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
when one side loses, both sides lose
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
• 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… Read more »
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.
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”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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!
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!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
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.
I’m actually friends with Helen Stevenson and he’s an alright guy.
Touche’.
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.
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.
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.… Read more »
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^)
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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?
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”… Read more »
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?… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
@ 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… Read more »
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.
@ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
“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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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!
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.
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
Toronto has been a very successful PR coup for us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxY-5ISEHPg
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
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/
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@Sarah Radford: 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… Read more »
“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/
What do you mean, “who gets to decide….”?
Should be clear enough.
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.
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… Read more »
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!
“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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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!
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:
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!
Beware the sheeple!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2NduSCLiMA
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… Read more »
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/
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… Read more »
… 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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Would someone please tell me what what rights women are being denied OTHER then their not having to sign up for selective service?
Tom Brechlin.
Herewith the link.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/georgetown-university-and-men/georgetown-university-in-a-cover-up/
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.
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 .
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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?
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?
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… Read more »
“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.… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
@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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
@ 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… Read more »
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.!!
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.
“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?
“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.
>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.