, non-physical, quiet and sedentary, non-confrontational, affirming, and are test and grade-oriented. This doesn’t exactly play to boys’ strengths and tends to lead to the stigmatization of many male traits.

      3. The fact that the male population has a greater level of variance than the female population. As a result, men are more likely to dominate at the top and at the bottom. In the lower levels of education, the greater level of male variance will lead to a greater number of boys failing. However, as the cream of the cream is only selected in the very highest levels, it is here that the other side of the greater male variance will come into its own.”

      Boys outscored girls on average on the SATs

      “Average scores dropped 5 points for females and 2 points for males. While females represent more than half (53.5%) of test takers, their total average score (1496) is 27 points below the average score for males (1523).”

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-08-25-SAT-scores_N.htm

      From 1995 – 2010 boys have outscored girls in the ACT by between .1 and .4 points with 2009 (.4) and 2010 (.3) being on the high end.

      http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_155.asp

      More girls took the SATs indicating that boys either dropped out of high school or were uninterested in going to college. You still have a very large percentage of boys that took the test. I keep hearing that boys are falling behind girls in high school, but I wonder based on the results from standardized tests whether it’s a problem of assessment in primary and secondary education. Are female teachers, who do dominate the primary and secondary schools, inclined to grade girls higher? I’m not saying this doesn’t discourage boys. It most certainly does, but it does indicate that boys should be able to compete in higher education and the fact that they’re not seems to indicate a bias against boys in higher education.

      “4. The kicking in of the differences resulting from women’s motivations, choices, and self-investments in light of marriage, pregnancy, and child-rearing.
      5. The lower motivation for women to assume the greater personal and professional costs and risks associated with pursuing a career in academia.”

      Already addressed with BLS stats. Doesn’t seem to make much of a difference when it comes to teaching jobs in higher education.

      • Alastair says:

        There is a very significant difference between the number of girls taking the SATs and the number of boys. The boys outperform the girls and the difference becomes even more pronounced when we look at the very highest results. This is much what we would expect to see if my claim were correct. While the average results of both girls and boys will be similar, when the lowest performers are weeded out, significantly more boys will be removed than girls and the boys that remain will outperform the girls. The greater variance in the male population will lead to boys outperforming girls significantly at the very highest levels, provided that a high enough bar is maintained.

        By focusing on the relative SATs scores we easily miss the crucial detail that points to boys falling behind, which is the high number of boys who drop out altogether. As a general group boys aren’t falling behind, although they may be disadvantaged in certain respects. If we look at the very top, the boys are often doing the very best of all. However, those at the very bottom are predominantly boys too and we should be concerned about this.

        • John Anderson says:

          I’m looking more at the difference between the test takers and enrollment 46.5% of boys took the test 43% are under graduate enrollment and retention. Last time I checked men were getting degrees at about 80% the rate of women. I don’t know much about variance. This is the first time that I’ve heard of it in this context, but the retention and enrollment rates do suggest that even in this higher level of boys they still struggle relative to girls. That would indicate some bias against boys in higher education.

          • If you look at the very top performers in higher education, male tend to predominate. Males per se are not struggling. For instance, if memory serves, males get firsts in Cambridge and Oxford at twice the rate of females. Similar things can be observed elsewhere. I don’t think that there is a generalized bias against males in higher education, although there are plenty of strong pockets of bias against both males and females.

            • What’s with the fetish of assuming the few at the top represent the rest? What is the average male achieiving? Just because males have a few extra genius level folk doesn’t mean males as a group are doing ok. Male IQ has more people at the very top and also the very bottom of the bell curve whilst females are more central, but this can still mean that the overwhelming majority of men can be lower in achievement whilst more males happen to be in the top 1%.

            • John Anderson says:

              I think that’s pretty much what Alastair has said. I remember one post where Alastair says that we should be concerned with the boys at the bottom. My point was somewhat different. Granted fewer boys took the tests, but boys outperformed girls on a standardize test while girls out performed boys in school where there is more subjectivity. Could the advantages that girls have in the subjectivity of school grades be negatively impacting them when they’re faced with situations where the metrics are more objective.

              Men and women receive an equal rate of pay at a job. Woman complains that she doesn’t get the same results in her paycheck as man. Woman fails to see that the rate is hourly and man has worked more hours. I’ve also never seen a study on wage disparity look at overtime, which should count as time and a half.

              Is it a matter of objective as opposed to subjective standards?

    • Alistar: Wow, those are some great reasons and well thought out. But I think perhaps you forgot one very important point that negates ALL of your points

      As far as I know, ALL those points have always been true for boys and girls and yet until about 25ish years ago boys dominated in higher and lower education.

      SO, if all your points are valid, what changed?

      • Thanks for asking, Saitek. I think that the main thing that has changed is the environment of education, which has steadily been moving away from a form that favours more male traits and towards one that favours female traits. I don’t believe that these developments have, for the most part, been undertaken with the explicit purpose of advantaging girls and disadvantaging boys, but that has been the effect. Some of the changes include:

        1. An emphasis upon more communal forms of learning and an increasing stress upon the virtues of community over those associated with individuality, strong agency, and hierarchical achievement. The positive undermining of strong individual agency by such a strong emphasis upon inclusivity, conformity (with such an emphasis upon ‘fitting in’ and belonging that kids are left with fewer ways to ‘stand out’ and assert themselves over against their peers academically and otherwise), stifling ideological and personal sensitivity (which discourages the open and challenging exploration of difference), egalitarianism, and non-competition.

        2. A gradual movement to assessment based more upon teamwork, collaborative projects, progressive assessment, coursework, and open-ended exploration, and away from a more immediately competitive context for framing the process of learning. For instance, one of the reasons why boys typically significantly outperform girls in maths is because maths tends to be taught in a manner where there are lots of problems given that can be approached competitively and individually. However, when a subject is approached in a more open-ended or collaborative fashion, many boys can find it frustrating.

        3. The increasing standardization of education, which tends to discourage forms of intelligence which depend heavily upon self-confidence and independence of mind.

        4. The downplaying of the rhetorical dimension of education. The rhetorical dimension of education plays to a more physical, disputational, confrontational, assertive, and agentic style of learning. Rhetoric used to be at the heart of learning and plays to a number of especially male strengths: the fact that males typically have more powerful voices after puberty, the common male appreciation of ritualized combat, and its emphasis upon the individual agency of fighting your corner.

        5. The various explicit efforts to raise and support the performance of girls in school, without equivalent energy being expended on boys.

        6. The increasing stigmatization or medicalization of traits that are more common among boys in the context of the education system. The benign rough-housing, competition, and aggressive themes of boys’ games and interactions are pathologized and seen as vicious and violent, when they are typically nothing of the kind. They are just forms of play that seek to explore and enjoy empowered agency, which is a central theme of many masculine identities. The greater physicality and more energized nature of boys (the struggle to sit still and focus upon one thing) and their interactions are increasingly seen as problems to be medicated, rather than natural states to be understood and accommodated. An education system that is focused upon ‘playing nice’, avoiding anything that might appear violent, and constantly expecting children to sit still and be quiet and conformist will be incredibly frustrating and alienating for many, many boys.

        7. The rise of video games and other such things, which offer boys the buzz of competition, the sense of achievement, power, and success, and the enjoyment of empowered and aggressive interactions that the education system increasingly denies them. Girls obviously like video games too, but video games don’t typically feed the same existential hungers in them. As boys don’t find these hungers met in school, but rather continually denied and stifled, they will become more dependent upon and invested in non-academic contexts.

        More things could be mentioned, but that is more than enough with which to start.

        • Alastair you have written some very interesting and infomrative thigns regarding education in this thread.

          You might find this interesting:

          http://alphagameplan.blogspot.no/2013/01/a-tale-of-two-discourses.html

        • My tehory is that not only have boys results gone down but girls results have as well but only appear to have gone up because of grading on a gaussian curve. If you look at the curriculum today and compare it to the curriculum of 50 years ago you will find that high students are often a couple of years behind in math, writing, science and foregin language. This difference is so huge that while girl smay get better results than boys today in terms of grades they are still learning less than girls 50 years ago.

          Several countries have had their own version of a tv show where students at about 15 or so spend some time leaving in a boarding school and are taught exactly what they where expected to learn 50 years ago and are taught exactly the same way and punished and rewarded according to the same rules. The students are always shocked at what they are expected to learn in terms of difficulty and size of curriculum but end up learning more than they ever have come close to in such a time frame. It seemed to me most of the increased capacity for learning came through the fact that the teaching methods made them extremely focused. They actaully used time effieciently.

    • Adam McPhee says:

      If that’s the percentage of PHD’s for women, slowly sloping to the left as they get less and less, then flipping it over would show the same thing for men (as they would make the space in between women’s position and the 100%, assuming the stats didn’t account for trans).

      As such, I feel it shows that men go for one variety of fields more than women, and women go for a variety of ones that men don’t. I for one went into Social Work. There were about 10 males (one trans-man that I know of) to 300 women. The field I have chosen does not exactly have a huge growth potential as the typically male-fields, but it is one I chose.

      If we are to address women not getting into nuclear engineering, and what keeps them from doing that (I would guess at boys being more prone to being “geeks” as kids and interested in science), then we should also be addressing the lack of men also going for their PHD’s in female dominated fields, such as child care or social work.

  8. Maybe we should start chanting, this is what feminism looks like? Were there NO feminists telling others to stfu and stop silencing the male group folk? I’m sure someone will say not all feminists are like that….so why weren’t they there?

    Newsflash people. The MRM would NOT exist if feminism truly did it’s job in addressing men’s issues, that is just a fact. If it did it’s job, the MRA’s would be feminists. When there is actual proof of the harm done to men (see the duluth model and early VAWA) by feminist-inspired laws, you need to have proof of feminists actively working to fix this. Unintended consequences need to be dealt with, why do you think there is so much anti-feminist thought out there? Read what most anti-feminists say, most I see actually want equality but believe feminism is mostly about giving women the leg up to the point it actually harms men because men are left too far behind or the laws are downright misandrist. How could anti-feminism even exist if feminism truly did a good job at addressing both genders? Sort through all the anger n bitterness and you’ll start to clearly see the issues at hand. Then add on the fact major feminist websites, and many feminists hold an extremely bigoted view of the MRA/MRM, where you raise a male issue and are quickly pushed out, silenced, told you’re an MRA, a bigot, etc….how can that possibly exist if feminism is the egalitarian movement?

    I am not convinced feminism is there to benefit men, there are just far too many feminists who will tell men to go start their own shit cuz the feminists are too busy working on women’s issues. Men’s issues will be addressed AFTER women’s issues. Can I, a man, walk in to a feminist group on a campus and discuss male issues whilst addressing female privilege, the ways society privileges women over men, etc? Will I be told that conscription, selective service are in fact male privilege and not female privilege? Will I be exposed to outright misandry of the S.C.U.M manifesto style feminist? Is feminism a safe space for males? Is female responsibility taken into account in feminist groups? Or am I going to run into feminists like this ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

    If feminism truly is for men then there’s zero need for the MRM, so why does the MRM even exist? Will I be able to find the office for men’s issues in government led by feminists? Will I be able to easily find a plethora of information about male rape victims (especially of forced to penetrate/envelopment), will I see feminist campaigns against circumcision? Feminist campaigns with posters showing a female perpetrator, male victim in rape and domestic abuse? Will I see feminist campaigns against men’s selective service, conscription around the world (and female conscription too as some countries have that)?

    I hear from some feminists that feminism is for men to cater to their issues….so why the fuck is it so difficult to see this in practice? Why the hell does the MRM even exist if feminism is already addressing men’s issues? My most educated guess is that feminism is doing a piss poor job of addressing men’s issues, and that it’s more just a side effect of addressing the harms men do and helping women’s issues. I would LOVE to believe feminism as this magical movement to address ALL inequality of gender, but it’s so hard to actually see that, it shouldn’t be so hidden, I shouldn’t be told that these types of feminists are in academia, I should easily be able to see the protests on the streets, I should be seeing white ribbon campaigns for men too, but why don’t I? Am I blind? Or is it mostly lip service I’ve heard about how egalitarian feminism is? The majority of feminist material I see of men’s issues, is comments and even articles BY feminists ridiculing men’s issues in a “aww da poor menz” style snark, getting major popularity, hell recently an article by a feminist bigot who was trying to justify misandry because men annoyed her. Should I not see MORE comments by feminists saying hangon, that’s not right, we shouldn’t belittle men’s issues, we shouldn’t act like assholes to men, we shouldn’t silence them, we shouldn’t stop them having men’s groups on campus.

    Dear feminists, PROVE. ME. WRONG
    And no I am not an MRA, they have a huge amount of problems, but I am someone who has a hard time believing feminism is an egalitarian movement more often than it is a gynocentric movement. What I see are 2 major movements using the same name with no qualifier so it’s impossible to know who is who without reading their words for months, but the gynocentric side is far bigger and has a huge amount of bigots on it’s side ready to belittle men’s issues mostly from anger at the “oppressers” because it’s “ok for marginalized people to hate the oppressor class” type mentality and absolutely fallacious thoughts such as “men have all the power” so they think men don’t need help.

    Feminists, you should be worried, there is an epic level of bad bad bad bad terrible representation of your movement online these days and it’s causing an ever-growing number of anti-feminists to be made. The PR battle is being lost by the good, egalitarians or even the non-bigoted gynocentrics. Sites like Jezebel with their popularity, the twitter campaigns of mocking men’s rights and issues are turning your movement into a hate movement. Why the fuck are you not mad at that? (Most of this shit can be applied to the MRM btw too). The “good” feminists who are stuck in academia, unless you’re going to help win the PR battle…can you really complain about anti-feminism when feminism is so often portrayed as a bigoted movement because the bigots have such a loud collective voice and so few articles of feminists telling other feminists to stop their bigotry?

    The fact that a men’s group is being denied on campus, and there aren’t masses of feminists saying hang-on, that’s wrong, stop doing that shit, allow them to have a group SPEAKS VOLUMES ON the treatment of men in feminism. Feminist actions, and feminist words appear to be 2 different things. Where are the feminists protesting the discriminatory policy of not allowing a men’s group to happen?????

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      There are TONS of feminists who allow male voices. Everyday Feminism and Role/Reboot are two popular sites that talk about feminism and include male survivors and other men who are breaking through the typical gender barriers.

      • Would they allow a man to write about female privilege? And did they speak out against the silencing by the redhead in the youtube video? There may be some feminists who allow male voices but there are a shitload who don’t, do the “tons” call out those who actively engage in silencing of men? Do those sites allow any criticism of feminism or does it have to be feminist friendly n pass checks, ie never discussing extremists, etc? Do they hold bigoted views towards the MRA/MRM and use straw-mra’s in articles? If they pass these checks then I’ll add em to my list of reading.

    • wellokaythen says:

      I’m not so sure about saying that feminism should have “done its job in addressing male issues.” At least in terms of the first 2-3 waves in American feminism, this was not really a big part of the job description. I don’t mean that necessarily as a criticism of feminism, just that I don’t think many people saw those movements as having that job. I wouldn’t expect the African American civil rights movements to “do its job in addressing all the issues that white folks have to deal with.”

  9. Maybe we should start chanting, this is what feminism looks like? Were there NO feminists telling others to stfu and stop silencing the male group folk? I’m sure someone will say not all feminists are like that….so why weren’t they there?

    Newsflash people. The MRM would NOT exist if feminism truly did it’s job in addressing men’s issues, that is just a fact. If it did it’s job, the MRA’s would be feminists. When there is actual proof of the harm done to men (see the duluth model and early VAWA) by feminist-inspired laws, you need to have proof of feminists actively working to fix this. Unintended consequences need to be dealt with, why do you think there is so much anti-feminist thought out there? Read what most anti-feminists say, most I see actually want equality but believe feminism is mostly about giving women the leg up to the point it actually harms men because men are left too far behind or the laws are downright misandrist. How could anti-feminism even exist if feminism truly did a good job at addressing both genders? Sort through all the anger n bitterness and you’ll start to clearly see the issues at hand. Then add on the fact major feminist websites, and many feminists hold an extremely bigoted view of the MRA/MRM, where you raise a male issue and are quickly pushed out, silenced, told you’re an MRA, a bigot, etc….how can that possibly exist if feminism is the egalitarian movement?

    I am not convinced feminism is there to benefit men, there are just far too many feminists who will tell men to go start their own shit cuz the feminists are too busy working on women’s issues. Men’s issues will be addressed AFTER women’s issues. Can I, a man, walk in to a feminist group on a campus and discuss male issues whilst addressing female privilege, the ways society privileges women over men, etc? Will I be told that conscription, selective service are in fact male privilege and not female privilege? Will I be exposed to outright misandry of the S.C.U.M manifesto style feminist? Is feminism a safe space for males? Is female responsibility taken into account in feminist groups? Or am I going to run into feminists like this ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

    If feminism truly is for men then there’s zero need for the MRM, so why does the MRM even exist? Will I be able to find the office for men’s issues in government led by feminists? Will I be able to easily find a plethora of information about male rape victims (especially of forced to penetrate/envelopment), will I see feminist campaigns against circumcision? Feminist campaigns with posters showing a female perpetrator, male victim in rape and domestic abuse? Will I see feminist campaigns against men’s selective service, conscription around the world (and female conscription too as some countries have that)?

    I hear from some feminists that feminism is for men to cater to their issues….so why the fuck is it so difficult to see this in practice? Why the hell does the MRM even exist if feminism is already addressing men’s issues? My most educated guess is that feminism is doing a piss poor job of addressing men’s issues, and that it’s more just a side effect of addressing the harms men do and helping women’s issues. I would LOVE to believe feminism as this magical movement to address ALL inequality of gender, but it’s so hard to actually see that, it shouldn’t be so hidden, I shouldn’t be told that these types of feminists are in academia, I should easily be able to see the protests on the streets, I should be seeing white ribbon campaigns for men too, but why don’t I? Am I blind? Or is it mostly lip service I’ve heard about how egalitarian feminism is? The majority of feminist material I see of men’s issues, is comments and even articles BY feminists ridiculing men’s issues in a “aww da poor menz” style snark, getting major popularity, hell recently an article by a feminist bigot who was trying to justify misandry because men annoyed her. Should I not see MORE comments by feminists saying hangon, that’s not right, we shouldn’t belittle men’s issues, we shouldn’t act like assholes to men, we shouldn’t silence them, we shouldn’t stop them having men’s groups on campus.

    Dear feminists, PROVE. ME. WRONG
    And no I am not an MRA, they have a huge amount of problems, but I am someone who has a hard time believing feminism is an egalitarian movement more often than it is a gynocentric movement. What I see are 2 major movements using the same name with no qualifier so it’s impossible to know who is who without reading their words for months, but the gynocentric side is far bigger and has a huge amount of bigots on it’s side ready to belittle men’s issues mostly from anger at the “oppressers” because it’s “ok for marginalized people to hate the oppressor class” type mentality and absolutely fallacious thoughts such as “men have all the power” so they think men don’t need help.

    Feminists, you should be worried, there is an epic level of bad bad bad bad terrible representation of your movement online these days and it’s causing an ever-growing number of anti-feminists to be made. The PR battle is being lost by the good, egalitarians or even the non-bigoted gynocentrics. Sites like Jezebel with their popularity, the twitter campaigns of mocking men’s rights and issues are turning your movement into a hate movement. Why the fuck are you not mad at that? (Most of this shit can be applied to the MRM btw too). The “good” feminists who are stuck in academia, unless you’re going to help win the PR battle…can you really complain about anti-feminism when feminism is so often portrayed as a bigoted movement because the bigots have such a loud collective voice and so few articles of feminists telling other feminists to stop their bigotry?

    The fact that a men’s group is being denied on campus, and there aren’t masses of feminists saying hang-on, that’s wrong, stop doing that shit, allow them to have a group SPEAKS VOLUMES ON the treatment of men in feminism. Feminist actions, and feminist words appear to be 2 different things. Where are the feminists protesting the discriminatory policy of not allowing a men’s group to happen????

    • Tom Brechlin says:

      “The fact that a men’s group is being denied on campus, and there aren’t masses of feminists saying hang-on, that’s wrong, stop doing that shit, allow them to have a group SPEAKS VOLUMES ON the treatment of men in feminism. Feminist actions, and feminist words appear to be 2 different things. Where are the feminists protesting the discriminatory policy of not allowing a men’s group to happen????”

      This sums it up and in particular “Feminist actions, and feminist words appear to be 2 different things” THIS is what I have experienced.

      • I experience it too. It’s frustrating. I’d be happy for feminism to just collectively focus on women alone, but the lipservice is annoying when it doesn’t seem to be a popular view. There should not be people telling males in feminism to stfu about male issues if feminism is for egalitarianism. The lack of response from the egalitarian feminists has helped caused major distrust of the movement. I find it hard to trust the movement, I hear they are dealing with men’s issues but see very little action on it. I don’t think I saw any major feminist site actually mention the sheer massive increase of female against male abuse in recent years (The CDC stats for one was a major bombshell largely ignored). What I am seeing are people saying Feminism IS for male issues, that men’s groups don’t need to be made because feminism is taking care of it, yet feminism seems to be doing sweet fuck all for men compared to what it does for women and the sheer disparity in focus means men’s issues are left largely unsupported…..so the men are angry and are damn well angry for a good reason, it appears they were sold a lie. A feminist reading this should feel nothing but sheer disappointment at the movement for failing so bad at the PR campaign let alone major change for men.

        Tip for feminism, if you want to help men…go for it, but if you see other feminists say we don’t need a men’s group then tell them they are wrong, stand up for men having their own group if you cannot allocate the appropriate level of attention (I don’t mean more than what women get either, but some would be great). The MRM only exists because feminism dropped the ball on being the true egalitarian movement that many claim it is. If you read a lot of anti-feminists, there is quite a bit of bigotry but there is quite a bit of truth to some of it focused at SOME feminists and that is the sad part. It pisses me off to the core to see people on both sides claim to be egalitarian yet continue the bigoted gender rights movements wars. Drop the hate n join forces already, FORM VOLTRON and fucking change society. Red haired lady in the youtube and Paul Elam should be fighting side by side to end violence, sexism (both misogyny and misandry), both sides should heavily call out those sending sexist messages, messages of rape n violence threats (my guess is the majority are simply trolls), the anger should be redirected from each other and towards the society itself that allowed such disparity between genders to happen. A baby gets circumcised? Stand up, a woman gets denied promotion because she may get preg? Stand up, someone raped? stand up, it’s extremely disturbing to see both sides want the same fucking thing pretty much but have different ideology and ideas of how to get there stand in their way. Many MRA’s don’t want more fuckups like early VAWA, many feminists don’t want the men to get more rights than them, both want to be free from violence.

        We shouldn’t see protests get to the point that fire alarms are pulled because you don’t like that groups message. Newsflash, not all MRA’s are bad, in those videos the men attending weren’t all MRA’s, one was there because he wanted to know why his friends committed suicide and ends up being called a rape apologist because the woman saying it cannot understand Warren Farrels bad quotes (that I’ve seen at least) were taken out of context, eg the “enjoying rape” quote was talking about the rape elements in romantic books, and the incest research was an impartial and unbiased look into incestuous relationships that basically just says people SHOULD NOT force incest survivors to think their experience was horrible if they don’t feel that (which is pretty much common sense, don’t force people to feel harm if they don’t feel it). The quotes of Paul Elam’s article calling for violence against women had the vital missing part in the next paragraph saying IT WAS NOT A REAL CALL FOR VIOLENCE.

        • Archy, Feminism is about WOMENS rights, and to that extent they have indeed made amazing inroads. Having 3 daughters, I appreciate the opportunities they have afforded my girls. I also have a son and 2 (soon to be 3) grandsons and I worry about their rights. I really don’t expect Feminism to be there for them in any way to see they get a ‘Fair Shake’. The term ‘Equalitarian Feminist’ to me seems an oxymoron. The way it seems to me, shouting down the MRA’s and attempting to ‘Poison the Well’ hasn’t had the desired effect (at least among the undecided) so the next effort is for feminist groups to claim something to the effect that they really have our backs and there’s no need to have ‘Mens Studies’ or mens groups, but like you said (to paraphrase) ‘Where’s the beef”!

  10. >Fourth, men typically dominate highest faculty positions and at the top of fields. Men are much more likely to experience career success in academia.

    People with more financial pressures that stay in the game for a long time are more likely to experience career success than people that decide to work part time or not at all because they can afford to because their partner is working full time.

  11. Would this article be given the same consideration if it said
    “Why do white’s need all white groups on campus”
    no because this would clearly incite hatred and be contradictory to equality policies, although you might have groups that discuss ethnic minority issues. As it stands men do not face the same issues that women do on campus, women do not have the same rights as men that is why there are not mens issues groups. I am sure that a society like “the goodman project” or as I used to understand it before reading this Glen Poole piece would certainly be accepted in universities however a society affiliated with a voice for men, like the author of this piece ought not to be.

    • Again why is the status of women being used as the bar to determine the status of men and when men do and do not need in order to address the things that affect us?

      “You have to be this badly harmed in order to be permitted to take certain actions to help your group.”

      Seriously?

      If there are things affecting men and things affecting women they are all bad and all need to be dealt with then why do people insist on getting into a “who has it worse conversation” in order to decide who gets to do what in order to address those harms.

    • Racial issues and gender issues are different. Women actually have some rights that men do NOT, blacks however have NO RIGHTS that whites do not. If you cannot understand this simple difference I suggest doing more research before commenting. Circumcision, right to opt out of parenthood, selective service/conscription are just a start.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ Maisie

      “women do not have the same rights as men that is why there are not mens issues groups.”

      How do women have fewer rights than men? I don’t know about Canada, but in theory Title IX in the U.S. is supposed to cover all student activities and benefits, but is solely used when it comes to athletics. At SFU the impetus for the men’s center was the near suicide of the student who proposed it. It was a place envisioned as a place for men to find support. Men commit suicide at 4 times the rate of women and I don’t see any bigger right to anything than the right to life.

    • Not buying it says:

      AVfM & CAFE are independent of each other & are not affiliated, So way do you keep insisting that they are, or is it an attempt at smearing publicly any organization that wants men’s studies as misogynists regardless of the truth, I truly wonder.!!

    • Not buying it says:

      SOME OF US MEN ARE NOT WHITE! !!!, do I have to be a white male to be advocating for some measure of equality & justice for men in this hypocritical political gender narrative, hmm, the thinking behind some of the comments here is that men or better yet all white men are bigoted & misogynists, I as a black man & plenty of other men of various colours & ethnicities take offence to that.

    • Mr Supertypo says:

      “women do not have the same rights as men that is why there are not mens issues groups.”

      and what rights do women not have?

    • wellokaythen says:

      “women do not have the same rights as men that is why there are not mens issues groups.”

      Actually, the article demonstrates a case where this is not true. The reason there are not men’s issues groups on that campus is because the student union has banned them. And, clearly this demonstrates that in some contexts, in some areas, women do have more rights than men. Having the right to form a group on campus is a right that some people have and other’s don’t.

  12. Not Guilty says:

    Why do we have to spend frosh week talking about sexual harassment and rape? Because it still happens and it is men who need to be taught not to rape. Let’s look at Stubenville. There is so much slut shaming happening it isn’t even funny. RApe culture is why we need to spend frosh reminding men not to rape women.

    Women are the majority in law school but after 5 years there numbers tank because it is not a career conducive to having children and being a woman. Looking simply at university percentages is misleading because despite women showing up in droves, they are making no headway in the corporate world. Where is your concern for that?

    I honestly could go on.

    Mens rights groups aren’t just looking at how gender stereotypes harm men, a task that feminists actually do, they are looking at how women are harming them. How competition for university has made their lives more difficult. Gender equality seeks to take the silver spoon away that white, upper middle class men are born with and they don’t like it. Mens rights groups want their historic advantages restored at the expense of women. And that is why feminists protest.

    Oh and fyi: you are only entitled to enforce freedom of speech against the government and its entities and universities have been held to not be government entitles.

    • John Anderson says:

      “Why do we have to spend frosh week talking about sexual harassment and rape? Because it still happens and it is men who need to be taught not to rape.”

      You realize that there are men on this site who have been raped by women who disagree that women don’t need to be taught not to rape.

    • Mens rights groups aren’t just looking at how gender stereotypes harm men, a task that feminists actually do, they are looking at how women are harming them.
      Not quite. There are those of us who are looking at how gender systems hurt men. The problem that feminists have is that part of that examination actually does include women harming men. You can’t dance around that forever while expecting to change the gender system that hurts us all.

      Gender equality seeks to take the silver spoon away that white, upper middle class men are born with and they don’t like it.
      So by this statement I take it you think that the only inequalities that are going on are ones that favor men over women and if we fix those then everyone will be okay?

      Mens rights groups want their historic advantages restored at the expense of women. And that is why feminists protest.
      No feminists protest because they don’t like the idea of not being at the forefront of the gender discourse. Even when efforts to help men have no ties to extreme or negative men’s groups feminists have no problem just making up those ties as shown at Ryerson University.

      • “Not quite. There are those of us who are looking at how gender systems hurt men. The problem that feminists have is that part of that examination actually does include women harming men. You can’t dance around that forever while expecting to change the gender system that hurts us all.”

        I see plenty of MRA’s discussing systems which harm men….uh hello, the courts and their treatment of fathers is one of he major MRA discussions. Are people even reading the MRA sites or just making shit up for a laugh? Or do they mean MRA’s aren’t looking at the issues THROUGH a feminist lens, and thus their view has to be wrong?

    • “Why do we have to spend frosh week talking about sexual harassment and rape? Because it still happens and it is men who need to be taught not to rape. ”

      It is HUMANS, both male and female that need to be taught. Tell me, are women told to stop raping men in freshman week?

      “Women are the majority in law school but after 5 years there numbers tank because it is not a career conducive to having children and being a woman. Looking simply at university percentages is misleading because despite women showing up in droves, they are making no headway in the corporate world. Where is your concern for that?”

      And men face extroardinary discrimination, pedophilia hysteria and other issues which limit their access to careers with children, men do more paid work and suffer more on the job illness, stress, injury and death. What’s your point? Corporate world isn’t the end-all, be-all of life and many women choose to focus on their family life vs a career. More needs to be done for flexible workplaces and reduce stigmas for men with childcare to help even that out.

      “Mens rights groups aren’t just looking at how gender stereotypes harm men, a task that feminists actually do, they are looking at how women are harming them. How competition for university has made their lives more difficult. Gender equality seeks to take the silver spoon away that white, upper middle class men are born with and they don’t like it. Mens rights groups want their historic advantages restored at the expense of women. And that is why feminists protest.”
      So you attack a strawMRA position, whilst saying feminists do this n that? So the positives are attributed to feminists, the negatives to the MRA’s? How is getting male circumcision banned a historic advantage, when women clearly have the advantage in body autonomy at such a young age in the U.S?

      Maybe instead of generalizing about feminism and the MRA you could do well to research both, feminists aren’t always good and MRA’s aren’t always about the white dudez. I don’t think I’ve seen such an ignorant comment for some time, do look around though and get a better idea of what men both MRA and non-mra want, it’s got nothing to do with old privileges being restored but actual equality.

    • Not buying it says:

      @NOT GUILTY SAYS:
      RIGHT, Hmmm, you are so Right, Universities shouldn’t be about freedom of speech or open discussion, exchange of different thoughts, or stating the facts & telling the truth about various subjects, how dump of us not realize that fact, we should have !!!
      Accept my apology, my male brain couldn’t see it.

    • wellokaythen says:

      I’d be curious to see what difference the first week orientations have made in terms of students’ behavior. (Or “behaviour.” ; – ) )Clearly they make a huge difference in terms of reducing the campus administration’s legal liability and helping their public relations. The ass-covering function is very clear. The school can say that they’re committed to stopping these things, “because look, it’s one of the first things we tell them when they start here.” We told them not to rape anyone, so we’re off the hook! That’s a big reason for such orientations. How effective they really are is another matter.

      • Yes – the liability issues have had an observable impact on the negative attitude towards the male in Higher Education, and in the US the negative impacts are still coming to the surface after a decades of growth and at least one generation stigmatised. It’s been observed many times that US law obliges corporations such as Universities to act as Psychopaths, and when you have such entities acting in self preservation you do get unforeseen consequences and one has to wonder at the damage caused.

        It’ all so seasonal as I have commented frequently – and again I have to ask why is September to December the rape season in the USA? The Net has been driving it to greater and more observable heights for the last decade – and the dead and defunct Slut Meander was a sort of punctuation point on the graph of bifurcation.

        Could it all have anything to do with male students being lined up at institutions to be told they are rapists – that they are not to rape – and a whole skewed and false reality pushed down throats … along with female students being told that there is a certainty that they will be raped – at least 100 times – and that they must make it know that this Bad Meme … sorry … rape culture (Nice Words and Big Big Thought-Terminating Cliché) has to be stopped , that it empowers them to do and say anything to stop it… it raises their anti rape culture privilege and empowerments to levels that suspend due process, habeas corpus and even constitutional protections .. and they must Squeem loudly if anyone says otherwise .. and should anyone question anything it just proves that rape culture is 3000% real and they can Squeem more and more.

        Why is it that if rape incidence has been cut by 80% so many US citizens believe that the incidence is Going? That sort of basic Cognitive Dissonance is linked to a Wild Woolly Meme prancing about and causing confusion.

        Of course there is absolutely no possibility that such a pattern of anti-social engineering could have possibly have happened and no-one noticed? Or maybe some did but the reality just keeps on being Shouted Down by the badly educated who have a Bad Meme and have been taught to Squeem.

        Privilege is such an odd thing.

  13. PursuitAce says:

    “Gender equality seeks to take the silver spoon away that white, upper middle class men are born with…”
    So it’s supposed to be the rest of us against those 5-10%? Or are the rest of us males just guilty by gender association?

    • John Anderson says:

      Feminists claim that women are disadvantaged in the workforce and that disadvantage is rooted in gender discrimination. They point to the earnings gap as evidence of this. If this is correct, then why would companies discriminate against male members of corporate boards? According to U.S. News

      http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/slideshows/7-jobs-in-which-women-out-earn-men

      the labor department has identified 7 jobs where women make more than men. Are these jobs just magically exempt from discrimination, societal expectations, or patriarchy and of course women would need to be “superior” to men to earn more, right?

  14. Tom Brechlin says:

    You tell me if they need male only groups….

    A racist, sexist blogger writing as “feministconservative” told of her employment in a university admissions office where she boasted of throwing applications from white males in the trash:

    For instance I can’t tell you how many applications I saw that were just dripping with white male privelege. Any of those that I saw basically went straight to the garbage can regardless of how good their qualifactions were. If I saw an application from a white male that basically was just good test scores, and activities like chess club or math club or what not then it shows me this person is not interested in a diverse environment. Obviously he made no effort in integrating with minorities or to sympathize with them and is counting on male privelege to get in. So that kind of application should get ignored. In their place I admitted a female student. This goes double especially for math/science majors.

    […]

    I’m happy to say that I approved nearly 90% of all female minority and 80% of all (white female applicants especially if the girls want to study math or science) while rejecting over 50% of white males this week and hope this trend holds out.
    Imagine the sick educational environment that would lead someone to believe there was absolutely nothing wrong with writing something like that.

    When web sleuths identified the blogger as Arianna Pattek and the university as Georgetown University via details about her senior thesis that she posted online,

    Georgetown’s response has been odd. They have denied via Twitter that Pattek was employed in the admissions office, but have not released an official statement. Odder still, they have scrubbed any mention of Pattek from the University web site.

    • wellokaythen says:

      Good Lord. That admissions officer was a total bigot all around, and not just for being hostile to white males. She can’t see it, but she’s as racist and sexist when it comes to everyone else as well. What a blinkered, provincial idiot.

      She’s a great illustration of exactly why racial preferences in admissions can be such a bad idea. Think about it – she tossed out applicants who played chess, with the assumption that chess is a privileged white person’s hobby. So, no inner city black students ever play chess, huh? Never been to Brooklyn, I take it. Presumably she’s only going to accept students who conform to racial stereotype by producing hip-hop, driving lowriders, cooking chow mein, or going to powwows. Give me an effing break. Apparently no girls ever play chess either.

  15. Richard Aubrey says:
    • Tom Brechlin says:

      Actually, I got this off another site that wasn’t AVFM because for some reason AVFM to some is a radical Men’s Rights group. So I took the info from another site.

      • Not buying it says:

        The problem some people have with men’s rights or issues was never about it being white, black, yellow, or blue, it’s more with notion that men as a whole could be anything different then how the reigning gender ideology paints them as , in this case the messenger is irrelevant, the message (men have gender specific problems) is the problem in the academic & public discussion circles , it seems to be touching a nerve with ideological demagogues .

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Tom.
        Good thinking. Never give the folks an opportunity to dismiss something because it was posted on the “wrong” site.
        I figure Georgetown is trying to cover this up because…1, they know it’s a horrid thing and they don’t want anybody to know about it, or…2. they think it’s just dandy and they don’t want anybody to know about it.

  16. Tom Brechlin says:

    Would someone please tell me what what rights women are being denied OTHER then their not having to sign up for selective service?

  17. Tom Brechlin says:

    Take a look at what’s being said here. What I hear is a lot of guys defending their right to be heard and a lot of BS telling them they are wrong. AMAZING. Like I said in another post. People don’t want to hear what’s wrong, they want to hear what they want and if it doesn’t fit into this cure little feminist box, STFU.

    What you’re hearing here from men IS how men feel. Like it or not, the new age feminism as it’s attempting to be portrayed IS NOT what feminism is.

    One last thing about the so called “wage gap.” It’s BS in that it has nothing to do with men oppressing women. Example … we’ve been trying to hire two Direct Service Techs. 17 applicants. Men would not accept the wage and all the men turned down offers. It was only women who accepted the offer. This is not uncommon. The SAME offers were made to men and women. It’s a variable that is often conveniently left out. But in the feminist world , women are paid less. Sad part is that because it’s a male facility, the women who took the offer will not be doing equal work for equal pay. They will not be able to monitor clients in the common washrooms, they will not be doing drops, they will not be screening clients at intake.

  18. Alastair says:

    The expression ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ has never rung true to me. In my experience, it all too often functions as a means by which to dismiss voices that might be critical of some of feminism’s positions. The people who make this claim typically give little evidence that they are really concerned with improving the lot of the majority of men. Rather, the expression serves to maintain a monopoly on the conversation, as feminists continue to presume that they speak not only for all women but also for all men.

    Within the expression is the patronizing suggestion that feminism knows better than men what is in men’s best interests, that (surprise, surprise) those interests just so happen perfectly to align with the ends of the feminist movement, and that, since men’s best interests are already being represented, would the male non-feminists please shut up? Feminism has already co-opted the right to speak in the name of the majority of women who don’t actually identify with the movement; I don’t see why men should tolerate the same thing being done to them. ‘Patriarchy hurts men too’ pays lip service to male concerns, but never really takes them seriously enough to let men speak about them on their own terms.

    When male concerns are spoken about, they are all too often concerns that are hugely under-representative of men as a group, focusing on minority masculinities, rather than on the typical male with more stereotypically masculine traits, motivations, and aptitudes. Also, one almost invariably finds that the measure of success for feminists is the relative success of women, not the thriving of both men and women. Consequently, any situation where men outperform women is a case of injustice and oppression, while any situation where women outperform men shows how strong and competent women are and how men just can’t keep up.

    ‘Equality’ is often appealed to, but one soon discovers is that equality only works in one direction. Women are equal, except in those situations where they are better. Inequalities are a result of patriarchal oppression, save in those situations where they advantage women, when they exist because men are lazy or dysfunctional. I exaggerate, but only slightly.

    Male traits and behaviours are a perfect explanation for male failures, but to suggest that they might also have something to do with their successes is to be sexist. For instance, the fact that men commit the vast majority of crime and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violence in society is a cultural universal. This is obviously attributable to male traits and the notion that we should be seeking equality in this area would (rightly) be considered ludicrous. However, when we look at the dominance of men at the top of almost every developed society, male traits and behaviours can have nothing to do with it: it is pure patriarchal oppression and injustice. It is the irrational, hypocritical, inconsistent, and self-serving nature of such feminist thought that makes it hard to take it seriously. Feminism and egalitarianism function as the sort of religious dogmas that are impervious to contradictory evidence, employing argumentative sleight of hand, political pressure and coercive tactics, and using the dynamics of offence and emotionalism to shut down contradictory viewpoints.

    The sort of society that feminism and egalitarianism try to create is one that consistently undermines contexts in which a majority of men (along with a significant number of women) thrive. Feminist and egalitarian contexts seek to be inoffensive, stigmatize competition, are non-confrontational, and communal. As a result they push for homogeneity and a stifling intimacy, attacking anything that doesn’t conform, and struggle to deal with dissent. You are constantly treading on eggshells to avoid offending or triggering anyone. At any point you could be attacked for offending someone, you would be demonized, and your voice would be closed out of the conversation. Independent-mindedness is viewed as a threat and is stifled when it doesn’t conform with the established group orthodoxy. Even questioning of the orthodoxy as a devil’s advocate to sharpen its thinking is seen as a threat. Robust disputation can be tolerated. Truth must take the back seat to whether or not statements make people feel affirmed, welcomed, and validated. You are constantly expected to ‘play nice’ because of the vulnerabilities, sensitivities, and weaknesses of people around you. Unsurprisingly, such contexts tend to be extremely passive aggressive, manipulative, and poisonously bitter.

    I don’t think that I am alone in finding such a society deeply dysfunctional and quite repressive for many of us. I naturally prefer rougher interactions with my peers, dealing with differences openly and directly. I want a society where we are all expected to thicken our skins a little, develop a sense of humour, and be more direct and confrontational, without being vicious or bullying. These forms of interaction play to an especially male desire to express, develop, and enjoy robust agency, playing to their strengths. It is in such interactions that we truly come into our own, not so much in contexts where everyone must bend over backwards to ‘play nice’ and avoid doing anything that could conceivably discomfort anybody else, make them feel less than completely affirmed, and accommodate everyone else’s thin skins.

    Many of us know the feeling of a weight leaving our shoulders when we leave a situation governed by such dynamics and move into a context where people have thick skins, senses of humour, and relish robust and direct interactions, where passive aggression, the sensitivity police, stifling intimacy, snark, outrage and offence-taking, and constant scrupulous but vacuous affirmation are no longer the rule of the day. I don’t think that I am alone in finding that the best place to find this refreshing change of atmosphere is in all-male groups. In such groups we can speak honestly, directly, and forthrightly, without fearing censure because someone doesn’t feel sufficiently validated by what we have to say. We can enjoy aerated conversations where opposing viewpoints exist alongside and challenge each other. In such settings, differences can be tackled head-on, without being ensnared in personal issues and group politics, passive aggressive dynamics of sabotage, manipulation, and silence, personal attacks, and attempts at exclusion, demonization, and silencing. In such settings we can think about external issues without always having to fuss about interpersonal dynamics. In such settings we can develop strong minds, agency, convictions, an outward-looking focus, and learn to be people who think and act with determination and resolve, rather than being reactive and self-absorbed.

    Just as many women find the typical dynamics of male-dominated groups oppressive and stifling, so many of us men find the typical dynamics of female-dominated groups oppressive and stifling. Both men and women should have contexts in which they can enjoy expression. One of the problems facing men today is that the feminist and egalitarian movements are committed to driving out the contexts of socialization that many of us thrive in as men and replacing them with contexts driven by a sort of dynamic designed for the thin-skinned and sensitive.

    Is there a need for male groups? If existing groups cannot accommodate men’s more direct, forthright, and confrontational forms of interaction, provide men with a context in which to voice their concerns on their own terms, or provide contexts that truly mediate between the dynamics of agency-focused and belonging-focused groups, then apparently, yes, there is.

    • The expression ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ has never rung true to me. In my experience, it all too often functions as a means by which to dismiss voices that might be critical of some of feminism’s positions. The people who make this claim typically give little evidence that they are really concerned with improving the lot of the majority of men. Rather, the expression serves to maintain a monopoly on the conversation, as feminists continue to presume that they speak not only for all women but also for all men.
      Or as I like to call it, lip service. Giving just enough of a bone to shut up anything that might be too close to being critical of feminism. Funny thing is on one of Mark Greene’s recent posts there were folks (feminists of course) that swore by all that was holy that feminism has internal critique going all the time. What I think those people are missing is that critiquing feminism from the inside is very different from doing it from the outside.

      Within the expression is the patronizing suggestion that feminism knows better than men what is in men’s best interests, that (surprise, surprise) those interests just so happen perfectly to align with the ends of the feminist movement, and that, since men’s best interests are already being represented, would the male non-feminists please shut up? Feminism has already co-opted the right to speak in the name of the majority of women who don’t actually identify with the movement; I don’t see why men should tolerate the same thing being done to them. ‘Patriarchy hurts men too’ pays lip service to male concerns, but never really takes them seriously enough to let men speak about them on their own terms.
      Exactly. Among a lot of feminists there is this presumption that a non-feminist is by definition wrong in their critique of feminism. Why? Because being a non-feminist is actually held against a person. So it’s not even “That argument isn’t very sound and here is why….”, it’s more like “That argument isn’t very sound because you don’t ID as feminist.” Since when does a label determine the strength and validity of someone’s arguments?

      When male concerns are spoken about, they are all too often concerns that are hugely under-representative of men as a group, focusing on minority masculinities, rather than on the typical male with more stereotypically masculine traits, motivations, and aptitudes. Also, one almost invariably finds that the measure of success for feminists is the relative success of women, not the thriving of both men and women. Consequently, any situation where men outperform women is a case of injustice and oppression, while any situation where women outperform men shows how strong and competent women are and how men just can’t keep up.
      Like the World Economic Forum’s annual Gender Gap Report? A report that quite literally awards points to countries in metrics where outcomes for women are equal to those for men, penalizes countries in metrics where outcomes for women are behind those for men, but neither penalizes or awards points (basically meaning it doesn’t count) to countries in metrics where outcomes for women are ahead of outcomes for men.

      This I think is a problem. When it comes to the gender discourse most people are starting with the premise that if women are on the short end of the stick it must be because of oppression and must be addressed but if men are on the short end of the stick it cannot possibly be any sort of gender bias against men and must actually be men causing all of their own pain.

      Is there a need for male groups? If existing groups cannot accommodate men’s more direct, forthright, and confrontational forms of interaction, provide men with a context in which to voice their concerns on their own terms, or provide contexts that truly mediate between the dynamics of agency-focused and belonging-focused groups, then apparently, yes, there is.
      Yes there is. But I don’t think its a matter of accommodating men’s more direct, forthright, and confrontational forms of interaction or at least that is not the entire issue. Yes sometimes the way men interact does cause problems but if the sexism is against the very message he is trying to give then it doesn’t matter how he says it because he will be attacked no matter what.

      As for providing men with a context to voice their concerns on their own terms I think a lot of women and women’s groups are playing a slight of hand here. They say they are welcoming and inviting of men’s voices. What they don’t say that they are welcoming and inviting of men’s voices as long as long as those men’s voices don’t get too loud, don’t rock the boat that much, and remember that women’s voices are more important on all gender topics.

      Plain and simple women and feminists tried (well some of them did) to connect with men and lot of them failed and now that men are trying to do their own thing those women and feminists that failed are now crying foul. No this doesn’t describe all women and feminists but even for the ones that this doesn’t describe I think a lot of them have a hard time with the idea that gender equality can’t be done right when limiting men’s voices becomes an actual priority in the to do list of working towards equality.

      Thanks for speaking up Alastair. It would be real nice if some of the feminists and women that are so quick to accuse us of not trying work towards gender equality would address your points here.

      • “This I think is a problem. When it comes to the gender discourse most people are starting with the premise that if women are on the short end of the stick it must be because of oppression and must be addressed but if men are on the short end of the stick it cannot possibly be any sort of gender bias against men and must actually be men causing all of their own pain”

        Here is the ‘funny’ thing, those that think that women always get the short end of the stick, make the basic mistake of thinking that men and women have the same stick in the first place, which IMHO, they don’t.

    • Why are you against egalitarianism? As I understand it egalitarianism is about equal rights under law and equal opportunity. Are you saying that you see modern egalitarianism as something else or are you opposed to the ideas that I described I described and if so why?

      • Important question, Jack.

        I don’t have the time to give a full answer, which would take several thousand words at the least. However, very briefly, it is chiefly on account of the ideas that frame the position.

        First, the artificial notion of the pure and generic individual, who can be abstracted from their sex, roots, family, community, beliefs, locality, and associations, corresponds to no actual person who has ever lived. It atomizes our conception of justice, rights, and society, presenting the detached individual as the fundamental unit of analysis, and consequently causing all sorts of problems for our understanding of the place of families and children, for instance. As a concept it is corrosive of community and civil society and tends to undermine the deep reality of our social substance.

        Second, it makes us think almost purely in terms of individual rights, making it difficult for us to recognize the importance of the common goods and ends of society that transcend individuals and to pursue and uphold the institutions that serve those ends.

        Third, as a concept it is founded on a male logic of atomistic and detached persons interacting with others. The individual as it functions within egalitarian logic is a being without a womb. The womb and the realities that relate to it are the single greatest threat to the logic of liberalism and egalitarianism. For the logic of egalitarianism to be maintained, a breach must be established and maintained between the realm of procreation and the realm of production/power/economy, the natural logic of procreation being excluded from the latter. The deep tension between the liberal state and economy and the substantial reality of family and community and the destructive power of the former relative to the latter arises from this failure to account for the fact that women’s bodies can form substantial interpersonal bonds and that these bonds are fundamental to and constitutive of persons. Unfortunately, the feminist movement has tended to take the egalitarian route, rather than adopting the route of a more radical counter-revolution to the liberal state and capitalist economy and their false anthropology. As a result, women have been torn between the two separated realms of production and procreation, trying to achieve equality with men in the realm of production/economy/politics in a manner that depends heavily upon fighting the logic of procreation, when what should have been pursued is the reunion of the separated realms.

        Fourth, the notion of equality present in the concept of egalitarianism is question-begging to begin with. Equality is only meaningful in contexts where two things are in fact equal. To suggest that equality requires that visually impaired persons receive driving licences at the same rate at sighted persons is ridiculous, for instance. Equality makes sense – and only makes sense – where, relative to a clear set of criteria, two things or persons are alike. The problem is that the concept of egalitarianism typically operates by presuming alikeness in all cases, rather than demonstrating it.

        Rather than ‘equality’, I favour ‘equity’, which is a matter of treating everyone fairly and giving all persons their due, relative to their particular needs and natures. Men and women aren’t equal, for instance, we are different. And equity seeks to recognize and honour those differences, not forcing all to conform to a single logic. Equity is about ensuring that the needs of various parties are harmonized and that all are able to thrive in their own way, recognizing that forms of thriving are not always universal. Rather than expecting women to carve a place in the public realm by acting on the terms of wombless men, for instance, equity would recognize the difference that women’s physical bond with children involves and seek to accord it a greater public recognition, honour, and provision. It would not presume that justice requires the same results for all parties, but would rather seek to ensure that every person thrives according to their own nature.

        Fifth, egalitarianism is complicit with a burgeoning state and the breakdown of mediating structures in society between state and individual. The egalitarian state deals with all persons directly and individually, rather than through the mediation of family, guild, union, community, etc. This weakens all of us.

        That might give a vague indication of where I am coming from on this and why I think that egalitarianism is one of the most poisonous and dangerous ideas in town.

  19. I am happy to report that at my current and past campus, groups focusing on men’s support, mentorship, and nonviolence have been gaining popularity. Many of these organizations have the support of women and gender studies divisions, as well as rising masculinities studies divisions. Conversations tend to center around the social pressures that patriarchal norms demand of young men… raging parties, excessive drinking, and drug use. The number of young men who have botched semesters due to outside pressures forcing them to participate in not-so-constructive extracarricular activities is pretty appalling. While young women are often the subject of similar pressures, young men have been and continued to be the major targets of those college-age social norms and disproportionally suffer the consequences.

    Furthermore, young men can not depend on the same informal social supports when they do face academic problems… to admit to a “friend” that those activities are disruptive is often a sign of weakness or lack of commitment to a particular organization. These are the same stigmas that keep men from seeking formal help through counseling. Women’s centers may be welcoming to male clients (if only they broadcast this fact with more zeal!!!!!!!!), there also may not be male staffers available to discuss these distinct issues.

    I guess what I am trying to say is… women have many opportunities at mentorship that have been deliberately constructed to promote their academic success, and this is a good thing! They were designed to enable women to excel in what was once a predominantly male environment, and clearly there has been a great deal of success. But among men, the old academic model which was operating under mostly male institutions no longer has the same effectiveness as true, formalized academic mentorship. Stable support networks are essential for academic success, whether through a strong relationship with an advisor or past professor, peer mentors, or student groups.

    I think that formal changes, such as the establishment of a masculinities resource center, would be the best place to start. Such an organization could sustain itself with its own campus-approved personnel, and would have to be much more selective of the outside organizations with which it aligns itself. It would be open to all campus members, with a specific purpose of catering to young men.

    It is important to remember that women were not handed resource centers by their institutions. They had to organize and advocate on their own behalf. Same goes with LGBTQIA organizations, many of which began without any campus affiliation and garnered strength informally before taking steps towards formal recognition. Rallying independently of campus recognition is a necessary step to the establishment of any kind of rights organization. It also takes time and the establishment of a good reputation independently of any outside organizations that may be harboring individuals with opinions that could be considered bigoted. I am sure that the students who were silenced were cool and accepting fellows, but they aligned themselves with an organization that enough people have deemed questionable.

    Just like your masculine identity, define your organization for yourself, on your own behalf. Don’t expect your campus to risk aligning itself, even superficially, with a controversial figure or organization. Your campus is more likely to listen to a cluster of independent students rather than a collective flying the flag of a controversial person or organization.

  20. Visiting says:

    Why don’t these guys first form groups that address specifically male issues? That way they can be clear about who they are and what they are seeking to address. Women who are not interested in how the current system is damaging to men will not join, and if they join and troll they can rightfully be ejected from the group. They can also gain women who are genuinely interested in their cause, and if those women do well at not hijacking discourse about men’s issues the way many men are good at not hijacking women’s issues, then these groups will have gained GREAT allies in their cause.

  21. Mr Supertypo says:

    so sad to see this things happen. But I wouldn be surprised if that the protest is politically guided…

    • It’s always sad when people refuse to deal with reality and only deal in dogma.

      It’s like dealing with Woozles – and there are two new major one’s being highlighted HERE

      I do find it fascinating that so many experts keep raising the issues of how BIAS gets in the way of reality – and I find Dutton’s views most telling given that he’s an internationally known expert.

      “Woozles are usually not simply a matter of authentic misreporting. They also reveal a desire to read into the data an a priori position that is really not there, what Bacon calls “idols of the theatre”. … All the data reporting mistakes I have found in the literature, without exception, were made in the direction of supporting feminist preconceptions.”

      Rethinking Domestic Violence – Donald G Dutton, Ph.D. – 2006

      It’s comical to read so much in the comments which is all about that a priori position and “idols of the theatre” … and from University Students no-less who could do with opening a few books and having a read.

      • Megalodon says:

        It is amazing that Dutton was able to publish his findings through a Canadian university press, no less. One wonders if the book will be subsequently retracted and Dutton’s position put in jeopardy.

  22. Another academic finding that may just indicate why there is a men’s issue with sexual assault in and around US Universities:

    From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors

    Rates of sexually aggressive behaviors among women vary from one segment of the United States to another, but the evidence presented here shows that as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion, and over 50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol (Anderson, 1998). Given these numbers, it is appropriate to conclude that women’s sexual aggression now represents a usual or typical pattern (i.e., has become normal)

    Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 5, October 23, 2002

    Well evidently – if US Academic institutions are ignoring the normalisation of Sexual Aggressors on campus and allowing these Women to get away with what has to be called Rape – and the victims who will Overwhelmingly be male are being ignored and treated with contempt, shaming and abuse – well if the Institutions are not willing to address it, then the men will have to do it themselves.

    Anyone who stands in the way is a rape apologist – rape loving scum – and they are just perpetuating Rape Culture. QED. It’s quite Academic! Even people without degrees grasp the reality.

  23. wellokaythen says:

    “an effort to guard the empowerment of women’s voices on campus” by “rejecting the concept of misandry—the hatred or fear of men.”

    I don’t really understand this quote. By “rejecting misandry,” does that mean the student union is rejecting allegations of misandry, or are they actually taking a stand against misandry? It sounds a bit like “I don’t hate you, I just don’t want you to say anything I don’t like.” “I’m not afraid of men, I just think they’re the source of all the dangers in my society.”

    At some point the RSU will be forced to define their principles more clearly. The impression they’re giving is that women can only be empowered if there are no discordant voices, as long as men adhere to the straight and narrow as defined by the RSU. I’m sure there’s something in their bylaws about respecting diversity, and this sounds like a violation of that.

    In any event, male students better hurry and do something soon before the gender gap gets any worse. The probability of getting outvoted grows every semester.

    • Adam McPhee says:

      They were rejecting the very notion of misandry “as it ignores structural inequity that exist between men and women.”

      I linked my article on the RSU which goes into detail on Ryerson in particular, but it is awaiting moderation.

      • wellokaythen says:

        Ah. I see. They were rejecting the very concept of misandry as anything to take note of or recognize or consider the existence of.

        But then that makes no sense. If there’s a pervasive structure of inequity, then it seems perfectly natural to hate, fear, and undermine the dominant group. (Presumably “men” in this case.) Surely you can’t have a revolution without expressing hate towards the beneficiaries of the old regime. So, they aren’t actually rejecting misandry so much as excusing it. Turns out they don’t hate you, male students, they’re just saying that if they did hate you they’d be justified in doing so. That should make you feel better.

        The RSU seems to be incapable of seeing irony in their own language. They are reacting to “structural inequity between men and women” with…structural inequity between men and women.

        • The Acronym is D.A.R.V.O. – and it’s what children do when having to move from one world view to another.

        • Those people are just showing how extremely selfish they are in wanting women’s voices to be the center of attention for the gender equality movements…..narcissism?

          • It all seems to start in Kindergarten when they are taught that we all have to take turns – but the boys must wait. Subtle but abusive all the same. Programming is not just an issue at Pycon!

          • Adam McPhee says:

            Exactly. Centering one gender’s voice over another goes against the very notion of equality. I agree with centering women’s voices when discussing women, black people’s voice when discussing black people, people with disabilities voice when discussing disabilities…. and so on. When discussing equality, no voice should be centred.

            • As a Crippled Pouf and Equality Advocate of decades experience, it is necessary to have the Corollary to the Centred Voice Meme:

              Reaching consensus in a group often is confused with finding the right answer.#

              Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74, 4, 239-249.

              Don’t let your dogma and nice catchy phrases get in the way of some reality! As soon as I come across any group with a Centrist Voice Meme, I start looking for the Group Think, Totalitarianism and Hive Mind. That’s group and even social psychology for you!

            • Adam McPhee says:
            • Who Is Vulnerable to Undue Influence?

              The main contributing factor to being susceptible to undue influence is sleep derivation – the average American is Sleep deprived – couple that with a lack of training in critical thinking and schooling in being Nice … what a combination!

    • When the RSU says they are “rejecting misandry,” they are rejecting out of hand the idea that misandry exists. Their new policy categorically rejects, among other things “5. The concept of misandry as it ignores structural inequity that exist between men and women.” Grammar problems aside, this is the equivalent of dealing with the elephant in the room simply by declaring that there is no elephant.

      Personally, I’d say your interpretation of their actions is probably pretty accurate. I’ve had the opportunity to see this situation develop up-close, and the views and intentions of some leading members of the RSU are extremely clear. (For example, the resolutions in question were passed literally days before the issue of the club itself was to be raised, clearly as a response to it.) Hopefully the actions of the student union are enough to convince some regarding anti-intellectual climate that’s been allowed to develop and thrive at some universities, and if we’re lucky lead to the first steps towards fixing the situation.

      • Adam McPhee says:

        If you did not see my other comment that had it, here is my blog article on the RSU situation and why it really got under my skin:

        http://eyeofwoden.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/ryerson-student-union-and-the-boogey-mens-issues-groups/

      • wellokaythen says:

        Actually, grammar could make a huge difference here. It’s the difference between having a comma and not having a comma:

        “misandry as it ignores”
        and
        “misandry, as it ignores”

        Point 5 rejects “misandry as it ignores structural inequity….” It doesn’t have a comma between “misandry” and “as.” That means that the phrases after “misandry” create a specific qualifier, which means that the RSU only rejects that particular kind of misandry, the one that ignores structural inequity. The way that the resolution is worded right now, they can’t reject theories of misandry that take into account structural inequity. They can only reject the ones that ignore inequities. If they meant to exclude all misandry, then they should have put a comma after it.

        Do what we do in the U.S. and hire a lawyer to tear the document apart in court.

        Then again, no doubt English punctuation rules are merely phallo-logo-centric tools of oppression designed to marginalize and disfranchise disadvantaged groups….

        • … and student Politicos are so carried away with their ultimate powers and unlimited capacity to wield power over their dominion they just can’t handle punctuation.

          Ever attended a student hustings prior to election? Makes Lucky’s Big Speech in “Waiting for Godot” seem rational and well punctuated.

  24. Adam McPhee says:

    “According to the University of Toronto Student Union (UTSU) “free speech ends where hate speech begins” ”

    But who gets to decide what is hate speech? Here is my article on the UTSU and their full support of the protest of the Canadian Association For Equality’s event, featuring Warren Farrel:

    http://eyeofwoden.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/a-response-to-the-university-of-torontos-student-union/

    And here is my article on what recently happened at Ryerson University in Toronto (where I graduated from for social work), in which their student union made efforts to blockade the very idea of men’s issues being discussed on campus:

    http://eyeofwoden.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/ryerson-student-union-and-the-boogey-mens-issues-groups/

    • Richard Aubrey says:

      What do you mean, “who gets to decide….”?
      Should be clear enough.

      • Adam McPhee says:

        It’s clear who has decided, it’s not clear who gets to decide. If you are viewed as having privilege, then you are not given a say. If men have all the privilege, why can they not even set up a group to discuss issues (a group started by 2 women and 1 man). You don’t counter privilege and inequality by stifling those who you view to have it.

        • wellokaythen says:

          Wow, so anything that could be seen to include men but exclude women is inherently wrong for the school. Then, if the school is to be consistent it will need to get rid of:

          Men’s locker rooms
          Men’s restrooms
          Urinals
          Condoms (men could use these with each other without a woman present!)
          Portions of the anatomy and physiology textbooks
          Huge chunks of the human sexuality curriculum
          Any mention of the Y chromosome in any context
          Any campus services that might deal with men’s health issues. If the college has a health clinic on campus, you cannot make an appointment there to deal with that sore on your penis.
          Any private conversations between two male students
          Any dorm room with only male roommates

        • Richard Aubrey says:

          Adam.
          You don’t? Seems to be working just fine.
          See, as has been said before, the “dear colleague” letter to colleges.

        • If you are viewed as having privilege, then you are not given a say.

          How terribly Patriarchal? So lets see the Patriarchy(sic) is ensuring that Women, Women’s Groups and Their Supporters prevent men’s issues being discussed. I despair and the dumbing down of eduction and the loss of the ability to spell. It should be an “M” and not a “P”. It;s a Privilege being able to educate!

          • wellokaythen says:

            “If you are viewed as having privilege, then you are not given a say.”

            Then, that would create an infinite loop. Or maybe a paradox. People on campus who have a say while others don’t therefore have privilege, so they will not be given a say, so they will not have privilege, so then they will have a say, but that’s privilege so they’ll lose it again.

            • Adam McPhee says:

              This is why I challenged the notion of privilege often in my social work studies. A number of the other students told me in privacy that they agreed with a lot of what I said, but they didn’t speak out in class because they didn’t want to be perceived as sexist or racist. This means their voices and perspectives were taken away from them, because they did not feel comfortable discussing them and shared them.

              I, however, was of the opinion that if I didn’t open my mouth out of fear of being racist, sexist, ableist, etc., then that meant I WAS being racist, because I was hiding my viewpoints. I would rather speak my opinion and have it deconstructed than to keep it inside and feel internally guilty for it out of fear of what others may think.

              I think that made sense….

            • wellokaythen says:

              If the RSU radicals were really smart they would create a men’s issues group and then simply treat it like a token measure or like a ghetto. That way, any time you want to bring up men’s issues to the wider campus, they can just say “you already have a group working on that. Go talk to them.” That’s essentially what has happened to a lot of Women’s Studies programs. They’ve become deadend academic ghettoes – “I don’t have to teach anything about women – you have a whole program for that.” Sometimes a foothold is really a trap.

              Fortunately for you, unfortunately for them, they lack the flexibility that comes with abandoning rigid orthodoxy. The oak falls in the storm, the bamboo bends….

  25. I highly recommend that anyone interested in an unusual perspective on “radical feminism” check out the recent New Yorker article by Susan Faludi on Shulamith Firestone (who I’d never heard of). http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/15/130415fa_fact_faludi

    The article touches on what made the radical feminists angry, like incidents where women were shouted down with vulgar insults by men at anti-Vietnam War rallies. It also shows the personal motivations of women like Firestone, who came from what sounds like an extremely abusive family with a sexist, domineering father. It also shows the splintering of the early movement, the constant infighting, and ultimately the personal tragedy (Firestone was thrown out of her own movement and succumbed to schizophrenia).

    I just thought I’d point out this article because (a) it shows what early feminists were up against and maybe could be a model for men seeking their own social change. Revolutions are not easy. No one will hand you anything. (b) It provides context for what now may strike us as extremism among those early bra-burning, man-hating feminists (it was the ’60’s!) (c) it shows how often the extremists and radicals forge the path, only to be replaced as the movement becomes mainstream or develops different goals. (d) It’s just an interesting article – so often people argue about feminism without knowing the history.

    • Sarah

      Sarah, the mens movement has been deliberately radical and controversial for some time, precisely for the reasons you describe, its called widening the overton window.

      In time A Voice for Men’s Register Her concept for example, which seems radical and shocking to people now, but in realty only holds women and feminists to a standard of responsibility resembling that men are held to, will become the norm. A Voice for Men’s deliberately controversial style is generating publicity what is making it easier for CAFE and for men to speak here and everywhere else, and setting the agenda for future discussions.

    • Sorry – buy you seem to have it back to front! If your comment and it’s general push were to have validity … it would be the men’s Rights Activists Protesting, Using Bull Horns, Pulling Fire Alarms … and not being capable of answering simple questions!

      I keep wondering why the pushing of historical images and parallels just keeps on leaving it all back to front? Is it a Privilege Thing?

    • Megalodon says:

      People may not receive the article the way you intend. The way Fathers and Families markets the article is about a Second Wave radical feminist who demonized the concept of family and then received her just deserts by dying as an abandoned, starving schizophrenic.

      http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2013/04/12/salon-com-in-running-for-years-worst-article/

    • wellokaythen says:

      It turns out the “bra burning” trope is largely an urban legend, a product of a misunderstanding in news coverage in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It’s very similar to the oft-told tale of the vet returning from Viet Nam and getting spat on in the airport by a woman dressed as a hippy. Everyone knows someone who knows someone who’s brother’s neighbor’s dentist’s sister saw it happen. The actual evidence of it happening? Slim to none.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        well.
        Not so. But, of course, there are all the other things. After my brother was killed, the hippies called my parents to gloat. I was flipped off and cursed.
        See Bob Greene, “Homecoming”.
        Remember, everybody knows better including you.

        • wellokaythen says:

          I didn’t say that Viet Nam vets didn’t face unfair treatment. What I said was that the story of the antiwar protestor spitting on a returning vet is apocryphal. Try to find an eyewitness account of it and the story just dissolves. What is much better documented but hardly ever mentioned are moments in which WWII vets spat on VN vets. VN vets encountered quite a bit of hostility from groups like the American Legion and the VFW. There was a lot of hostility, but it wasn’t just from the left or from “hippies.”

          There’s more than enough actual bad things that happened without people perpetuating myths.

          • Richard Aubrey says:

            well.
            There was a piece in Slate, following some so-called research by Lembcke. Called “drooling” something or other.
            The writer challenged guys about the facts. Lots said it happened to them. So the author and Lembcke retreated to the meme that if it didn’t make the papers, it didn’t happen. Which would invalidate a good deal of historical research, if that were the standard.
            But see Greene’s book. First-person stuff there.
            I saw C-Span piece taking your position. Once the no-spitting meme is established, all the rest will be called into question, too.
            Those of us who experienced it are not the target market, of course.
            You are.

            • John Anderson says:

              People are often less apt to believe men when they recount experiences of abuse or they switch to the victim blaming that they argue should never be employed against women. Doesn’t matter if it’s true if they deserve it. Look at the Jodi Arias and Catherine Kieu cases. Some people may not believe they were abused, but I’ve yet to hears statements critical of employing this defense. If it was a rape case, you’d see many articles in the feminist blogosphere and maybe in the mainstream media decrying the tactic.

            • The writer challenged guys about the facts. Lots said it happened to them. So the author and Lembcke retreated to the meme that if it didn’t make the papers, it didn’t happen.

              Richard you make some good points. The attempts to make history vanish are legion. If I have not seen it – unless it’s mentioned – unless it’s Referenced where I find it … and I am not even going to go looking it has to come to me ….. It Does Not Exist. Lazy, lazy and so childish – the world just have to revolve around their egos.

              The Deliberate and Wilful Ignorance of some is significant psychologically and linked to denial of reality and the demanding of residence in castles in the air.

              We have seen it here on this very site around a two Word Combination – History Denied by any and all means – The Two Word Combination that has been ever so trendy and thrown about ever so much with people simply Cognitively Dissonating and throwing reality away, throwing it under the bus and just denying anything has been said, because of their pre determined Bias and demands for Control of reality.

              It’s so odd that It’s male voices raising these issues and female ones that demand silence like some parody and cartoon of an Authoritarian School Mame. It seems that female academia and authority has issues in dealing with reality and facts over feelings of superiority and security of tenure.

              I present “Rape Culture” The Film 1974/5Cambridge Documentary Films, Recognised by Academics without Bias or Alternative Agendas as the Source of the term Rape Culture – “Prisoners Against Rape Inc (Founded 1972) working with the DC Rape Crisis Centre (Founded 1972) to address rape in all forms and in all places – from inside prison to the streets of any town…. and even in the bedroom!

              And as Loretta Ross of the DC Rape Crisis Centre has said at interview “And then — oh, I’ve forgotten to tell you about Prisoners Against Rape. One of the more interesting things that happened when I was at the Rape Crisis Center is that we got contacted by a group of black men who were prisoners at Lorton Reformatory.. – “ The Sophia Smith Collection Voices of Feminism Oral History Project. Loretta Ross, interviewed by Joyce Follet TAPE 8 of 23 Ross F 7_10 9 05 Page 124 of 360.

              I just keep asking – why is it that so many feminists simply wish to Deny That the Film “Rape Culture” exists and why so many supposed academics in Women’s/Gender Studies wish to deny it’s existence? Is it that they can’t read, can’t use Google or is it that they can’t get over that rather large hurdle of Their Own Systemic, Institutional and Structural Prejudice and Bias?

              Could it just be that in the USA more men are raped in prison every year than women outside of prison?

              Could it be that if they deal with reality they loose control of two Words – or even just one and have to start putting money where their mouths are – and when they scream they want to prevent rape they have to stop ignoring Rape Victims when it;s convenient and even just plain Selfish?

              Since such academics are all about Equality for men and women (They Keep telling Us that and the institutions they work in do require it too), I have to conclude the reason they deny the films existence is they are simply racist and can’t handle the idea that Black African Americans were dealing with rape and doing such a good job before others saw a marketing opportunity and went grasping after federal funding from the Federal Pork Barrel Buffet.

              They are either Racist or Crap Academics who can’t do basic research and reading – in which case one has to wonder why anyone would give such Academic Dilettantes any consideration or value. If you can’t do the basics and deal with reality, how can you possibly be seen a capable of teaching anyone?

              If they mark down male who raise the history and give better grades to female who ignore it, is there realy a crisis in education or just an issue with skewed priorities in the class room?

              I have heard one theory and that is that all academics globally in the field of Women’s Studies/Gender Studies are Cinephobic and all have a pathological fear and phobia of cinema and film … in which case I do have to wonder why so many Bitch about the film Gone With the Wind and even are apoplectic over some rodent or other appearing in “Basic Instinct”. It’s so very odd that it;s only certain films they just can’t watch … and if they can’t see then they don’t exist. Magical Thinking and Academia – the fools paradise.

    • I read that article and found it inspiring, as well as tragic, and took the lesson you suggested, Sarah. Those of us in the men’s movement can learn a great deal from those who went before us in gender liberation, and in radically reforming society for the better. It starts with our own truths, which become more difficult to see, the more we are indoctrinated to believe what “should” be true. An earnest inquiry into our conditions, I believe, will naturally lead to healing not only ourselves, but our relationships with others. Many people, men and women, were threatened by the change feminists represented to the status quo; there are those who continue to protest that women should never have started wearing slacks or working outside the house. For the rest of us, the battle has been decisively won, not women against men, but women against the tyranny of prescribed roles for women. Men must win this for ourselves, now.

      • It starts with our own truths, which become more difficult to see, the more we are indoctrinated to believe what “should” be true.
        True. We can’t afford to have our vision clouded by any doctrine. Feminist, MRA, or otherwise.

        An earnest inquiry into our conditions, I believe, will naturally lead to healing not only ourselves, but our relationships with others.
        Agreed.

        Many people, men and women, were threatened by the change feminists represented to the status quo; there are those who continue to protest that women should never have started wearing slacks or working outside the house.
        And we are seeing that repeat itself for men now. Boys with body image issues, males that have been abused/raped (especially by women), men with mental health issues. Those guys are speaking up and people don’t like it. That’s why we now have people that will fight tooth and nail to make sure men stick to the script of traditional masculinity (or an edited version that’s basically meant to still limit and harm men for the sake of other).

        Men must win this for ourselves, now.
        Damn straight.

    • The article touches on what made the radical feminists angry, like incidents where women were shouted down with vulgar insults by men at anti-Vietnam War rallies. It also shows the personal motivations of women like Firestone, who came from what sounds like an extremely abusive family with a sexist, domineering father. It also shows the splintering of the early movement, the constant infighting, and ultimately the personal tragedy (Firestone was thrown out of her own movement and succumbed to schizophrenia).
      Now what I find odd is that in light of that history those who have come after those feminists treat men (and MRAs in similar ways as those past feminists). We have feminists supporting anti-male efforts, discrimination against men, silencing of male voices, etc….

      So what made those past feminists so right in their anger and today’s men so wrong in theirs?

      I’m not trying to say that every man that is speaking up in anger is right. I’m saying that its a bit hypocritical to say that we should take a close look at what women went through but then turn around and refuse to pay the same consideration back to men.

      I just thought I’d point out this article because (a) it shows what early feminists were up against and maybe could be a model for men seeking their own social change. Revolutions are not easy. No one will hand you anything. (b) It provides context for what now may strike us as extremism among those early bra-burning, man-hating feminists (it was the ’60′s!) (c) it shows how often the extremists and radicals forge the path, only to be replaced as the movement becomes mainstream or develops different goals. (d) It’s just an interesting article – so often people argue about feminism without knowing the history.
      1. Yes it could be a model. I just think that for a lot of men its still pretty shocking to see feminists cling to those early roots and go on about how they were treated and then turn around and do similar things to today’s men. Of course its not easy and nothing will be handed. Which feeds the determination that a lot of men have to keep on.

      3. If that is the case then I would like to bring about the day when extreme voices are no longer needed. But unfortunately for now they are still needed.

      • wellokaythen says:

        Extremism gets a bad rap in its own day but often becomes “common sense” later.

        Fortunately or unfortunately, radical extremism is something of a moving target over the long term. There are plenty of ideas that were considered radical or extreme in one generation but become mainstream in later generations, while other radical ideas never really went anywhere. In some cases, the people opposed to those once-radical ideas now look like the insane extremists. At one point the idea that women should be able to vote was generally considered an insane, extremist idea, even among women themselves.

        Those supposedly ultraconservative American “Founding Fathers” were quite fond of this one: “The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.” Yikes.

        Meanwhile, humans are incredibly, amazingly bad at predicting which radical extremes are going to catch on and which ones will never catch on. That whole invention of farming thing was a weird experiment that for some silly reason started to catch on. Who would have thought?

    • FlyingKal says:

      @Sarah:
      I just thought I’d point out this article because (a) it shows what early feminists were up against and maybe could be a model for men seeking their own social change. Revolutions are not easy. No one will hand you anything.
      That may be correct in point.

      Problem is, at least for the last 20 years or so that I’ve been more aware of it, Feminism as a movement has always hailed itself as a movement for equality and not solely for women’s rights.
      But what plays out now, if that were true, you wouldn’t need yet another revolution to counter it.

  26. wellokaythen says:

    Once again I have a question about the choice of title an article — “Why Do Men Need Male-Only Groups on Campus?”

    This is framing the issue in entirely too narrow a way, and it doesn’t really match much of the article anyway. There is a key difference between a “men’s issues” group and a “male-only” group. Was there anywhere in the article saying that anyone was trying to create a campus group that only allowed men to join? From what I could tell, one of the groups actually had a woman as one of its founders. The main opposition is not that it’s wrong to exclude women from a group, but that somehow men’s groups will inherently “silence” or “disempower” pre-existing women’s groups, which is a very different argument.

    • Adam McPhee says:

      Yes, still problematic, as the Ryerson that was being formed was composed of two women and one male. They are male focused groups, not male only groups.

  27. wellokaythen says:

    There’s a major strategic weakness in the men’s movement’s approach in this case. They have allowed the opposition to choose the time, place, and methods of battle. They have responded symmetrically, which results in a stalemate, which still leaves the enemy in possession of the field. It’s time to respond asymmetrically, in a time and place of your choosing, using protest methods that play to your strengths instead of playing to the strengths of the opposition.

    You’re playing a game that they invented and are now complaining that they’re better at it. Duh.

    • Thats not true.

      What happened was they have drawn feminists out to behave badly in public and had cameras rolling, so the public can she how they have been treating us all this time. The men’s movement is happy that they have feminist abusing and spitting hate at them on film.

      • Megalodon says:

        Oh, feminists bristle at the very idea that PR concepts could ever apply to them.

        For a few years now, a recurring theme in the feminist groups and blogosphere has been about “TONE.” Feminists issue these statements and proclamations responding to some hypothetical person who questions the “tone” of their posts, protests, and demands. And the feminist party-line response is basically “HOW DARE YOU ASK US TO CHANGE OUR TONE! We don’t change our message or play PR to suit regressive people and rapists! It is the duty of the privileged, oppressor classes to swallow and suffer our message, however we want to present it!”

        Of course, most feminist groups believe this principle should only be deployed for their benefit. Feminist groups and feminist sympathizers have waged a PR war on MRA’s and mens’ interest groups. It’s now a feminist cottage industry to denounce and vilify the MRA’s at large based on the tone and attitude of whatever bloggers they can find. However, it would seem that feminists don’t just use their “TONE” doctrine as a political machination. A lot of them seem to have actually and personally internalized it as some wider social truth. They really seem to believe that their public hostility and protest attitudes could never hurt them. They really think that the whole public is supposed to obey and submit to their cursing and spitting. That presumption may have currency in the university/academia realm. In the public at large, maybe not so much.

  28. Some people that care about gender equality do not want to self identify as feminists. it is sad that feminists do not want to allow that. They want to force their voice being the only one allowed.

    • Some people that care about gender equality do not want to self identify as feminists. it is sad that feminists do not want to allow that. They want to force their voice being the only one allowed.

      I do wonder why so many of the “What About Teh Wimminz” crowd demand that there is a One Size Fits all option only. There are so many flavours in the feminist Ice Cream Parlour, from “Tutti Frutti” to Chocked full of Nuts and Extra Nuts on top. I even know some rather hot and spicy types who trade sex for cash and use so much sauce to make it all go down better!

      Well – they are all so busy demanding that only their brand or flavour is the right one they just get obese on the tasting and gulping down. Leave then to it – The best option is simply to leave the to their own devices and deal with Human Rights and Equality …. even for the fat people, who speak Double Dutch with a cherry on top!

  29. wellokaythen says:

    I teach at a community college where the atmosphere about gender issues is not nearly so toxic and where misandry is at a much lower intensity. The school has even been forced to recognize the bare fact that the student body is over 60% female, that percentage is increasing, and that women are the majority of the faculty. So, that’s some intellectual progress, of a sort.

    However, what has also happened is that the people who want to maintain favorable treatment of women over men have retreated to a fallback position that is going to be much harder to overcome. This is what I have to warn you about in terms of getting men’s issues recognized on campus – it’s just a first step, and the next steps may be even harder.

    Now, instead of saying that men are the dominant gender on campus or even in society, my school is saying that we need to counter historical patterns of under-representation. So, it doesn’t matter that women are now in the majority on campus and have the majority of the power on campus, because that doesn’t make up for the long history of discrimination against women. There’s no indication of how long the school has to go down the path of addressing that long history, or how long we will need to discriminate in favor of women until justice prevails. Theoretically, since patriarchy has harmed women for thousands of years, then maybe the school will need to discriminate against men for a few thousand years to make up for it.

    We have also committed as an institution to “reflect the diversity of our community.” The community is of course undefined, and if it means the student body, then the school has given itself license to have way more female instructors than male, to keep up with developments in “the community.” If it reflects the neighborhood, city, state, or country, then women are decidedly “over-represented” on campus.

    • Now, instead of saying that men are the dominant gender on campus or even in society, my school is saying that we need to counter historical patterns of under-representation.

      Can they prove that history is still causing inequality? People grasp numbers not Existentialism – so minority needs representation and history gets ignored. If History was a valid academic field, people would learn the lessons and not repeat them. P^)

      • wellokaythen says:

        Actually, the school seems to have taken the position that even if historical forms of discrimination are no longer shaping the present day, we should still offset that history somehow. Even if the effects of discrimination against women and people of color were much less than they were in the past, we are still (apparently) supposed to act like we are still living in the worst parts of the past. This is why I made that point about balancing out the history of oppression – if people are saddled with 5000 years of patriarchy or 500 years of racism, does that mean we have to flip the discrimination trends for the same length of time?

        The use of historical discrimination as an excuse is particularly ridiculous when it comes to gender, at least in terms of hiring preferences for women instead of men. Remember, no matter what your gender is, we all have the same number of men and women ancestors. A woman can no more claim that she represents all her female ancestors than I can claim to represent my female ancestors. I have just as many women in my family tree who faced sexism as anyone else. A woman has just as many ancestors who benefited from male privilege as I do. In terms of ancestors who experienced misogyny and male privilege, we are all essentially equal.

        (It’s quite different when it comes to racism and ancestry, though if you trace family trees back and back far enough, that difference eventually washes out as well.)

    • John Anderson says:

      I never liked the idea of historical discrimination as it pertains to gender because it has little or no bearing on today. It was something that feminists thought of when they saw how it worked for minorities combating racial discrimination. The idea is that if my parents were discriminated against I suffer from that discrimination because I was born at an economic disadvantage and if this economic disadvantage persisted over several generations, since each child inherits the race of their parents (not necessarily the gender) each subsequent generation falls farther behind.

      The reason it is invalid when it comes to gender is that every child has two parents. One will be disadvantaged, but the other will be advantaged. Sons could not inherit what their mothers were unable to inherit so it’s more difficult to draw a parallel conclusion, but feminists will push the idea because they see advantage for women so much for an equality movement.

      • John JSchtoll says:

        My question is WHY
        Why should a girl today get a benefit sometimes huge benefit because her great grandmother MIGHT have been disadvantaged.

        • Why should a girl today get a benefit sometimes huge benefit because her great grandmother MIGHT have been disadvantaged.

          Cos the need to be disadvantaged is genetic?

          It has to be that or a learned social view.

        • wellokaythen says:

          Yes, and what about the fact that her great grandfather was privileged? Why does she claim one ancestor but not the other, when they both shaped her fate?

          • She is not identified with the privileged group, is why. Plus, it’s not simply a matter of “they were oppressed then, so give me stuff now.” Oppression and systems which benefit one group over another do not vanish over night…I mean goodness, the Civil War ended well over a century ago and we STILL have issues of systematic racism in the U.S. These things take generations and generations to fix. I am directly affected by the oppression of women in the past, especially in the ways the systems which created that oppression have hung around.

            • LOL what? If she lived during ww1, and ww2, she WAS a member of the privileged group. If she was not conscripted, she was privileged MORE than a man. In times of peace that relative privilege slipped back under a man’s privilege.

              Tell me, does privilege theory actually take into account the fact that society is fluid and not a constant? That today men can be privileged, and tomorrow if conscription roars against women would be hugely privileged over men, and a few years later after the battles it can swing back?

            • John Anderson says:

              You would think that life is the ultimate privilege, but Archy, consider that men are privileged in the after life and certainly you can see the error of your thinking.

            • Okay, conscription and privilege…it’s very much NOT about female privilege. It is, however, very much about class privilege. Some famous people did honor being drafted, but others were able to get out of it. If you were in education, and thus able to pay for education, then you could get out of it. Conscription requires everyone male to sign up, but what it is basically saying is that the “grunts” of the military…the most uneducated, least influential, least wealthy, are expendable. Man, as a class, isn’t expendable…the poor as a class, are.

              Also, women haven’t been denied the “selective service” because society deemed them better than the military, or above the military. They weren’t denied the “selective service” because they hold the power and thus determined they wouldn’t have to serve…because it’s politicians who created selective service, and they are mostly male. Women have been historically denied military service because of the assumption that a woman in the military would cause disruption, and that women just weren’t as capable. The narrative wasn’t merely that women should be exempt from military service, it was that women CAN’T serve in the military…they are unable; they are weak, etc. And this narrative has continued today, and it’s something feminists have been fighting against for decades.

              For a parallel, let’s look at the ban on gay people in the military. Would you say that ban privileged gay people? Of course not. All of the rhetoric used to justify that ban was steeped in homophobia…gay people would cause a disruption, gay people wouldn’t be as capable, gay people were sick and deviant and we don’t want that in our military, etc. And so it was gay rights groups that fought tooth and nail for gay people to be able to fight in the military openly…because it was discrimination AGAINST gay people.

              Same thing with military service. It’s been feminist groups that have fought for women to be able to serve in the military. And it’s been feminist groups that have fought for women to be able to hold ALL the same positions as men in the military (which only recently happened). And it was a feminist group, NOW, that challenged selective service in the Supreme Court. They tried to get rid of it entirely, and if that didn’t work to at least make it gender neutral…but unfortunately it was struck down by the Supreme Court. There really isn’t anything anyone can do about it now, until it becomes big enough in the public eye that the Supreme Court might hear another case about it and rethink their decision.

              Now here’s where things get a little bit tricky, because not all instances of sexism necessarily correspond to social privilege. In this case, “selective service” is sexist against women and classist against the poor and it’s transphobic (trans people still can’t serve openly)…and at one point it was homophobic and even further back it was racist (though it’s not either of those two things any more). But just because it’s sexist against women doesn’t automatically make it a social privilege for men.

            • I absolutely love to see a feminist turn conscription around to be about the women. Do you agree conscription is sexist against men?

              You talk about the negatives the women face, not being good enough to fight n what not, but why not talk about the negatives men face? Chivalry has the men protecting women, it’s both misogynist and misandrist because it also says a man’s life is worth LESS THAN A WOMANS. THAT is the privilege and I seriously cannot understand this fetish of feminism to try explain this away? Does feminism just hate to concede that misandry exists? Is it because they want to clutch onto victim status so badly that they would actively ignore misandry?

              Conscription is sexist against both genders, but FAR more sexist against men. Women AS A GROUP gain privilege against being forced to fight, you cannot argue that way by bait n switch tactics of saying women weren’t good enough to fight in the leaders eyes because that’s only part of the story. You have to take into account the value of a life, women are given elevated protection status above men, but under children. Yes it’s sexist towards women to treat them more like children than men but it’s also sexist against men to deny them protection that women and children get. Take a look at the plethora of chivalrous laws, anything that basically says “women and children” (apart from pregnancy related stuff) such as the anti-abuse stuff, not being conscripted, etc. That is female privilege, the elevated status of protection. It puts far more responsibility + risk onto men to protect the other 2 groups, men’s lives are rated as less worthy of protection than that of women.

              “For a parallel, let’s look at the ban on gay people in the military. Would you say that ban privileged gay people? Of course not. All of the rhetoric used to justify that ban was steeped in homophobia…gay people would cause a disruption, gay people wouldn’t be as capable, gay people were sick and deviant and we don’t want that in our military, etc. And so it was gay rights groups that fought tooth and nail for gay people to be able to fight in the military openly…because it was discrimination AGAINST gay people.”

              Worst. Analogy. Ever. Seriously, you should know better than to use such because gays have NEVER had protection status in society. Society loses it’s shit when women are harmed here, especially white women, it cares far less about the death of gay people. If there didn’t exist rampant homophobic attacks on gay people you may have a point, if gays were protected as heavily as women are but they’re not, not to mention they’re actually a minority whereas women are actually the majority of the population. There also exists no chivaly-equivelant attitudes towards gay people.

            • Alrighty, I could reply back and argue point by point, but frankly I’ve done that and rarely does it get anywhere. So I’m going to try something new and instead comment on our very different analytical strategies.

              So, basically, what I’m seeing from you is that you are focused very much on the practical, on the ground results. Let me explain what I mean. You note that it is men who are conscripted, and then draw the conclusion from that, that it means men’s lives are valued less. Men are expected to fight and die, and because of that, you draw the conclusion that our society must think that men’s lives are worth less than women’s. You are taking the results, and based solely on those results, trying to extrapolate cultural and social causes for those results. The problem is that it is far too simplistic. It leaves out the thing that I am constantly mentioning…cultural narratives.

              To understand why a culture does something (i.e. conscripts only men), one must look at the results AND the justifications and rationalisations used to explain that result (i.e. the cultural narratives). So, there are a whole hell of a lot of cultural narrative surrounding military service in the U.S., but I’ll list a few:

              Veterans are heroes – military service is honorable – the military is a good thing – the military protects society from external threats
              Men are capable – men are physically superior – military service requires physical strength
              Women are incapable – women are weak – women will cause disruption among the ranks

              And then the other thing, of course, is that the discussion of men and women in military service doesn’t exist in a vacuum, so we need to look at other cultural narratives surrounding men and women. And again, I’ll list a few:

              Men can take care of themselves – men are independent – men are capable – men don’t complain…and then the big one…men are valued agents in society
              Women are dependent – women need help – women are incapable – women complain…and then the big one…women are valuable objects to society

              Women are largely viewed as valuable objects…as walking uteruses who give birth, but are incapable of doing anything for themselves. This is not a privilege; this is not a beneficial aspect of society. In the case of military service it means women aren’t part of conscription…but they are limited by this. We look at all the social narratives about men, and women, and about military service (and whether it’s desirable or not), and then we note that even though conscription means being forced to fight and die….feminist groups have fought for women to be included in it. Why? If conscription is simply about men being disposable, why would feminist groups fight so hard for women to be included? Because, of course, conscription ISN’T about men being disposable…it’s about men being considered heroic, capable, full members of society who “protect and defend” society. Because our society actually places a high value on risking one’s life in the military.

              And then you might ask about the deplorable way that the U.S. is currently treating its veterans. And there you have an example of classism…veterans are considered heroes, but they do not have the financial or political power necessary to have their voices heard by those with political and financial power.

              So, yeah, like I said…cultural narratives. In order to understand the intersecting power structures in a society which lead to a specific result…we have to look not only at those results, but also at the cultural narratives used to justify those results.

            • The fact that feminist groups have been fighting for women to be included in the military doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that many feminist believe as you do, that conscription isn’t a matter of male disposability. That doesn’t make it true, it just means that they believe it to be so. I think male disposability is very much a major reason why men are expected to fight and die and in the past it made sense as a collective survival strategy. Recognizing that a women’s potential ability to give birth makes her more intrinsically valuable to society doesn’t necessarily mean you view them as an object, it just means you realize that if push comes to shove it is better to rebuild a society with more women around then men. In times of war we don’t know how many soldiers we will lose or how long it will last so in the past it made since to get rid of the most disposable people first. This is a biological reality and its one that drove how many ancient societies were structured.

              I agree that the view that men are stronger than women is one reason they were sent to war, but that doesn’t negate their inherent disposability either. I think rape is another big reason as in military leaders simply didn’t trust the legions of killers they were training to not rape women which they sent them off into battle. They probably also felt that even without rape having women around would be distracting for the men ( I think you may have been saying this as well when you said women would cause disruption amongst the ranks), especially the younger ones.

              Also on the point you bring up about people looking at results and trying to extrapolate social causes for those results, this is actually one of the problems I have with a lot of feminist discourse. Its based in the very kind of thinking that you are arguing against. Its why some of them will look at the wage gap and assume sexism is the main cause without digging deeper. Its why some of them will look at the disproportionate number of men in the highest offices and CEO positions and assume discrimination is the main cause while giving little attention to other causes. Its because they’ve started with a particular narrative and fit everything they see into that narrative whether it makes sense or not.

            • I’m not saying that the way women are viewed is a privilege in the case of fighting wars.

              As for the heroism that’s just bait to get men to jump head long into such actions. Prove you’re a real man by terrorizing foreign populations. In the event that you die (for someone else’s cause) then it will be glorious. In the event that you manage to live then it will be glorious (but since you came back we’ll give you some recognition).

              About cultural narratives what’s the motive behind them?

              Are these narratives enforced:
              “Men are capable – men are physically superior – military service requires physical strength
              Women are incapable – women are weak – women will cause disruption among the ranks”.
              for the sake of men themselves or for the sake of the system that pushes them?

              Because, of course, conscription ISN’T about men being disposable…it’s about men being considered heroic, capable, full members of society who “protect and defend” society. Because our society actually places a high value on risking one’s life in the military.
              In other words they have to be heroic, capable, strong, and willing to risk their lives in order to be considered men right?

              men are valued agents in society
              Men are valued agents in society as long as they are useful to the system. When they outlive their usefulness that’s it.

              I’m sure you will say you won’t mean it but it seems that your analytic methods always reach the conclusion that “its in place to lift the masculine over the feminine”. If any harm that befalls the masculine (and those the masculine is imposed upon) is spotted then it must be because something other than the masculine (or that it was imposed on a man).

            • Quite frankly you’re ignoring the practical results in favour of cultural narratives that you are viewing through a feminist lens, which is tilted in favour of seeing women as the victims, the oppressed, the ones that cannot be privileged ever and it’s just wrong. It does not matter the reason that women are not sent to war, the fact remains huge portions of men were forced to goto war against their will, their very fucking agency was denied them. Is this really so difficult to understand? Their choice was stolen, and they were put in far far far far far more danger than women who’s choice was also stolen had.

              This is the type of shit that pisses me off, this incessant need to explain away misandry and turn everything back into sexism against women whilst flat out denying the sexism against men because you’re taking half the picture and making an assessment on it.

              Think of the cultural narrative where honor is bound up in MEN DYING because men, as a group, are disposable. The cultural narrative where people grow up hearing of the worst violence imaginable perpetrated against men who had their agency stripped from them and sent into battle. Millions, of men, whilst millions of women were at home and not expected to die for their country. You also forget the cultural narratives which put women on pedestals of innocent, beauty n angelic behaviour. Women who are seen as pure of heart, whilst men are seen as the rough n ready brutes or occasionally the knight, both expected to sacrifice their life for the woman. You try to explain that privilege cannot exist because of the negativity the women face, yet that also means privilege of men cannot exist cuz…I dunno, maybe the fact they were forced to war without choice? The elite, those in power who made the rules were the privileged ones and in times of war when conscription happens, the average man has no privilege whilst one gender is conscripted, the remaining women hold privilege above them because even though they both lack choice, the women are not put into extremely dangerous situations nor jailed or killed for trying to escape said dangerous situation.


              Men can take care of themselves – men are independent – men are capable – men don’t complain…and then the big one…men are valued agents in society

              Women are dependent – women need help – women are incapable – women complain…and then the big one…women are valuable objects to society”

              and less help for men isn’t sexist? Again, you’re forgetting disposability, men’s lives are seen as less valuable as a womans because if the woman’s life truly was of lesser value they’d put a gun in her fucking hands and throw her into the first line (if you don’t know that’s the first to die, hence the extremely racist southpark joke of the black platoon) because even a woman can fire a gun, and if not then they can at least be targets and meat shields for the men. But they weren’t sent there were they, why is that? In war the less valuable people would often be sent in first, they’re referred to as pawns, but it was the men who are the pawns on the chess board, the women were enjoying the privilege of not being thrown into battle.

              “Why? If conscription is simply about men being disposable, why would feminist groups fight so hard for women to be included? Because, of course, conscription ISN’T about men being disposable…it’s about men being considered heroic, capable, full members of society who “protect and defend” society. Because our society actually places a high value on risking one’s life in the military. ”
              Prove it, show me where feminist groups fought to get conscripted. Because what you are talking about is ANTI-human rights, and goes against feminisms very ideal does it not? It actively reduces the agency of women. Anyone fighting for equal rights and human rights that actively tries to get someone conscripted is a fucking moron, and is fighting against that for which they stand. Conscription is the worst oppression in existence, there is nothing more damaging than being forced to fight in extremely risky battles. You are pretty much forced to fight or die, you become a legal slave, you will be killed or jailed should you run away, you do not get to opt out. Serve your time and you may get a slap on the back at home, you might be called a hero but really you’re forced to obey the commands of your senior officers who are sending you into a risky situation. And when only men do this, the ones at home safe n sound ARE PRIVILEGED. Getting women conscripted is probably the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of and should only be fought for when there is a time of dire need, when an army of millions attacks your home-land. NO human should ever be forced to fight by their government, EVER. It is a basic human right to be able to control your actions n life, so you are basically admitting those feminist groups actively fight AGAINST human rights. I’ll be sure to remember that. I’d like to know which groups in particular so I can be sure to avoid ever supporting them again.

            • Alastair says:

              Heather,

              I can’t help but feel that both sides in this discussion are overstating their position. Privilege doesn’t lie neatly on one side or the other. Both men and women have great privilege in certain areas and related areas of significant disadvantage. The underlying issue is that society assigns us different roles. These roles aren’t entirely arbitrary, but nor are they remotely near biologically determined. These roles are very much double-edged swords: they disadvantage us for the same reasons and at the same time as they advantage us. The following is something of an exaggerated caricature on both sides, but like any good caricature, it may even be more revealing than a straightforward portrait.

              Men are given the role of independent functional agents. Our value depends heavily upon what we do. As men’s value depends on what they do, men can easily be instrumentalized by society. They are valued instruments – provided that they perform well – but as instruments, their value is contingent upon their performance. If a man fails as an agent or instrument, his value plummets, and society will cast him to one side with little pity. As a man it is your duty to perform: if you fail it is your fault and you must bear the blame and the consequences.

              Society forms such independent functional agents by denying them social support and protection, constantly pushing them to stand on their own two feet. Telling them to ‘man up’ and ‘take it like a man’. We are formed by rough interactions with society and each other, taught to develop thick skins. As a man you don’t have the right to be weak and complain: you must take your beatings and take unreasonable treatment.

              As a man, it is your duty to protect others at the cost of your own safety and wellbeing. Your agency may be praised by society, but your agency is about serving others, not self-realization – your job is often to enable others to realize themselves at the cost of your own self-realization. As an instrument, you don’t have intrinsic value: your value is your self-sacrifice, the degree to which you give your life or death for your family and country.

              As you are symbolically associated with power, you will be heavily judged according to this standard. People, not least women, will consistently judge you by your build, your height, your social status, your influence, and your income. You will be perceived as a threat in many environments, simply by virtue of the fact that you are a man. People will be uneasy about leaving you with children. Merely by virtue of your physical strength and assertiveness, people will regard you as a threat and be uncomfortable around you. People will be wary and resistant to allowing you to network too much with other men. You will spend much of your life being told to ‘play nice’, suppressing your strengths for the sake of other people’s weaknesses and sensitivities. Your preferred modes of behaviour may be stigmatized as aggressive throughout your life, by people who don’t understand that one can relish confrontation, struggle, and rough interactions without being at all violent or vicious.

              Now, there are huge advantages to being a man. It may seem as though I am complaining here, but that is not my intention. For the most part, being a man suits me fine. As we are expected to have thick skins, male groups can really empower effective action, because they can be much more externally-oriented. As a man you are trained and freed to be a powerful individual agent. Society won’t smother you with attempts to protect you, or train you in dependency mindsets to the same degree, and you will be privileged when it comes to occupying authority positions, because society sees you as more fit for such roles simply by virtue of the fact that you are a man who will stand up for yourself and others. As a man you are trained to stand on your own feet, to be assertive, to be outward-looking, to jostle, to compete, and to protect those weaker than you are.

              As a man you stand alone. While this means that you fall alone too, it has the huge advantage of meaning that you don’t typically function as a symbol for all men everywhere and your individuality always takes priority over the fact that you are a man. Men won’t close ranks to protect you. There’s little solidarity to be found there and that’s largely a good thing: you can stand out and distance yourself from others of your gender. It is because you stand alone that society is far more comfortable putting you in positions of conflict and power. If you get hurt or killed, it is not an attack upon or threat to the value of masculinity, but merely the loss of an individual man. For this reason, society also feels happier about attacking men. Women and children represent the bonds of communities, but, as individual agents, men stand somewhat apart from community and the community can survive their loss.

              With society, women, by contrast, are defined primarily by their bodies, by the interpersonal bonds that those bodies form and represent through coitus, pregnancy, and nursing, and by their physical appearance. If men are instrumentalized by society, women are more subject to objectification. While a man must constantly prove his masculinity through action, as his masculinity is contingent upon his agency and instrumentality, women don’t need to ‘prove’ their femininity in the same way, as their femininity is founded upon the fact of their bodies and what they represent. While men have a fraught relationship with their agency, women will typically have a fraught relationship with their bodies.

              As women – and more particularly, their bodies – represent the bonds of community, society will be very protective of them. Men’s value is contingent upon their action, but women’s value is far more integral – women are valuable to society because of what they represent and symbolize. Women will typically be stifled in their attempts to be fully independent agents in the way that men are, precisely because they carry around this symbolic value everywhere they go: it is unsurprising that some should feel it like a ball and chain. Society doesn’t want women to get hurt and doesn’t feel comfortable bringing women into confrontational contexts, so women will be held back from top or front line positions.

              There is huge privilege here too, of course. Women, on account of their symbolic value, can have a significant moral privilege over men, something which can prove very powerful in real world situations. In a huge range of situations, women are more typically presumed to be in the right (just one of many examples). They are also not held to the same level of responsibility, because agency is seen to lie primarily with men. More typically female traits tend to be established as the moral norms for all. Of course, once again this is a double-edged sword. While women as a group are morally privileged over men, the woman who goes against the morality that women are supposed to represent is heavily stigmatized.

              One of the greatest areas of privilege that women have is that of being presumed victims/underdogs. The status of victim/underdog entitles you to special treatment and protection, frequent societal intervention on your behalf, immunity from judgment and responsibility, grants you the right to stigmatize and scapegoat the supposed oppressors, discredits all opposition to your discourse from the outset, and provides one with an excuse for all of one’s failures. They are also perceived to be dependent upon society, so when women complain, society takes notice. Society is acutely sensitive to women getting hurt, mistreated, or roughly handled.

              One of the problems with the feminist movement is that it typically wants to play both sides of the privilege, without assuming the associated disadvantages. It capitalizes heavily on victim status, on the fact that women have the right to complain, and to receive social support and advantages, without wanting to assume the cost of being limited in independent action. However, it wants the advantages of agency too, without the cost of standing and falling on your own feet.

              The result is an unfair and unhealthy situation, where women move into realms of independent agency, while retaining the privilege of dependency, social support and protection, decreased responsibility, moral and victim privilege, and the right to special treatment. Men must stop playing to their strengths and must support and protect women, stifling their agency so that women can play on their own terms. Men are put in the double bind situation of being cast as overdogs. They are damned as bullies and oppressors if they succeed and ridiculed and blamed as weak failures if they don’t.

              There is no dignity or honour to be found in agency in such a situation. The whole environment can shift from one in which independent agency and strength is honoured to one with an atmosphere of over-sensitivity, entitlement, and dependency, where women’s social privilege is leveraged to shut down contexts in which men’s agentic privilege can flourish. Of course, on account of the same moral, victim, and social privilege enjoyed by women, feminism can demonize its opponents and protect itself from ideological challenge with a human shield, unlike male ideas that must (rightly) stand on their own two feet. All too often, feminism isn’t really about equality, but is about using traditional female privilege to claim the right to traditional male privilege, without assuming its costs, or surrendering the privileges that women have traditionally enjoyed on account of their gender.

              Neither men nor women have straightforward privilege. Rather the weighting of privilege varies from context to context and frequently weighs against men. There is also a radical ambivalence to privilege. The same thing that is a huge advantage in one situation can become a great disadvantage in another. The greater advantage enjoyed by men at the top of society’s institutions arises from similar roots to the greater disadvantage experienced by men at the very bottom of society, imprisoned, in dangerous jobs, socially abandoned, etc. Both depend heavily upon the costs and benefits of being cast in the role of independent agent.

              We can and should make things a lot better for both men and women. We should recognize where traditional roles cause harm, while also recognizing their strengths. We should work together to create a situation that better serves everyone, harmonizing needs and interests, not merely one that seeks the advantage of women in abstraction from and at the cost of men, which feminism all too often does.

            • “Women are largely viewed as valuable objects”

              And men as LESS than objects.

            • “feminist groups have fought for women to be included in it.”

              In most countries I am aware of they have fought against the OBLIGATION to serve but only for the PRIVELLIGE to be able to serve if they feel like it. I am seeing changes now, in Norway for example, but this has only come about after DECADES of non feminists arguing that if women want equal rights they also should be conscripted and can`t have it both ways. Feminists have mostly fought against this but are starting to cave because of pressure from the outside being very strong NOT because of their own original views. For feminists to have any credibility in this matter they would have had to have fought for this from the start instead of oposing it like they mostly did.

            • It is utterly dishonest to claim that the protection fo women from physical harm has not been THE key reason for why men have solely (for the most part) fought the wars and taken the physical risks. OUr scoeties have always been built arround womens needs for physical safety. Keeping women and children safe is THE prime motivator everything else flows from. Otherwise we would not be here today or at least be far fewer. You are once again denying the GOOD motivation of men throughout history and truning their self sacrifice into just being about them opressing women. I find this extremely offensive.

            • Richard Aubrey says:

              HeatherN
              A recent study has concluded that…shocker…grunts carry heavy loads. Any attempt by women to keep up results in an extraordinary number of serious orthopedic injuries. Plus they can’t keep up.
              I think we did the math before, but to quickly recall the answer: Forty men can carry approximately half a ton more ammunition than can forty women. Given some reasonable assumptions.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ HeatherN

              I disagree. A great grand daughter who inherits what her grandfather inherited and what her father has inherited starts from a point of economic privilege over her male 3rd cousin who was unable to inherit any created generational wealth because his grand mother and mother were not able to inherit due to past discrimination. He is disadvantaged because his ancestors, who happened to be women, within this family were discriminated against due to cultural bias. She has actually been advantaged because her ancestors, who happened to be male, were advantaged within that family due to cultural bias.

              That doesn’t mean that women aren’t disadvantaged by (systems of) oppression today. It doesn’t mean that 50% of the population hasn’t been disadvantaged by systems of oppression in the past. It does mean that this 50% of the population is not comprised of the 50% of the population that are women. Every boy has a mother so every boy could have started from a position of disadvantage based on accumulated wealth, legacy admissions in school, etc. Every girl (until very recently with the advent of IVF) has had a father so could have benefited from past discrimination.

            • You’re talking about intersectionality there. If I inherited my father’s wealth, and he inherited it from his father, etc., then in terms of class, I am privileged. If, meanwhile, my male cousin HASN’T inherited any wealth from the family, then he’s not privileged in terms of class due to inheritance. BUT in terms of gender, my male cousin is part of the privileged group, whereas I am not part of the privileged group. One does not cancel out the other.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ HeatherN

              First, I want to let you know that you’re one of my favorite feminists and I have lots of respect for you, but unless I’m misunderstanding what feminists mean by historical discrimination, it sounds like the same shell game they always play. I don’t like this example because women aren’t clearly the ones currently victimized so I’ll classify it as a class issue rather than a historical gender issue. When feminists talk about historical discrimination as it pertains to gender, do they mean discrimination that originated in the past and is ongoing or do they mean discrimination that originated in the past and is currently not practiced or does it encompass both?

              Women are now allowed to serve in combat. A 10 year old girl unable to serve due to age will never have been affected by the policy that denied women the right to serve in combat. Some may argue that she still faces discrimination as there are few women currently in the military due to the policy existing in the past. If that’s true, that’s a function of current discrimination not past discrimination. Once the number of women increases and these systems stop, the future 10 year old girl faces no discrimination at all. Would feminists believe that it is still necessary to address historical discrimination for this future 10 year old girl?

              That’s the way many MRAs are feeling when feminists claim that we need to address historical discrimination against women in higher education. Except for possibly STEM fields, they see no current discrimination against women (students at least) in higher ed and don’t see how historical discrimination would affect women (legacy admissions could historically affect minorities). They do see that men seem to lag behind women in higher ed as a proportion of the population. If it were just enrollment, one can argue that men are avoiding college due to cost, but it’s also retention. Men drop out of college at greater rates than women. MRAs see the need for support systems that specifically assist men. Since women’s centers help women, MRAs see that as a solution for men as well.

              In my discussions with feminists, I’ve been told that feminists are concerned with men’s issues, but resources are scarce and they can’t address everything. I’m reminded of this when I see feminists mobilize to block a men’s center at Ryerson or disrupt a conference on men’s issues in Toronto. They can’t discuss or address issues of male rape or suicide prevention because they don’t have the resources, but start a men’s center to provide support to men to deal with these same issues and they find the resources to fight it.

            • Heather: I am going to assume you are from either Canada, US, or UK.

              Could you tell me one thing that you can’t do in western society because you are a woman that I can do because I am a man. One caveat though, when I say can’t do , I mean you are not allowed to do, not because of a personal choice NOT TO DO.

            • Let’s see…until just a few months ago I was literally banned from holding certain positions in the military due to being a woman (that’s the U.S.).

              But more importantly, equality is about more than simply removing the official policies and laws which ban one group from doing something. Based on your question, it sounds like you are assuming that if someone isn’t officially banned from doing something, the only reason they aren’t doing it is because of personal choice. And that ignores all the ways in which culture influences people…not only the individuals in an oppressed group, but also those in a privilege group.

              So, for example, I am not banned from being President of the U.S. because I’m a woman, but hot damn if it isn’t nearly impossible for a woman to get elected to that office…because she’s a woman. So this is an article about universities, so I’ll go back to that. Though I am not banned from studying the sciences and getting a PhD in, oh, say…theoretical physics or something…there are a hell of a lot of social norms which make it extremely difficult for that to happen. There are all sorts of pressures on me (as a woman) not to go that route…either to stop university after I get a bachelor’s degree and get married…or to pick a subject in the social sciences or humanities instead. And there are all sorts of social norms which effect women who DO end up with a PhD in one of the hard sciences…constantly having to prove they are “just as good” as the men in their field, systematically being overlooked for grants and promotions because they are women. Treated as second-class citizens within their field of study, or at the very least treated as representatives for their entire gender, etc.

              But then, that’s also focusing purely on occupation. Another thing I can’t do, is walk into a room without my appearance being assessed by strangers. I can’t get angry, and have my anger taken seriously. I can’t hold a position of power without someone, somewhere, questioning whether I deserve that position of power simply due to the fact that I’m a woman.

            • So the concious decision to impose on men that they must be the ones to volunteer to die for their country and that women should not do the same was done just because of the desire to undervalue women/feminity?

              To me that speaks to a system that wants to keep power for itself by keeping people in places where they are deemed most useful.

              Another thing I can’t do, is walk into a room without my appearance being assessed by strangers. I can’t get angry, and have my anger taken seriously. I can’t hold a position of power without someone, somewhere, questioning whether I deserve that position of power simply due to the fact that I’m a woman.
              For the record there are presumptions made upon men as well. Not the exact same ones mind you, but they do exist.

            • “I can’t get angry, and have my anger taken seriously. ”
              What is it with women assuming men’s anger is acceptable? Unless you have lived life as a man, don’t tell US our anger is acceptable. No-one gets to be angry without causing fear or discomfort, or some negativity…

            • Heather, you didn’t answer the question. What can’t you do because your a women. That you are prohibited, denied because you are a women.

            • I didn’t say “acceptable;” I said “taken seriously.” When a man gets angry, it’s serious. It’s viewed as threatening or frightening…and it’s serious. An angry man is someone to pay attention to and consider. We respond to men’s anger with care and sometimes with fear…because a man who is angry might cause harm.

              A woman’s anger, on the other hand, is seldom taken seriously. It is laughed at and mocked. “You’re so cute when you’re angry,” is something probably every woman has heard, and I’m willing to bet very few men have heard. Or it is dismissed as an overreaction, “geeze, you don’t need to get so angry about it,” and “stop being such a bitch,” are two more things I’m sure every woman out there has heard.

              So, that’s what I was saying.

            • The reason men’s anger is taken seriously is because the it is so heavily imposed on men that its assumed a man is angry even when he is not.

              Also in a lot of instances a man’s anger is exaggerated, partly because he is a man.

              “You’re so cute when you’re angry,” is something probably every woman has heard, and I’m willing to bet very few men have heard.
              No instead we are told that we are angry even we are not because its become a default that men are just angry.

            • Would you prefer the male version where you get annoyed and people start dial 911/000/whatever? I’ve been told to calm down HEAPS when angry, I don’t think people like hearing others angry especially men. It’s taken seriously but that is because it’s seen as a threat, on the flipside your anger which is taken less serious also means you’re seen as MORE sensitive, caring, and safe to be around. The best thing would be both genders to have an acceptable way to express anger, but neither gender actually is better off in anger. You want to be taken seriously? Well the male version has a shitload of baggage I highly doubt you want unless you’d like to start making people afraid of you because you have a penis and their flavour of the month superfear schroedingers rapist lecture has just put them on high alert ramming down their throat the MEN CAN RAPE YOU, MEN SO STRONGG, MEN CAUSE WARS, MEN CAUSE CANCER, etc that seems to have women SO damn afraid of males cuz a minority of them cause violence.

              Men do not get their anger taken seriously without consequence, a man yelling in a relationship can even be called abusive under the new definitions for domestic abuse. I have to be very fucking careful how I express my anger because I am 6’6, large bodied, and I cannot express it properly to women because of that intimidation, I have to restrain my display of anger, I have to withhold my anger and try not to show it so I don’t end up with cops called because I am yelling about something. What way is there to show anger in a safe manner where it’s taken seriously without fear? Even that quiet voice anger can scare the hell out of people, it has the sinister sounding effect which creeps many out. Anger itself is not acceptable, schools teach that from young and try to teach it out of us. So we have women not taken seriously, and men who are seen as angry far more than they are (old angry bastard stereotypes).

              So you might not have your anger taken seriously, which is a negative, but on the flipside you gain something men do not get and that is being able to express your anger without being SEEN as violent n threatening, so is this considered inequality or is there another term where 1 gender gets to do x but avoid y, and the other can do y but avoid x? Because serious with being seen as threatening is no better than not taken seriously but seen as safe.

            • Heather, I don’t doubt that the social pressures and norms that you name exist, but this is the reason I say I support equal rights and opportunities and not simple equality as you described. Because you’re not just talking about things we can actually measure, but cultural pressures which are much harder to gauge. In the recent Jezebel article that made the rounds online about why we should still be called feminists the author claimed we couldn’t get rid of the label because women weren’t equal yet. The impression that I got from that article and from what you wrote is that as long as someone, somewhere can call your abilities into question due to your gender, then things aren’t equal and I find this to be an untenable position to hold. I think we’ve had this discussion before, but I am of the belief that there are real biological differences between men and women, and while they may manifest themselves differently in different cultures, they are there and because of that people will always recognize certain traits as being more masculine and feminine. I wish this wasn’t the case, but I think its within human nature to categorize in this way. I think that also means that people will look at certain jobs as being more masculine or feminine regardless of how things get.

              I think the other problem I have with what your saying is that there seems to be an assumption that women would choose to be in certain positions at nearly equal numbers with men if it weren’t for social pressures holding them back. This may be the case, but we don’t know for certain. Perhaps certain genders do have slight biological dispositions towards certain fields. The problem is that as long as a disparity exists feminists can claim that its the work of patriarchy discouraging women from doing what they would want to otherwise.

            • I have a friend right now writing a PhD thesis about whether true equality and equity is even possible, precisely because it is so very complex and subjective.

              Anywho…I don’t deny that there may be some biological differences between males and females beyond anatomy. I think we are not nearly as objectively accurate at assessing them in western medicine as we like to think we are. But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that current medical and biological knowledge is really close to the “truth” of the differences between men and women. Like, let’s pretend there’s a biological basis for most of the assumptions we make about men and women in our society…for simplicity’s sake.

              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.” So feminists aren’t merely claiming that patriarchy deters women from certain jobs because women don’t hold as many positions in that job. We are also claiming that patriarchy puts a premium on jobs traditionally held by men. So even if our division into masculine and feminine is accurate now…we still have the problem of placing a higher value on the masculine. With education, we can look at the humanities vs. the hard sciences. The hard sciences are more traditionally masculine and have more men studying them than women. The humanities is perceived as being a more wishy-washy and thus feminine discipline (or sets of disciplines), and have either equal numbers men and women (or more women) studying them. But the humanities are still undervalued when compared to the hard sciences.

              So if the hard sciences are more highly valued…why wouldn’t more career minded, ambitious women choose to go into those fields? Perhaps some women just like the humanities more and are simply more interested in them…perhaps some women don’t care that the hard sciences are more prestigious and instead want to study what interests them. But there is also a cultural narrative that is dominant in our society that women just aren’t as suited to the hard sciences…and this is a cultural narrative which biology does NOT support. Interestingly, even our attempts at getting more women to join the hard sciences haven’t been able to divorce themselves from that narrative. When I was a kid I was quite interested in astronomy and I was quite talented in mathematics. I had a science teacher pick me out of a class and tell me and my parents I should really go into astronomy or physics or something along those lines. He said it was because there aren’t many girls in the sciences, and I was exceptional because I was good in the sciences…in other words, I wasn’t like other girls. So even in telling me, individually, that I was doing really well in the sciences…I was told that girls, in general, aren’t well suited to the hard sciences.

              Incidentally, I went to university to study archaeology and have now switched to gender studies…so make of that what you will. But what’s more telling, is that no one took any child aside and told them that they were quite talented in any of the humanities and that they should consider studying philosophy. And no one took any child aside even in a history class or english class to tell them that they should consider studying any of the social sciences. In fact, my school and I’d wager most schools, don’t even offer philosophy as a class…our “core” curriculum is very much based on the idea that math and science are the most important subjects…and reading is important only in the way it is required to study math and science.

              So this is long and a little rambly…as per usual with my comments…but I hope you kind of get what I’m saying. It’s not strictly the number of men vs. women in a given profession that leads feminists to discuss gender bias within that profession.

            • I think the humanities are seen as wishy washy because there is often not an objective answer or method when dealing with topics in those fields. Meanwhile the hard sciences provide hard answers as well as more practical and immediately profitable applications. You said that our cultural narrative is such that it says women are less suited to hard sciences, but I think the bigger question is whether or not the genders are generally more inclined to be interested in one field or another. I do agree that trying to push women into the hard sciences can be problematic and I’ve noticed this amongst feminists as well. In order to combat the narrative they see that women aren’t as good in sciences, I’ve seen people try and shove math down the throat of any girl (including some of my family members) who showed skill in it and if the girl later decided not to pursue a hard science degree, they felt defeated. They claim they care about individual choices, but if a girl makes a choice that falls in line with current culture narratives the assumption is that she was yet another victim of patriarchy. But I think social narratives will always exist and they are based in generalities. So if it does turn out that men are more inclined to show a preference for hard sciences, people will likely assume they are generally better at it too regardless of whether thats true or not.

              Ironically, I was asked by my freshman English professor what my major was and if I was interested in pursuing English because he liked my writing. I stuck with Computer Science, though I’m doing English now as a minor. I actually do enjoy writing, but I enjoy programming as well and I know I can get a more profitable job with that degree. It was also not more than a month ago that heard my literature professor complain about students who excelled in the humanities being told to pursue the sciences by their parents. The reason was that the sciences led to more lucrative fields. I think girls probably get this pressure less because there is no shame in them being married to a more successful man or relying on one for support.

            • 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!

            • Tom Brechlin says:

              Heather, You still have not answered the question. “Could you tell me one thing that you can’t do in western society because you are a woman that I can do because I am a man. One caveat though, when I say can’t do , I mean you are not allowed to do, not because of a personal choice NOT TO DO.”

              Besides being mandated to “selective service” which MOST women don’t want.

            • Alastair says:

              Speaking as someone who is more involved in the humanities than in the hard sciences, I suspect that part of the reason for the low view of the humanities in certain quarters is the flexibility of the standards within them, the self-preoccupation that can be characteristic of them, and the vulnerability of disciplines to ideological colonization. As the hard sciences have to deal with a more objective reality outside of themselves, they can’t afford the same devotion to self-serving ideologies. The world of the humanities can often be closed in on itself, drawn up in arcane vocabularies and systems that seem primarily to serve an opacifying purpose, rather than to communicate with and address the real world. The humanities can be prone to a sort of masturbatory impulse.

              I think that there are various reasons for the predominance of men in the hard sciences. I think that part of it can be attributed to natural inclinations. As a general rule, men may be more oriented to the objective realm than women, and women more oriented to persons, relationships, and the subjective realm than men. This orientation is perhaps most visible and most powerfully reinforced in the dynamics of homosocial groups. Male groups more typically enjoy socializing and bonding through talking about things, ideas, and less personal or relational realities. An interest in the hard sciences is often related to and fuelled by an appreciation for a certain form of ‘geek socialization’, which is far more widespread among males than females. It might just be me, but the women I know who are scientists or engineers seem to talk about it considerably less often than their male peers.

              The fact that people pursue the sciences in order to get more lucrative jobs is also crucial. As women face considerably less social pressure to be providers, they are encouraged to pursue their passions and interests. Men aren’t given the same degree of luxury. They go for more lucrative fields in which they may have less personal interest out of duty to provide for a wife and family and to be seen as a competent man. They may earn more than their female peers, but they do so out of duty and often at great expense in the area of personal fulfilment.

              I always find it interesting listening to privileged white women talking about ‘having it all’, complaining about the personal sacrifices that they have to make to hold positions at the top. I really don’t think that the narrative of personal fulfilment has anywhere near as much purchase among men. A job or career is all too typically a matter of soul-crushing drudgery, tedium, pressure, unreasonable demands, and discomfort, undertaken out of duty rather than as a life choice offering the internal good of self-fulfilment.

              Feminism, by framing such things in terms of choice, freedom, and self-fulfilment, tends to tell a convenient half-truth, claiming entitlement to the benefits but less than willing to assume, recognize, or speak frankly about the costs. For most people – for most women – the reality is just wage-slavery. However, a few too many feminists, as they are typically more privileged women, who haven’t experienced the same social imperative to be independent providers and are doing something that they feel passionately about, have been afforded the luxury of believing that jobs and careers are about choice and self-fulfilment, rather than something to which you are driven by necessity, and that the state and society has the duty to underwrite or reward your choices and preferences. This is an illusion that is particularly prevalent among tenured academics.

            • wellokaythen says:

              “She is not identified with the privileged group, is why.”

              I can’t let this passive sentence construction go without a challenge. I am left wondering, who are the ones doing the identifying of her as not part of the privileged group? I’m talking about my school, an institution with its own agency and its own hiring policies, deciding who gets placed in what category. When trying to offset historical patterns of discrimination, the hiring process tends to treat a woman applicant as a representative of all women who have faced discrimination in the past. My point is that this is illogical, since she has about as much connection to earlier generations of male privilege as I do. Ultimately this has to be about what present-day people have faced in their lives, not about “the weight of history,” which is somewhat mythical.

              I say if someone is going to get different consideration based on ancestry, then that ancestry had better be clearly different from the ancestry of other people. If you are suggesting that it is entirely unfair and sexist to define a woman as a representative of all women across history, then I heartily agree. (And, as someone who’s been on hiring committees, I am at least one person who just MIGHT identify an applicant differently than others. If one exception exists, then why not others?) In terms of male privilege, we all have essentially the same level of it in our family background, if we go back several generations. We all come from both a long line of men and a long line of women. My school has essentially created a hiring preference for well-educated, middle class white American women, on the basis of a fight against male privilege. They can no more get justice for their grandmothers than I can get for my grandmother.

              This would be comparable to me applying as a “Native American” because I had one great grandmother who was a member of the Cherokee Nation. I should therefore get an extra look in job applications in order to fight global historical patterns of imperialist racism against indigenous peoples. I can’t even type that with a straight face, and I’m naturally sarcastic.

              Gender privilege is of course not necessarily the same as class or race or ethnicity. In those cases, an individual person may be a product of a very different set of historical factors from another person. There, the actual percentages of different sociological categories can be quite variable, though the further back you trace your heritage, the more similar everyone starts to look. If we were to set up a system of reparations for African American slavery, we could theoretically trace the lineage of people to see who would get paid. If there were some sort of reparations for male privilege in people’s heritage, then we would all get the same amount.

              If there is currently good evidence for the continuing legacy of sexism, then we should be addressing what is wrong right now. It’s about the way that people in the present face unequal treatment. However, that’s not what my school’s argument is. It’s not about making sure that we stop the unfair treatment of past generations or start anew. It’s about rewarding pretty darn well-off people in the present to compensate for really horrible treatment past people faced in the past. Historically, higher education has been a predominantly male institution. My school is predominantly female. So, if this continues, theoretically centuries and centuries hence it will have to flip back again in order to offset this latest “historical pattern.”

              I grok the idea that we should identify specific legacies of sexism that continue to perpetuate inequality. I can get behind that. What I can’t get behind is what some people are doing, which is creating an excuse to grant even more privilege to some people because they have something superficially in common with people long ago who lacked privilege.

          • Yes, and what about the fact that her great grandfather was privileged? Why does she claim one ancestor but not the other, when they both shaped her fate?

            It’s an old Trick – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.

            You mention Grand pappy and all ideas and language is focused upon him – don’t mention Grand mammy and it still is all blamed on the Grand pappy!

            The reverse has been highlighted by prof Lara Stemple – UCLA Law school – and she has been raising it for some years (But as it’s academic and about men, and men are not allowed to discuss mens’ issues in an academic setting … Itls Got Ignored … Poor menz!

            For Example:

            For the last few decades, the prevailing approach to sexual violence in international human rights instruments has focused virtually exclusively on the abuse of women and girls. In the meantime, sexual violence against males continues to flourish in prison and other forms of detention.‘ Men have been abused and sexually humiliated during situations of armed conflict, such as the highly publicized Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq.‘ Childhood sexual abuse of boys is alarmingly common; in fact, the vast majority of those abused at the hands of Roman Catholic clergy in the United States were boys.’ And sexual assault against gay men remains unchecked due to assumptions that, as was once commonly assumed about women. gay men who have been raped must have “asked for it.”‘
            In Part 1 of this Article, I discuss the phenomenon of male rape, summarizing research data about the problem and exploring various contexts in which it occurs. In Part II, I show that numerous instruments in the human rights canon, including U.N. treaties, resolutions, consensus documents. and general comments address sexual violence while explicitly excluding male victims.

            Male Rape and Human Rights – Lara Stemple – 60 Hastings L.J. 605 (2008-2009)

            Funny how the exact same points got made on Al Jazeera in 2011 when Will Store had won the Amnesty International Media Award for his piece “The rape of men – 17 July 2011” – and then Al Jazeera were covering it “The silent male victims of rape – 28 Jul 2011“. It was great sport as Louise Aubin of the UN was publicly eviscerated by Will Storr, Lara Stemple and Chris Dolan, the director of the Refugee Law Project.

            Then in October 2012 after quite a delay but with much pressure the UN has to get it ‘s act together – GENEVA, Switzerland, October 8 2012 (UNHCR) – The UN refugee agency has for the first time issued guidelines for UNHCR staff and other aid workers on how to identify and support male victims of rape and other sexual violence in conflict and displacement situations.

            3.5 Billion men and Boys recognised for the first time in decades – and no one notices cos men and boys don’t count round here. Use the R word and there is a Pavlovian response but only if it’s women cos men are of no interest and are expendable, disposable and just in the way.

            Then we even have last Month G8 announces initiative to tackle sexual violence in conflict – Did I just see MRAs Getting A Result? He said “…Women, Children & Men can be raped…“. So that is From June 2011 to March 2013 – nearly two years and all the time silence and disreagurad.

            Hell – it takes so much to get men mentioned round here – and to get away from those tricks of making people vanish and not be counted or held to account – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.

            The opposite is Interpretatio Cessat in Claris – Interpretation stops when a text is clear. so you are quite right to ask for clarity in text – but asking and getting are two very different things, because those with a mindset built upon exclusion and denial have so many tricks to keep their fantasy in tact, including good old passive aggressive just not communicating!

            It’s why I believe affirmative action is required, and anyone in the way is just Road Kill. They have had long enough to either get out of the way or get with reality.

            If others aint interested in listening and dialogue, then by all means let the students do what others are incapable of.

  30. ZimbaZumba says:

    The opposition to Men’s Groups in universities is based on a clear understanding of the fact that if Men organize in Universities then their movement will take off like wildfire. NIpping opposition in the bud is politically astute. The Nation University of Students in the UK actually has a handout on how to stop men form organizing. I find this type of activity at odds with my idea of a Democracy.

    • The Nation University of Students in the UK actually has a handout on how to stop men form organizing. I find this type of activity at odds with my idea of a Democracy.

      Now that I would like to hear more about. Do you have any more details?

    • I’d like to see more on this as well.

      From what I understand encouraging organized efforts to oppose women is silencing. I wonder if it counts when it happens to men as well.

      • Megalodon says:

        I wonder if it counts when it happens to men as well.

        No, it does not count, at least not under current feminist and some progressive standards. You see, the new rule is that if anybody speaks or organizes in any way that might contradict feminists precepts, then that constitutes the “silencing” of women. Apparently, it is not enough that women have a right to speak, protest and agitate. You have to “silence” any kind of group that might disagree with them. If you don’t “silence” the supposedly regressive other groups, then you are “silencing” the women. So, “not silencing” women requires “silencing” some other group. SILENCE = NOT SILENCE.

        • I can understand why and how you would think that but I don’t think that is quite it.

          You see, the new rule is that if anybody speaks or organizes in any way that might contradict feminists precepts, then that constitutes the “silencing” of women.
          Its not the contradiction of feminist precepts that consitutes the silencing of women. From what I have gathered its more about not making sure that women’s experiences and perspectives are taken into account. I can see how that can be taken as “feminism must be included!” given how feminism is mainly about women (and no there is nothing inherently wrong with that) but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.

          Its about women not being included and feminism is primarly about women therefore if feminism is not included it must be anti-woman.

          Now I have been told point blank by feminists that men organizing to help men (although a lot of them put help in quote marks, I guess to imply that men only organize without women for nefarious purposes) in men only spaces inherently hurts women because by doing so those men are not taking women’s perspectives and experiences into account.

          That sounds nice and conclusive on paper and is sure to get plenty of retweets and comments that just say, “THIS!!!” but there’s something Im not understanding.

          How exactly does not taking women’s experiences and perspectives into account inherently harm/silence/hurt women?

          Basically that line of argument is saying that since women’s perspectives and experiences weren’t include by default it MUST be bad. But there looks to be a bit of a void in the space where the connection between “not including women’s perspectives and experiences” and “it’s inherently harmful to women” goes.

          I don’t think its about disagreeing with them (well, not always) but I think its more about simply not including them. And not even to the point of feminist permission is needed either, just that it must be included.

          If you don’t “silence” the supposedly regressive other groups, then you are “silencing” the women. So, “not silencing” women requires “silencing” some other group. SILENCE = NOT SILENCE.
          That’s about the sound of it. See what I did there?

          • Megalodon says:

            How exactly does not taking women’s experiences and perspectives into account inherently harm/silence/hurt women?

            It doesn’t. You realize that I was parodying and mocking the ideology of the feminist campus groups which have demanded that there be no campus male-interest groups?

            I agree with you there is no such causal connection between “not including women’s perspectives and experiences” and “it’s inherently harmful to women.” When feminist and progressive groups insist upon that connection, I think their goal is simply to make sure all conclusions and advocacies are in accordance with their ideology, and to squelch opposition.

            • It doesn’t. You realize that I was parodying and mocking the ideology of the feminist campus groups which have demanded that there be no campus male-interest groups?
              Although I didn’t know you were mocking and I know that it doesn’t but given that I have seen women and feminists sincerly argue that point I’ve been on the search to find out exactly how it happens.

          • wellokaythen says:

            As I mentioned above, if “men organizing to help men” is inherently bad for women, then where would you ever draw the line? No private conversations between two men, no men going to their male friends for help, etc. If you’re a male student who meets with your male doctor, isn’t that confidentiality a “conspiracy of silence”?

            • But the conspiracy of Silence Meme is exactly what some have been pushing and even recommending gendercide.

            • Megalodon says:

              if “men organizing to help men” is inherently bad for women, then where would you ever draw the line? No private conversations between two men, no men going to their male friends for help, etc.

              We are getting to that point, and you are not off base to ask that question. Feminists and egalitarians have always had a suspicion or opposition to members of the designated dominant class socializing and privately assembling. They consider it to be the privileged “Good Old Boys” network. Here on the Good Men Project, Hugo Schwyzer repeatedly admonished men to socialize and include women in their informal gatherings, get togethers, etc.

              http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/resist-the-old-boys-and-their-ways/

              There are hosts of laws to combat discrimination and harassment against women in the workplace and other formal environments. However, we know that activities and interactions which people do in their informal, private settings have an effect on the professional, formal setting. When you and your coworkers have dinner or get drinks with your boss after work, things like that. Obviously, people use such private interactions as a way to build connections, to network and seek some advantage in the formal, professional sphere. For many reasons, men often choose to socialize with other men. They may not like socializing with women, and they may fear being accused of impropriety if they invite women into private, informal gatherings. And when men gather in private, they are not subject to egalitarian compliance laws, nor are they required to seek diversity within their private, informal social group.

              This is riling the feminists and egalitarians. To them, informal, private interaction among men is one way that men perpetuate privilege and inequality. Right now, they are only using protest and moral suasion to encourage men to change their personal socialization habits. By maybe some day they will pass a law that men have to have female chaperones with them at all times so that they are never unsupervised and can never conspire to maintain their gender privilege.

            • wellokaythen says:

              Just thought of a great idea.

              In order to protest the silencing of men’s groups, one great labor-saving option is to break out some of those “Silence = Death” posters that used to be much more fashionable on college campuses. I’ve seen some still around here and there. There must be some lying unused in various people’s closets. The message is just as powerful and applicable in this case as in any other.

              And you build sustainability cred – reduce, reuse, recycle!

    • I see as well that Manchester University is being asked to appoint a Men’s Officer – and the arguments against are quite Hilarious. Helen Stevenson has the following to say in the Mancunian – the student newspaper:

      Where to start with this one? First of all, we don’t need to work on men’s inclusion and representation. At our university, as well as in greater society, men are already vastly over represented. The amount of buildings around university named in honour of male figures is testament to this; Steve Biko, Mansfield Cooper, John Rylands, Samuel Alexander, John Owens…do I need to go on?

      Oh Please Please DO DO Go on and explain why and how old buildings cause:

      1) a 500% higher suicide rate amongst men
      2) less access to mental health are for men
      3) lack of recognition of men as single parents at University
      4) Why men don;t get access to funding to over come disadvantage, yet women do
      5) why men who suffer sexual assault don’t have equality of access to support

      That’s just the first five without going and dealing with the extra university issues and even international ones… such as the UN missing 3.5 Billion people (All male) out of multiple instruments under international law. Hope that little issue didn’t pass Ms Diversity by!

      But there is One very big Question which I do hope Ms Stevenson can answer succinctly and without waffle, artifice or reference to Victorian architecture. if the Women’s officer is there to deal with the Diversity of all students, why has she done such a Piss Poor Job in dealing with just men’s health issues?

      PS I’m in the UK writing from the UK and know all about Inequality UK flavour! I can see a grumpy Old man coming on again – Students Just Aint What They Used To Be.

      • At our university, as well as in greater society, men are already vastly over represented. The amount of buildings around university named in honour of male figures is testament to this;
        If its just a numbers game then that means that soon as “Steve Biko, Mansfield Cooper, John Rylands, Samuel Alexander, John Owens…” becomes Stephanie Biko, Jane Rylands, and Samantha Alexander everything will be fine right?

        Its odd really. In one breath the problem is that women don’t have equal opportunity but then in the next the supposed solution is to make sure women have equal results.

        • Up Date on Manchester University Men’s Officer Vote

          I’m advised that the vote was one vote short of allowing the issue to be put forward as a University Wide vote.

          Apparently Male rape is best managed by the Women’s Officer – Paternity Issues Best Discussed with the Women’s Welfare officers – and even male sexuality, disability, academic issues are all best talk through with TehGirlz … cos of course they now everything there is about being male!

          • It gets better:

            <blockquote<The union execs were all against the idea, one even launched a personal attack on me reading a prepared statement that said i'm not a man and that i'm an insult to my mother.
            Source or is it Sauce?

            Such mature debate amongst students on such serious issues. Anyone noticing any patterns here? MRA – Thought-Terminating Cliché – Don’t Think, Just Use It!

          • wellokaythen says:

            How dreadful to have so many things named after men in…Her Majesty’s kingdom.

            • You can leave Our Brenda out of it!

              If I am not allowed to raise that GaGa Woman and her rape culture themed prison videos … well at least Brenda knows how to dress in style! Nuff Said!

              And don’t get me started on the Brittamy Smears and her breakthrough use of a lollipop, The Sucking Of!

            • wellokaythen says:

              Well, assigning feminine names to things doesn’t always place women in the best light anyway. For example:

              Hurricane Katrina
              the Enola Gay
              the Andrea Doria
              the space shuttle Columbia
              Venereal disease (named after Venus, after all)

              Stevenson does have a point, though. It would be great to see more women’s names on things.

              Like diseases, for example. Almost every single debilitating disease that’s named for a person is named for a man. Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc. That’s not really fair. Shouldn’t women’s existence be recognized anytime someone faces a really depressing medical diagnosis? Men should got get all the name recognition when there’s bad news to deliver.

              I’ll make her a deal that’s more than generous. For every ten campus buildings she names after a woman, we name one horrible disease after a woman. I don’t see a lot of people mobilizing to get women’s names on things with negative associations.

              Or, if that is too radical, I propose that we refer to her flawed kind of argument as a “Stevenson gambit” or “the Stevenson fallacy.”

            • I’ve actually heard that as Ships are referred to as feminine, The Exxon Valdez , Deepwater Horizon and Titanic have all been disasters associated with women’s names. I did say at the time that I thought the Young’s Modulus of the knicker elastic was being exceeded.

              Of course you can just rename and rebrand – how about Botulinum becomes Thatcherlinum? Could be put up to a public vote and lottery – pay you money – if you win you get to to choose a rename. I can see it breaking the bank…. and the profits can all go to helping the minority male into higher education. P^)

        • wellokaythen says:

          I used to work at a giant state university with about 25,000 undergraduates. Out of all the 100 or so buildings that it owned on the sprawling campus, there was ONE building called the Undergraduate Building. If the names of buildings are supposed to accurately represent the consituency, then the word Undegrad should appear in about 80% of the names. We don’t expect representational names for buildings in any other category, so why is gender so special?

      • wellokaythen says:

        And, her comments are downright ignorant when it comes to awareness of transgender and transsexual issues. She thinks she can just immediately tell the gender of a person by looking at a person’s name. You mean like George Sand? Those names sound male to her, so therefore she sees no reason to question her superficial gender assumptions about other people. Very blind to her own prejudices.

      • John Anderson says:

        So in theory she’d be OK with renaming all the buildings to honor women and then closing any women’s centers, ending any women only financial assistance / scholarships, firing the women’s officer, etc. and giving all that support to men.

      • wellokaythen says:

        Oh, and I have to chime in on a point of grammar.

        It should be the “number of buildings” not the “amount of buildings.” Please respect the Queen’s English, students of Manchester.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. when one side loses, both sides lose

Trackbacks

  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

*