Meet the New Kid on the Block: Male Studies

Men’s studies, one of the newest academic disciplines, now has some competition. Get ready for …. male studies?

According to Rutgers University professor Lionel Tiger, who cochaired with anti-feminist author Christian Hoff Sommers a symposium at Wagner College in New York to announce the creation of the Foundation for Male Studies, male studies bases its ideas on “the notion that male and female organisms really are different.” Unlike men’s studies, male studies focuses on the experience of being male without concern for feminist theory. In fact, feminism appears to be on the male studies hit list. Tiger calls feminism “a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon.”

One of the supporters of the symposium, Men’s News Daily, is ready for the leap to male studies. Editor-in-Chief Paul Elam notes that the April 7 conference was “underscored by the sound of academicians citing the horrific results of feminist ideologues being in charge of university programs and the research they produce; and of those same ideologues having sway over university policies that affect young men.”

On that same website, Stephen Jarosek writes that that new discipline “provides the opportunity to establish a rigorous, innovative and interdisciplinary approach that is no longer hobbled by the agenda of the left.”

Elam and Jarosek might be more credible if they didn’t insist that the hard-won results of feminism are based on modern-day chivalry. Jarosek writes that women didn’t fight to earn their right to equal treatment under the law but that the Violence Against Women Act is equivalent to “the traditional obligation requiring men to protect their women-folk” and that affirmative action is “men offering up their workplace seats to ladies in the work environment.” He laments that “where old-fashioned chivalry conditioned men to treat women with respect, today’s anti-harassment laws and VAWA legislate for men to continue treating women with respect.”

What Jarosek and men like him don’t want to admit is that if men actually did behave in the way he describes, there would be no need for legislation. Of course this is a guy who believes a woman took his job, that it was his “workplace seat” to offer up in the first place.

Male studies is just one more attempt to mourn the fate of the American Male, Endangered Species. With each economic downturn or advance women make, the outcry gets louder. And while some academics may play to the current right wing zeitgeist and win a few supporters, they shouldn’t start tolling the bell for feminism quite yet. Its death has been pronounced one too many times for anyone to take such a proclamation seriously any time soon.

Photograph by Diana Blackwell // CC 2.0.

Comments

  1. @David,

    By using “feminism” as a label to describe those “only concerned with female supremacy” instead of “the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes,” it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that your hostility to feminism (as you uniquely define it) is hostility to women’s equality in general rather than to certain specific issues.”

    Do you know why it is easy to jump to this conclusion, rather than accept my statement on face value? Because women already have political, economic and social equality with most men. Women do not have equality with the top 1% of men, but neither do most men. Now do you see why I am hostile to female supremacy? I would think that you too would be hostile to someone who proposes the supremacy of one gender over the other.

    You mentioned the Equal Rights Amendment, but again, where did I say I was against that? Sounds good to me. In fact, passage of the ERA would pave the way for women’s registration in the selective service, so I am all for it. The most strident opposition was from Phyllis Shlafly, but when she passes I am confident it will be ratified by two-thirds of all legislatures.

    “…your description of human sexuality as described by “many anthropologists” seems strangely traditional.” No, it does not. It is your interpretation which is strangely traditional. It is biological edict that men are naturally polygamous, not my opinion. Monogamy is an aspect of civilization, not a cause of it. Women, conversely, are hypergamous, and by that I mean they seek partnership with one mate until a more preferable one comes along. I made no inference or suggestion of chastity or virtue with regard to female sexuality.

    The problem I have with feminist historiography is that there are many questionable if not outright false assumptions, chiefly that women never had a choices before, never had agency, and never had equality. Neither did men. The seafarers union which I used to work for only gained the right not to be whipped for its seamen in 1910, approximately 100 years ago. For the bulk of humankind, up until the 20th century, the choice was to work wherever you could, at whatever was offered, or starve.

    Asbestos was outlawed in the 1970’s, but prior to that it was applied as insulation without any protective headgear or mask of any kind. Thousands of men have died of lung cancer from breathing airborne fibers -and next to zero women have.

    29 coal miners, all men, died in West Virginia recently as a result of an explosion. The wives are understandably devastated -but they are alive.

    When you or Aletha say that women had no choices in the past, and were not equal, and were without agency, what precisely do you mean? Do you mean that women were not able to vote…in the Pleistocene? Do you feel that women had a rough go of it in WW1, when millions of men died breathing poison gas? Please explain.

    I am particularly galled that the National Organization for Women is against Shared Parenting, because they feel it will be an end to child support. How altruistic is that, David, Aletha? How magnanimous and generous is it to alienate fathers from their progeny, and use them as weapons or pawns in Family Court?

    Men have no reproductive rights or choices. If a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy, the man has no choice in the matter. If she chooses to carry the child to term, again, the man has no choice. Women initiate 70% of all divorces, boredom and lack of fulfillment being the reason.

    Men are the recipients of 50% of all domestic violence, yet there is no Violence against Men Act.

    How just is it that only males are required to register in the selective service?

    Why are there millions of dollars of federal funds targeted to women’s health and breast cancer awareness, and hardly a dollar to male suicide, which is four times that of females?

    Why are men over 90% of workplace fatalities? Where are the feminists championing these causes?

    Why do feminists continue spinning the lie that there is a gender wage gap, when this lie has been exposed as a hoax, even by the US DOL in a recent study? When controlled for the fact that women take on average 5- 8 years off of the workforce to raise small children, there is no disparity in pay. Single and childless women make more than single and childless men. Women make choices which influence their pay, and this includes the choice to work in a climate-controlled office; the choice to work where there is low commute; the choice to work less overtime. When controlled for the above factors, there is no gender wage gap.

    During the two decades of its existence, the American Men’s Studies Association’s membership has never exceeded 150 men and a few women. How balanced is it when there are 150 men who represent gender equity from a male perspective, and possibly 150,000 to 15 million women are organized to represent issues of gender equity from a female perspective? Do you call that balance?

    There are more men in prison than ever before. Boys regularly fail academically, repeat grades and are punished more often than girls in elementary and secondary schools. Boys are expelled from high school in record numbers. While overall there are more people going to college, young males are now a minority (40%) on college campuses and the trend points to a further decrease over the next 20 years, unless the hemorrhage is stopped. Unemployment is now for the first time higher for men than for women, grossly exacerbated during the recent recession, especially for blue-collar workers. Drug abuse is rampant among young males, much of it iatrogenic, with Ritalin and related drugs being used to quash the kineticism of boys in schools which are now geared to the learning styles of girls. The spiritual life of young men has dimmed down as encounter with meaning is associated with the feminine, despite the fact that the world religions have been founded by males; the virtues of friendship between males have been forgotten and are read one-dimensionally by men and women.

    If after all I have outlined above seems to warrant not so much as a hint of interest to you, then I fear we are heading towards a disaster in the not so distant future. Both yours and Aletha’s concern for the plight of women is out of focus to the real problem facing society, that is the problems of men and boys. While it is true that most women are not equal to the top 1% of men, the fact is most men do not have political, economic, and social equality with most women. Now is not the time to be advancing the cause of privileged, white, middle-class women so that they can become equal to the top 1% of men. Our focus as a responsible people ought to be equipping boys with the tools they need to merely exist and function in the middle class alongside most women.

  2. David, I appreciate your attempts to explain feminism from a male point of view, but I have to quibble on a few points. I do not think people here are jumping to conclusions about men like Biff and Dave being opposed to equality for women. This statement by Dave, “It means if two people -a man and a woman – see a house on fire, then the woman can’t just stand there and cry while the man runs to save people,” is a classic sexist stereotype. This statement by Biff, “VAWA violates the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law. There is no VAMA, and men are recipients of 50% of all domestic violence,” is a staple of men’s rights propaganda. I do not think such distortions are unique to them, or even rare; they are deliberate distortions fueling the backlash against feminism.

    Biff also stated, “Male Studies wishes to study the phenomenon of misandry in our culture. Additionally, Male Studies challenges core tenets of Feminism, which is that gender is a social construct.” To equate feminism with misandry, and to deny that gender is a social construct, tells me all I need to know to conclude the proponents of male studies are indeed opposed to equality for women, not just feminism as they claim. They can define equality to suit their purposes so as to make it seem they are on the side of equality, as opposed to feminists, but it is utterly self-serving and absurd for a dominant class to define what equality should mean for the subordinate class.

    Also, there are some women calling themselves radical feminists who actually do believe in female supremacy. Mary Daly was perhaps the best known. Some go so far as to proudly proclaim they hate men. I know, because I have battled with them. There are many branches of feminism. It is by no means monolithic. That is another myth opponents of feminism promulgate, that feminists have created our own dogma and do not tolerate any dissent. Feminists have created new theories, philosophies, ways of looking at things, ideas for cleaning up the colossal mess the powers that be have created. Feminism is not just about equality; it is as diverse as any movement, which would make the attempts of men to paint it as a misandric monolith comical, if it were not for the fact that many men (and women reluctant to identify as feminists) believe the most extreme wing of feminism represents the entire movement.

  3. “They can define equality to suit their purposes so as to make it seem they are on the side of equality, as opposed to feminists, but it is utterly self-serving and absurd for a dominant class to define what equality should mean for the subordinate class.”

    There you go again, Aletha. The equality that you want for women is an equality which matches the top 1% of men, not men as a whole, and you want it for 100% of women. No one buys that women are a subordinate class. I repeat: no one. Single and childless women earn more than single and childless men. Those are facts. You wish to monopolize oppression, but you are losing said battle. Now it is men who are oppressed. Men are the new subordinate class.

    You never explain your case, you simply assume you are right. I, on the other hand, go to great lengths to elucidate the myriad ways in which men are discriminated against on a daily basis. I claimed that men are the recipients of 50% of domestic violence, and there are many studies which prove this. You merely claim it is ‘propaganda’. How is it there is VAWA and no VAMA? How is that fair? Please explain.

    Justice Department studies show that men are 32 percent less likely than women to report any form of violent victimization. Found in couples reporting spousal violence, 27 percent of the time the man struck the first blow; the woman in 24 percent. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same. a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington, found that only 59 percent of women jailed for spousal murder claimed self-defense and that 30 percent had previously been arrested for violent crimes.

    Women charged with killing their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases, while husbands charged with killing their wives were acquitted only 1.4 percent of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years, according to an LA Times article citing Department of Justice data.
    These findings, however, may have other problems. Women are far more likely to use weapons in their domestic violence, whether throwing a plate or firing a gun. Women are also much more likely than men to enlist help if they wish to kill their spouse; but such multiple-offender homicides are not counted toward domestic-violence statistics. In addition, Warren Farrell points out that there are several “female-only” defenses to murder charges, such as the posthumous allegation of abuse; in short, our data on rates of domestic homicide are incomplete.

    So do you wish to respond to specifics, Aletha? Or do you wish to continue to play games. Clearly you have been bested here. I have provided support and evidence to my claims. You have provided nothing. Nada.

    Here is the US DOL’s report on the gender wage gap myth:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf

    Here is Christina Hoff Sommers report on the lie of equal pay day:

    http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/the-equal-pay-day-reality-check

    Goodbye feminism! Hope you enjoy your stay at the graveyard of broken dreams!

  4. Dave, you are so predictable, I answered most of your points without even reading your latest bloviations! (They were in moderation when I composed my previous comment). I suppose I should concede I might have misinterpreted this statement, “It is perfectly clear that you want men to be chivalrous, because it keeps men pinned down into a safe little pigeonhole.” I actually thought you were saying something about chivalry being safe for women, but evidently, you were not saying anything about safety! No, in your view, chivalry was actually enforced by women! As if women had the power to enforce anything when women had no rights whatsoever, literally and legally the property of husbands! Are you aware how recently it became illegal for a man to rape his wife? A man could rape his wife with impunity in every state until 1976, because in the eyes of the law, he had a right to sex regardless of whether she wanted it! Where was her power to enforce chivalry or virtue? Where is the power of a battered woman? And you think you have something to tell me about the history of marriage?

    Get over yourself, Dave. You are not convincing anyone. Perhaps to your buddies, you sound great, kicking some feminist ass, but this is a feminist blog, and you have proved to my satisfaction that your interpretation of feminism is standard sexist tripe. You do not have to say explicitly that you are against women or equality, or in favor of discrimination; feminists know the drill, the denials and reversals characteristic of men’s rights activists. As I stated before, the purpose of this blog is not to explain Feminism 101 to confused men, or opponents of feminism, so I have not felt any desire to waste my time trying to enlighten you. I just wanted to draw you out to force you to show your true colors. I think I have done that, at least to my satisfaction.

    I imagine in your book, opposing affirmative action is distinct from opposing laws against discrimination. You can call that logic if you like; I call it deliberate distortion. And by the way, I have no fear of the truth, no reason to fear truth, and no desire to hide from it. Your conclusions about me are as silly and asinine as your conclusions about feminism. Do you realize you have accused virtually everyone who has commented on this post (i.e. besides you and Biff) of being female supremacists? What a joke. That certainly would be news to my significant other (a truly liberated man, in my humble opinion), and my male friends.

    • "I imagine in your book, opposing affirmative action is distinct from opposing laws against discrimination. You can call that logic if you like; I call it deliberate distortion."

      Why do strong, empowered women, who are every bit as capable as men,need government assistance to do what men already do with no assistance?

  5. Aletha : Thank you for your comments – and giving me the opportunity to address you directly and say how much I enjoy your posts ! It’s obvious that your blogs are just a small part of what you do and have done for The Cause, so belated thanks for that as well. As to the issue at hand, I agree that feminism isn’t monolithic, which is part of the reason it’s enjoyed spectacular success, and why I said “most everybody” and not “everyone” outside of Male Studies classes disagrees with the other Dave’s definition: (“I believe feminism is only concerned with female supremacy, not equality.”) There ARE female supremacists, separatists, and those who are the mirror image of misogynists, who hate all men for the actions of some. But they’re a pretty small fraction of those I’ve met in the 36 years since I went to my first N.O.W. meeting (after first peeking through the window to make sure that men were also present and presumably welcome!) But as much as I’ve been enjoying my 7 weeks’ old avocation of “blogging,” the fact that there are now only the three of us dialoguing on the “Male Studies” topic means that the activists’ version of “triage” may soon apply. Since there’s critical work to do, and limited time and personal resources to do it, don’t squander too much of either trying to convert the unconvertable OR preaching to the choir. Spend your time talking to those whose views aren’t set in stone, and still malleable. I already browse for your name first in the “Comments,” will continue to do so, and look forward to our posts being adjacent and similar on many future topics as well as this one. As for backlash, I always like to remember that it’s directly proportional to “frontlash,” so the more virulent it is, the more successful one must be. Just one example of feminism’s success: If someone had asked the students in my Greenville (Ohio) High School Class of 1964 to write down on a piece of paper what they expected to be doing after graduation, you could safely “bet the farm” that most any answer other than homemaker, secretary, teacher, librarian or nurse was written by a boy. Do that same test with the Class of 2010, and it would be unwise to wager a dime on the gender of the student who writes: “Go to the Naval Academy then serve on a ship at sea,” “repair cars,” “be a lawyer, then maybe a judge,” “do construction work,” “perform cardiac surgery,” “teach physics at M.I.T.,” “be a cop,” or “drive a big-rig truck.” There’s already a “critical mass” of women in virtually every occupation to serve as role models and act as mentors, and the equalization of political power in the U.S. between men and women is at unprecedented levels, though hardly equal as yet. There’s still a lot of hard work left to do, and we must constantly be on alert against attacks on our gains over a wide front. But as the ancient Middle-Eastern saying goes, “The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on ….”

  6. @Aletha,

    This is not a feminist blog. Take a look at the title again, please: “Meet the new kid on the block -Male Studies”.

    So let’s be clear: we are here to discuss the Cause of Male Studies. I hope you join me in this Cause.

    Safety, dear God, are we discussing safety now? I thought we were talking about chivalry.

    “No, in your view, chivalry was actually enforced by women! As if women had the power to enforce anything when women had no rights whatsoever, literally and legally the property of husbands”.

    Wait a second. You said women never had a choice before, but then again, neither did men. For example, the seafarers union which I used to work for only gained the right not to be whipped for its seamen in 1910, approximately 100 years ago. For the bulk of humankind, up until the 20th century, the choice was to work wherever you could, at whatever was offered, or starve.

    How fair is that, Aletha?

    As for marital rape, you make it sound as if that is something most men approve of. I therefore accuse both you and David of misandry, because you assume most men approve of marital rape. That is not only false, it is bigotry. You are a hatemonger. Marital rape is likely to be part of an abusive relationship. Interesting how you omitted that.

    There are many problems in cases of marital rape. While the law in theory may hold no distinction between a spouse or any other person, in practice when the case comes to court there will be difficulties in proving that rape in fact took place. This is because in marriage, sexual relations are to be expected, and if the defense claims consent, then the evidential burden is a very difficult burden for the prosecution to discharge.

    The very definition of consent can also lead to problems and deadlock, since social norms permit a varying level of physical intimacy (and freedom) depending on the relationship between the parties.

    A man could rape his wife with impunity in every state until 1976, because in the eyes of the law, he had a right to sex regardless of whether she wanted it! Where was her power to enforce chivalry or virtue? Where is the power of a battered woman? And you think you have something to tell me about the history of marriage?

    Good God! Do you think most men were raping their wives? Clearly you are insane. Do you think YOU have something to say about marriage? 50% of all domestic violence is perpetrated ON men! However, most men are reluctant to report abuse, as there are no support groups or shelters for battered men.

    Are you so sick that you honestly believe the history of the world is the history of the oppression of women? May I remind you that the vast majority of people in prison are men. The vast majority of war dead are men. The vast majority of workplace fatalities are man.

    The novel , Sense and Sensibility, follows the Dashwood sisters to their new home, a cottage on a distant relative’s property, where they experience both romance and heartbreak. The contrast between the sisters’ characters is eventually resolved as they each find love and lasting happiness. Through the events in the novel, Elinor and Marianne find a balance between sense (or pure logic) and sensibility (or pure emotion) in life and love.

    Question: are the above women without agency? Can you answer this question or do you wish to avoid it altogether, as both you and David have on all of my points?

    I encourage you to view the new academic discipline of Male Studies from a multi-disciplinary perspective, not one of simple feminist historiography.

    There’s already a “critical mass” of women in virtually every occupation to serve as role models and act as mentors, and the equalization of political power in the U.S. between men and women is at unprecedented levels, though hardly equal as yet. There’s still a lot of hard work left to do, and we must constantly be on alert against attacks on our gains over a wide front.”

    Again David, I remind you, that the equality you seek for women is an equality which matches the top 1% of men, not the whole of men, and you want it for 100% of women. We advocates for the rights of men and boys wish to see merely an equality for males which match the average female. Is that asking for too much?

    Please refer to my links on a prior post regarding the false gender gap and the one in this post which references a biological basis for male behavior:

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/

    Please join me and other fellow men’s rights activists as we seek equality for the ordinary male to match the equality of the ordinary female.

    Please help us to fight against the principle of the moral, aesthetic and
    intellectual superiority of the female gender, and the need to protect our sons as well as all boys against a matriarchal state.

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/

  7. Other Dave : I’m delighted to learn that you’re a fellow supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, and so I look forward to reading blogs by many Male Studies alumni about their experiences lobbying Congress alongside feminists in attempts to get H.J.R. 61 a speedy hearing, a 2/3 vote in both houses, and 38 state ratifications. Of course, that’s not why I brought up the issue. It was to show that the kind of widespread, long-term and vigorous support for an amendment that would ban all forms of gender bias against EITHER sex is inconsistent with your statement that “I believe feminism is only concerned with female supremacy, not equality.”

    Another proof, and interestingly enough, another area of total agreement between us, concerns Selective Service registration and the draft (the military being an area with which I have some personal familiarity, having registered for Selective Service on my 18th birthday, and spent my 22nd in uniform in Vietnam.) But when you justifiably complain of the unfairness of male-only registration and conscription, make sure to give partial and belated credit to the many feminists in the anti-draft movement for the fact that no American male less than 57 years of age has ever gone to his mailbox and worried that a draft notice might be inside. (The last of those “Greetings” from the President went out in December, 1972, to men born in 1953.) The all-volunteer military dates from 1973, and the substantial increase in the number of women in it, plus the vast expansion of jobs they can do – including many quite risky ones previously for men only – is why we have been able to fulfill our military needs with thousands of volunteer women instead of thousands of conscripted men. So it was feminists’ pushing hard for that expansion of women’s participation and roles in the armed forces that has saved many a man from being forced into service. Even more to the point, when mandatory registration was proposed again, after a four year absence, the National Organization for Women’s National Board stated in January, 1980: “Be it resolved, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and the draft for both men and women. NOW’s primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.” Though in 1981 the Supreme Court (9 men, 0 women) upheld by 6 to 3 the right of Congress (512 men, 23 women) to register and draft only men in Rostker vs. Goldberg, the Court, as well as the role of women in the military, has changed greatly in 29 years, and the time for a new challenge to such an overtly sexist policy may be ripe, as a gain of only two votes would be enough to end it.

    We’re fortunate to live in a nation where we all have the right to freely speak out in any forum we choose against any perceived injustice, and to start or join any advocacy group. The resurgence of the feminist movement and its transformation of society since Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” hit the bookstores in 1962 shows that the basic principles of feminism struck a chord with many women – and men. Should the supporters of Male Studies make a similarly strong case, and strike an equally responsive chord, then they, too, will have a similarly great impact.

  8. So, I want 100% of women to be equal to only the top 1% of men ? Well, I did mention a few elite occupations, such as cardiac surgeon, college professor and judge, but I also mentioned women being sailors, repairing cars, doing construction work, and driving trucks. And I hardly think the women soldiers serving in Iraq – in some cases because feminists pushed for repeal of many restrictions on their assignments – feel themselves members of a special, powerful, privileged class, because I sure didn’t feel that way when I was in a combat zone in 1968.

    I think dialogs between feminists and Male Studies advocates are a good thing, but this one no longer seems to be. The use of personal insults, which began our own dialog and have lately been escalating in posts to another blogger makes me question the wisdom of having given you the same respect that your ideas may very well deserve. And I’m sure others feel the same, so you haven’t been getting as many responses as you might like, or as many as you need to dialog with a lot of people and make an impact on them. You don’t call those who disagree with you “insane” or “sick,” as you did in a recent post to someone else. And no, it’s not “chivalry” that makes me offended, because I would feel the same way if you made the same comments about a male. There’s a difference between “chivalry” and common decency. We both oppose the former, but I hope one day we will both embrace the latter, because the concept of men’s rights is as worthy as that of women’s rights, and deserving of a better defense.

  9. ” the concept of men’s rights is as worthy as that of women’s rights, and deserving of a better defense.”

    feminist have been fighting for mens rights along side womens rights. You cannot fight to change society without fighting to make mens lives better. I am sorry you are not able to see how feminism does and has helped men. I know pleanty of men who are living better lives thanks to feminism. So stop trying to pretend you are some victim of feminism, it is embarrassing. Also you obviously cannot believe male studies will try to make mens lives better by putting men into a box and trying to make them stay in socially constructed roles. That is what hurts them in the first place. It’s a joke if you actually think male studies will help men. The men I know in academics (which is a lot considering I’m in academics) also realize that male studies is a joke and won’t help them.

  10. It may come a surprise to many but domestic violence has been an issue mainly addressed through the polarized and secular interests of women’s advocacy groups. The reason there was so little data on male victims is because no one ever cared to look at males to begin with… We have learned much since my colleagues and I along with others in this field of study began studying domestic violence as domestic violence.

    Statistics show that while men tend to inflict injury at higher rates, the majority of domestic violence overall is reciprocal.

    Very few studies have shown men to aggress more frequently than women. However, until recently the bulk of domestic violence research did not even ask about woman-on-man violence. It has also been found that many kinds of behavior, such as pushing and slapping, are experienced by both genders, but are mainly called “violence” by female victims. Early studies that merely asked “have you been a victim of domestic violence” did find far lower levels of male victims; but when they asked about specific behaviors (“have you been slapped, punched,…), the numbers evened out. Justice Department studies show that men are 32 percent less likely than women to report any form of violent victimization.

    In couples reporting spousal violence, 27 percent of the time the man struck the first blow; the woman in 24 percent. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.

    Coramae Richey Mann, a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington, found that only 59 percent of women jailed for spousal murder claimed self-defense and that 30 percent had previously been arrested for violent crimes.

    Women charged with killing their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases, while husbands charged with killing their wives were acquitted only 1.4 percent of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years, according to an LA Times article citing Department of Justice data.

    These findings, however, may have other problems. Women are far more likely to use weapons in their domestic violence, whether throwing a plate or firing a gun. Women are also much more likely than men to enlist help if they wish to kill their spouse; but such multiple-offender homicides are not counted toward domestic-violence statistics. In addition, Warren Farrell points out that there are several “female-only” defenses to murder charges, such as the posthumous allegation of abuse; in short, our data on rates of domestic homicide are incomplete.

    There is a whole source of new evidence to suggest that some of the research into family abuse has been politicized. Sam and Bunny Sewell, Family Resources & Research state that “However, misleading statistics are a deliberate fund raising tactic for women’s shelters. The shelter movement almost never mentions scientific studies.

    I think women and men are equally responsible for any amount of domestic violence. After all, a woman has to ask herself why she is in an abusive relationship in the first place, doesn’t she?

  11. Lisa: I totally agree with everything you said – and can see how the last sentence in my last blog could be misinterpreted. As a new blogger, pardon my not realizing that in the context of this debate, my saying the concept of “men’s rights” is as worthy as “women’s rights” could be seen as meaning that I support either the “Male Studies” or the “masculinist” view instead of the feminist view. But I DO believe that feminism defends men’s rights as well as women’s, which is why I’ve been an active feminist since joining N.O.W. in 1974, and never a defender of “Male Studies.” If you go back and read all my previous blogs, you’ll find that I’ve been vigorously challenging, not defending, the “Male Studies” advocate’s contention that feminism is about “female supremacy” by showing how feminism is both a women’s AND men’s rights movement, because equality is by definition a two-sided coin, and achieving it for women will automatically achieve it for men. Just a couple of recent examples I used were the fact that feminists invented, and have strongly pushed for, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would ban ALL discrimination based on gender, and in a post that’s still on this page, I noted that it was feminists who helped end the male-only draft, and that N.O.W. is opposed to male-only Selective Service registration. I DO think dialog between ALL opposing groups is a good thing, not because I believe that each side is equally correct, but because it’s the only way for the truth to emerge, although such dialogs must be conducted with civility and courtesy, which was my main point in that paragraph. As noted in a previous blog, feminism experienced explosive growth because it struck a chord in many American women and men – I among them – and the fact that “Male Studies” is still a fringe movement is proof that it hasn’t. I don’t have any fears about “Male Studies” advocates being able to erase the gains made by feminism over the past 162 years, because in a free exchange of ideas we will continue to win out. Although the huge response to this topic has caused the first 50 or so responses to be deleted from this page, they’re all still available in the “Comments” section, so if you go back to April 19th at 9:34 a.m. you’ll find that I’ve been supportive of the definition of feminism that we both share, that of equal rights and responsibilities for women and men. My later responses are on April 20 at 8:41 a.m., April 22 at 10:54 a.m. and the blogs for April 24 at 11:18 a.m. and 3:32 p.m. are still on this page. Thank you for reading this lengthy response, and I’ll try to be more clear in the future !

  12. “and the fact that “Male Studies” is still a fringe movement is proof that it hasn’t.”

    No sir, it is not proof. It is proof that Male Studies has just begun, that is what it proves. It also proves that you feel threatened. You have not explained why, you have simply assumed automatically, that it must be bad. Male Studies will be challenging some aspects of feminism, not all. But don’t you think feminist dogma should be challenged? If it is indeed a hate movement, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon us to examine it?

    Lisa, why do you automatically assume Male Studies will put men in a box when I have asserted on a number of occasions that it is precisely out of the box that men are wanting? All you have said is that Male Studies is ipso facto bad for men, end of. Please explain.

    Did you know that the foremost scholar on Men’s Studies castrated himself, and is now a woman? I have no qualms with that if that is what one chooses to do, because it is a personal choice. However, should this be the pre-eminent scholar on Men’s Studies?

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/22/mens-studies-foremost-authority-opts-for-castration-literally/

    If you wish to know more about Male Studies, here is a link:

    http://www.malestudies.org/

    Male Studies, as I have stated explicitly, is seeking to free men from outdated codes of conduct, like chivalry, which is congruent with feminist thought. It is feminists who want to do away with chivalry, also. However, as I have elucidated in prior posts, there is fair evidence to suggest that women, by and large, wish to poach the best of both worlds: the freedom from monogamous responsibility coupled with the benefits of being hitched to a monogamous provider.

    Women now earn more money than men and we are well on our way to creating a caste of slaves -men. It is our duty as civilized people to ensure that bigotry and hatred of men is unacceptable. Please listen to the podcast I have provided.

    Thank you Marla for those statistics, and I do hope that the truth comes out so that more people are able to sift through the evidence to discern the truth. Domestic violence is part of a pattern within an abusive relationship. For more on domestic violence, please see the excellent videos produced at:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth

    Lastly David, it truly saddens me that you think Male Studies is an attempt to erase the gains of women over the years, when in fact what Male Studies seeks are questions, not answers. We seek an initiative, not a conclusion. We seek to end the bigotry and hatred of males.

  13. “However, should this be the pre-eminent scholar on Men’s Studies?”

    Should THIS? That is a transphobic remark. Yes, they should be a scholar on men’s studies. You don’t need to have a penis to study men. To even think a person does is sexist. Aren’t you against sexism? Or are you only against sexism towards men and not women?

  14. @Lisa,

    Yes, THEY should be a scholar on men’s studies.

    Should THEY? That is a transphobic remark. No, SHE shouldn’t be a scholar on men’s studies. You do need to have a penis to study men. To even think a person doesn’t is sexist. Aren’t you against sexism? Or are you only against sexism towards women and not men?

    Are you telling me that Women’s Studies classes should be taught by men? Are you telling me that the National Organization for Women should be headed by men? Are you telling me that African-American Studies should be taught by white men? Please explain.

    Your charge of sexism is met by my equal charge of bigotry. You are a bigot, Lisa. By not allowing men to have their own voice, to claim ownership of their own gender, you are a sexist and a bigot.

  15. “Yes, THEY should be a scholar on men’s studies.”
    I was not just talking about her. I was talking about anyone who is trans.

    Are you telling me that Women’s Studies classes should be taught by men?
    Yes, women’s studies can be taught by men and should be if they have studied gender or women’s issues. I’ve had women’s studies professors who are male.

    Are you telling me that the National Organization for Women should be headed by men?
    If they are qualified, why can’t they be a leader in the organization? I’m not a fan of NOW for many reasons. If a man advocates feminism, why shouldn’t he be an activist in a feminist organization?

    Are you telling me that African-American Studies should be taught by white men?
    If he has studied in the field, why shouldn’t he teach a class on African American studies?

    It is ridiculous for you to assume I would be against someone teaching a class based on their gender or race. If they were unqualified to teach the class, I’d have a problem with them teaching the class. However their race nor gender makes them unqualified to teach a class.

    “By not allowing men to have their own voice, to claim ownership of their own gender, you are a sexist and a bigot.”
    That comment is just ridiculous. Men have their own voice in academics and through mens studies. They have their own voice in most fields, women’s studies being the exception because its about women. I hate the fact that we need women’s studies so women’s experiences and lives can be studied.

  16. There is an old saying among veterans of Internet wars, do not feed the trolls. I have concluded Dave is a troll, so I feel no compulsion to respond any further. If anyone wonders what drove me to that conclusion, many things, but this byplay between Dave and Maria cinched it. Maria is a sock puppet for Dave, and I would not be at all surprised if Dave is a sock puppet for Biff Longcock. A simple comparison between the words in the three paragraphs starting with “Justice Department studies show …” in the comment Dave made April 23, 2010 at 12:12 pm and ending “… in short, our data on rates of domestic homicide are incomplete.” with the words scattered across five paragraphs in the comment by Maria reveals only four words are different, as though Dave went through part of his previous comment and made a couple of corrections, then reposted it as though it were another person, a woman taking his side. This is standard operating procedure for trolls, though often they are a bit more careful to cover their tracks.

    Give it up, Biff/Dave/Maria. The gig is up; your game has been exposed. I do not know the policy of this blog on trolls, but there is no point in arguing with somebody so disingenuous. This troll is just here to stir up whatever trouble he can, as I suspected. I doubt he even cares how foolish he sounds; all is fair in love and war, and this is war, right? Is this the best the proponents of male studies can do, send a troll over here to strike fear into the hearts of those evil feminists? Is that not the impetus behind male studies, to free men from the allegedly pernicious influence of feminism?

  17. Engaging Men in Discovering a New Masculinity
    By Rob Okun

    The struggle underway to redefine manhood and masculinity is playing out in the halls of Congress, in pop culture, and in desperate protests to maintain an outmoded view of what our country should look—and be—like. It’s a story not being covered well—or often—by mainstream media.

    For as far as many men have come over the last generation in accepting—if not embracing—the historic world-changing gains women have made, there are others yearning for the bad old days when men were the kings of their castles. Rather than seeing in feminism a portal to our own personal growth, many men narrowly see it as a threat to the status quo. Many show great disdain for women’s rights. Sadly, it’s those men’s shrill voices that are getting much play, clogging the airwaves and the blogosphere.

    During the last presidential campaign, Barack Obama represented a break from conventional manhood; John McCain was its standard bearer. A year and half into his presidency, Mr. Obama is still seen as a sensitive and thoughtful man, a caring husband and devoted father, even as many of his policy decisions come under fire from progressive quarters. But the debate about a new direction for manhood is largely absent.

    Men’s were among the harshest voices warning of Armageddon during the health care debate, and in the bitter diatribes directed at President Obama as well as civil rights veteran John Lewis and liberal Barney Frank—both members of Congress (The great exception was Sarah Palin, a self-described pit bull with lipstick.) But while the media highlights mean-spirited men, there is another side of the story— men around the world working for gender equality.

    Under the umbrella of MenEngage (www.menengage.org), there are hundreds of groups and organizations which understand the crucial need for men and women to question conventional attitudes and expectations about gender roles in reaching gender equality. Among their efforts is a men and gender equality policy project underway in Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Croatia, Mexico, South Africa and Tanzania. Other countries are expected to participate in the coming years.

    Founded in 2004, MenEngage members are dedicated to involving men and boys in working to end violence against women and in redefining old-style notions of manhood. Among its core beliefs? Manhood is not defined by how many sexual partners men have, or by using violence against women or men. It’s also not defined by how much pain men can endure, or by how much power we can exert over others. It certainly isn’t defined by whether we’re gay, straight or trans.

    Rather, manhood is defined by building relationships based on respect and equality; by speaking out against violence in society; by having the strength to ask for help; by sharing decision-making and power; and by how much we as men are able to respect the diversity and rights of those around us. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Sounds achievable. So what gets in our way? The power, privilege and sense of entitlement we enjoy as men.

    Taking a hard look at privileges we’ve long held is a “manly” thing to do if, by manly we mean courageous, thoughtful, and caring. What happens for men when we question the entitlement we inherited simply by being born in male bodies? What shifts for us when we no longer assume social conditions favoring us are right, or just, or “normal?” A transformation begins. A door opens, an invitation to explore our inner lives is extended and it’s suddenly not quite as scary to spend time exploring our feelings. We become more available to ourselves and to women, men, and children—to everyone in our lives. So tightly have we been holding on to what we’ve perceived as our birthright, few have considered what treasures await us if we let go. How to compare discovering one’s heart opening vs. needing open heart surgery? How to equate surrounding ourselves with symbols of wealth vs. surrounding ourselves with circles of friends?

    A new report by the Men and Gender Equality Policy Project, notes, “In far different ways than women and girls, boys are also made vulnerable by rigid notions of gender and masculinities.” Conventional expressions of dominant masculinity, ample research confirms, drive dangerous rates of alcohol, tobacco, and substance abuse, car accidents, occupational illness, and suicide. In such a world, everyone loses, not just the men. “For the most part,” the report says, “programs and policies have not fully tapped into men’s and boys’ self-interest for change,” particularly in the positive experiences many men report as they become more involved in caregiving and family relationships.

    Careful not to pit the needs of men against the needs of women, the report promotes forging alliances among “women’s rights activists, civil society groups working with men (and male leaders), the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [communities] and other social justice movements.” Noting the common interests all these groups share in ending gender inequalities, the report advocates taking up gender equity as a cause not only for women and girls “but also to reduce the pressures on men and boys to conform to harmful, rigid, and violent forms of manhood.”

    That pressure to conform—combined with a sense of privilege—is a dangerous mix. I favor cultivating the middle ground where men explore our lives after letting go of the pressure, after giving up the privilege. I see plenty of examples that give me hope and inspiration.

    I edit the profeminist magazine, VOICE MALE, and am a member of V-Men, the male arm of V-Day (www.vday.org), the antiviolence organization playwright-activist Eve Ensler (The Vagina Monologues) founded that works to prevent violence against women and girls and, more recently, to advance healthy masculinity as a key to a world where all are safe and free. The writer Mark Matousek, a V-Men writer, is interviewing men for a book exploring men’s lives as they really are—filled with disappointments as well as successes, fear and vulnerability as well as confidence and strength, love lost and love found. To me it’s a critical component of a strategy to encourage men to move from being bystanders to allies (if not activists) in the struggle to end violence against women, girls and men. And in overcoming the damaging effects of conventional masculinity.

    What will it take for us as men to face our full humanity? What will it take for us to wake up to the healing the world is crying out for? Men relinquishing our privilege, willing to investigate our inner lives, doing the work of integration so that the personal becomes the global. Men engaged in that work are the ones the media would be well advised to report on if they truly want to be fair and balanced. But whether they do or not, it’s up to us as men to take a long, hard look at how we’ve been socialized—from boyhood on—and to decide what to keep, what to transform.

    This is the moment to ask the deepest questions of ourselves, to wake up to our potential as full human beings. The urgency of these times—environmentally, politically, spiritually demands we take our place with women in the work of global transformation. The world is waiting.

    Rob Okun is editor of Voice Male magazine, a writer and psychotherapist in Amherst, Mass. His, “From the Editor” blog can be found at http://www.voicemalemagazine.org. Reach him at rob@voicemalemagazine.org.

    Rob Okun, Editor & Publisher
    VOICE MALE Magazine
    male positive ▪ profeminist ▪ open-minded
    33 Gray Street ▪ Amherst, MA 01002
    413.687-8171 ▪ http://www.voicemalemagazine.org

  18. @Aletha,

    Indeed, this thread is about Male Studies. The female role, says Margaret Mead, is a biological fact; the male role is a social creation. This is the primary reality concerning human society. Motherhood has been the dominant feature of mammalian life since its beginning some two hundred million years ago, most conspicuously since the great reptiles became extinct and the Age of Mammals began sixty-five million years ago. Fatherhood in the sense of major male participation in reproduction is only a few million years old. Fatherhood in the sense of male headship of families is only a few thousand years old.

    It is my hope that you would address these issues; I still believe there is a kernel of goodness in you, that you are concerned about the growing underclass of males. There was a time when men realized women’s position in society needed elevating, and so corrections were made to elevate the status of women. For the sake of your sons, your brothers, it is now time for the privileges you enjoy to be extended to the male underclass.

  19. “Rather than seeing in feminism a portal to our own personal growth, many men narrowly see it as a threat to the status quo.”

    Au contraire. It is you you who are threatened by the recent questioning of feminism. Why aren’t you embracing the new academic discipline of Male Studies? I would think you would be overjoyed. By the way, Eve Ensler wants every man to embrace his ‘inner girl’. Are you certain that isn’t bigotry?

    There has arisen a murmuring and a discontent among academic feminists who sense a threat to the feminist/sexual revolution in the public’s awareness of the social pathology of female-headed families, a pathology whose existence they would like to deny. “Women,” wrote Ramsey Clark in 1970, in his celebrated book Crime in America, “are not a threat to the public.” But he also wrote, in discussing the male juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public, that “three-fourths came from broken homes.” That means mostly female-headed homes. That means that while the single mothers of these criminals do not themselves commit crimes and go to prison, the socialization they give their children has an extraordinarily high correlation with the male crime of the next generation. This socialization, in fact, is the “root cause of crime” which Clark wrote his book to explore. He had found the explanation he sought and he didn’t know it. It was concealed by the generation-long time-lag between cause and effect and by the sex-switch between generations: like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females–or rather by single females.

    If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is its relationship with the female-headed family. Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.

    If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what we must do is reduce the number of female-headed families; what we must do is prevent the divorce courts from expelling half of society’s fathers from their homes; what we must do is terminate a welfare system which displaces millions of men from the principal male role, that of family-provider. What we must do is make the father the head of the family.

    What is happening to our society is that it is discarding patriarchal sexual regulation and reverting to the primeval mammalian pattern of a reproductive unit consisting of the mother and her offspring, the male putting in an appearance to perform his miniscule sexual function and then disappearing or being hauled away to the sausage factory or being reduced to the role of stud who can be discarded when his female tires of him. “Men and women,” rejoices feminist-anthropologist Helen Fisher, “are moving toward the kind of roles they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago….Human society is now discovering its ancient roots….The recent trend toward divorce and remarriage is another example of a throwback to earlier times….[T]he so-called new extended family [read: broken family] may actually have evolved millennia ago….At long last, society is moving in a direction that should be highly compatible with our ancient human spirit….The ‘traditional’ role of women is a recent invention.”

    Biologically speaking, it is indeed a recent invention, scarcely older than the civilization which it made possible and which emerged coevally with it and created the wealth which reconciled women to accepting it. But women’s new economic independence is leading them to yearn for a return to the prehistoric mammalian arrangement. “[W]herever women are economically powerful,” says Fisher, “divorce rates are high. You see it in the Kung and you see it in the United States.” Let’s say, wherever women are economically powerful and there are no social guarantees to ensure male headship of families, divorce rates are high–such being the case among the Kung and the Americans. The Kung have no social guarantees to ensure male headship of families because the Kung never emerged from the Stone Age. The Americans have no social guarantees to ensure male headship of families because there exists an elementary confusion in the heads of policy makers, lawmakers and judges, who imagine that the obvious strength of the biological tie between the mother and the infant (the “biological fact” Margaret Mead refers to) means that it requires their assistance. A biological fact does not require the services of the legal system. What does require these services is the weakest biological link in the family, the role of the father. It was the creation of this role–only a few thousand years ago–which made patriarchal civilization possible. Prior to that, mankind had to muddle through the million years of the Stone Age with the female-headed reproductive arrangements of the ghetto, the barnyard and the rain forest.

    Mr. Okun, I believe you are acting in good faith. Would you do me the privilege of addressing the above concerns I have, as you can see our nation is in trouble, men are becoming discarded en masse. It is predicted that by 2030, 30% of american men will have no reproductive hope -they will be unmarriageable. The experiment of feminism should be questioned from time to time, do you agree? What are the results? Are we better off than we were in say, 1965? How so, by what measures? How do you explain a 40% illegitimacy rate?

    I will wait patiently for your response, but please, without the misandry.

  20. You cant blame the right wing boys for setting this up. As Rob Okun shows, the whole men’s studies field has been taken over by male feminists who care only about women. Perhaps Male Studies will turn out to be right wing lunacy, but if so its unlikely to do men any more damage than Okun’s mag.

  21. Now that the male-centric version of feminasty-ism is flowering on the net and a male studies program introduced, the end game commences. The thin edge of the wedge that will exterminate masculinity in the general populace and thus extend the power of the patriarchal elite. Notwithstanding the worthy noblese upon which feminism was founded its has been thoroughly co-opted by the elite, as is their standard operating procedure.

    The patrirach elite like Obama only want the other 95% of males to redefine masculinity in a way that does not threaten the elites. Da big boyz arent doing it themselves. They’re too busy sending another 50k killers to afghanistan, in the name of wiminz and kidz.

    Da femz have been wallowing in woe-is-me-victimhood identity since the mid 70s and now its time for da menz to get on board that sinking ship. Now we can all wallow in the navel-gazing self absorption of egoes fueled by pathetic identity politics. All social interaction is constructed. ALL of it. The roles, the narratives, the politcal ideolgies, the reactions, the classifications. Nothing escapes it. The myriad web of constructions is the prison. Now we all blather on about the shape of the cell block and without realising it, we reinforce the bars, the walls, the enforcement, the self-policing panopticon that is society.

    Masculinity has already been re-framed as a ‘me-too-victimhood’ projection-transference medley. Just look at the net arguments. Menz trying to out-victim-identity the femz. Loosing game that. On top of the self castrating feminine touch to male consciousness. Now the ‘touch-thyself’ self-absorbed ego masterbation of gender-identity in the form of male studies. Another say, 20yrs of it and the ruse will be well and truelly complete.

    The patriarchal elite (and their matriarchal maidens) is all about power, based on parentalistic psychology. Keep the masses mired in child like consciousness and they’ll go for psych-babbling narratives. That becomes the way to get people to keep themselves down. The patriarchal elite only fear the loss of power, which in the ultimate sense, is purely sensory, meaning physical. Hence they do not fear women, they fear their natural competitors. ie other men. All political movements or ideological constructs are mere patsies, useful fools in that battle amongst men. The women never really feature in it. There is no battle of the sexes, just a battle between the dominant sex (men). Everyone and everything in the social is device.

    Now that the men who were even beginning to manifest the type of thinking that is required to topple the elitist beast is falling nicely into goose stepping propaganda studies. Yaaaaaawn.

    To any and all that are truelly interested in reframing society… Don’t feed the beast or engage it. That validates it. That is what gives it authority, namely YOUR surrender to it.

    Opt out, as much as you can stomach. Let the thing eat itself.

  22. Hey, JayN, speak for yourself. We do not “all blather on about the shape of the cell block and without realising it, we reinforce the bars, the walls, the enforcement, the self-policing panopticon that is society.” You see, not all of us are co-opted. Some of us are well aware that this culture is fundamentally corrupt and that nothing short of thorough revisioning will change the suicidal trajectory that the powers that be are determined to maintain. The powers that be may think they have nothing to fear from women, but I for one am not content to wait for disenfranchised men to revolt. Perhaps you men who think women are too privileged and/or co-opted to have any significant part to play in making real changes happen should listen to that John Lennon song, Woman is the (N-word) of the World. Women are revolting, all over the world. Sooner or later, that will happen here as well.

  23. aletha,

    “nothing short of thorough revisioning will change”

    contradicts

    “not all of us are co-opted”

    You still think you can change the social order from this to that. Such practice merely reinforces the thing. You engage it, thus validate it. ie empower its authority to structure the lives of humans. To rob a human of their humanity and impose the social conditions of person-hood of classification. You see that as laudable, desirable. You are asleep. It is no sin, the operating system is powerful.

    Your engagement of society on its terms authorises it. You surrender your innate authority. That is society. The tribe owns you and you willingly indenture yourself to it by allowing it to exploit your co-dependencies. You human condition. Then you relate to others on that very same basis and the meme spreads. Its not complicated, its very simple, which is what makes the tribal modus so effective.

    “Perhaps you men who think women are too privileged and/or co-opted to have any significant part to play in making real changes happen should listen to that John Lennon song, Woman is the (N-word) of the World. Women are revolting, all over the world. Sooner or later, that will happen here as well.”

    Speak for yourself. At a guess l’d say 5 in 1000 men and 1 in 10,000 women arent fully co-opted or can clearly see the folly of the system, WITHOUT engaging and thus reinforcing it by trying to change its programming. lm not one of those people. l can look at it, but a slave l still am. One with a weekend release. One who knows how to disable the ankle bracelet and leave home detention, occasionally.

    You dont ‘make change happen.’ Change makes you happen and you are ultimately powerless to do anything about it. You cannot change the direction of the wind, only set your sail and course in relation to it. Or go to safe harbour. Dock the boat. Leave the crazy and maddening oceans.

    And quoting a song lyric from an over-privileged white male writer is a double dose of not getting it at all. Lennon was just another poet patsy, collecting accolades and pieces of silver, whilst pretenting otherwise. Ah, pretending. Its a wonderful pressure release valve.

    If women are the worlds N, then men are the hammer and furnace that’s used to make the chains. One thing you will never accept is that men have suffered in silence and whatever men do to women, they save the worst of it for each other. You will never acknowledge it. Never support you brothers. You will only do it to the extent that it serves you. And maintains society.

    Your movement of overcoming under-class, under-privilege and oppression is just a distraction for you, but mostly for the generality of men who live under the boot. You will never accept such a challenge to your world view, for you are too ensconced in victmhood and fear. Your fear, your need for the illusions of safety and security are borne of fear and they are used against you in the form of society. Who claims to protect you. From reality no less. You are a citizen. Property of the tribe, society, state. You’re birth certificate, your social and legal identity is their title of ownership. They wont let you move freely without being branded.

    What the oligarchs and indentured dependents really fear is detachment, the withdrawal of support and passive slavery. It doesnt matter what the social programming is. What you want to change it to is another version of the same thing. A lot of menz and wimminz can already see that. And many females have a deep fear da menz disengagement. They’re freedom be a threat to the social order.

    Personally l think all the socio-politcal guff is rubbish anyway and l just try to minimise my exposure and subserviance to it. Occassionally plugging into the freak show via da intanetz and mocking the actors. It relieves my frustration at the oblivious fools who dont realise how they support the whole charade.

    “Women are revolting”
    “that will happen here as well”

    er, Fruedian slips?

    Anyway no one’s formenting revolution. They’re all rearranging the furnishings, the colour schemes and the rules in their prison (society). There’s nothing else they can do IN society. Sort of like rearranging deck chairs and arguing over who gets the caviar on the titanic.

    In any event good luck, but stay away from the red pill.

  24. Ugh. What creeps. At least this serves as a warning sign for college aged women. Now there's one more indicator of who not to date!

    "…male and female organisms…"
    Do you mean… people? O_o

    "where old-fashioned chivalry conditioned men to treat women with respect, today’s anti-harassment laws and VAWA legislate for men to continue treating women with respect.”
    Oh no! You're right, not harrassing or beating women should be a choice, not the law or anything.

  25. "The agenda of the left" and similar phrases always make me laugh because it makes the ridiculous assumption that the left has ever been united enough to draw up an "agenda." Really? Is this the same left that has failed in Canada to support any one party enough to get it elected for the past several years? The "left" here like the NDP….or the Liberals…Or the Green Party…or think the whole thing is frakkin pointless. Or they vote for the Work Less party or any one of a dozen other leftist causes. The left doesn't have an agenda. We don't even have a truce.

  26. These people are only wanting to be treated fairly by the law and the media.
    They are not right wing loonies.
    I am in my mid forties now. I have spent my whole life being told that I am a scumbag because I am male and that women are superior in all respects. I'm sick of hearing that.
    I used to be quite sympathetic to your movment until I became a target of a sexual harraser.
    I am being seriously sexually harrased by a women at the moment and there is nothing that I can do about it …. if I were to try and stop her, she would almost certainly make something up about me and I would be arrested and charged, though I have never touched or encouraged this woman at all . This has been going on for 3 years now. Eventually, I may even have to change my name, or even emigrate.
    I have become a virtual prisoner …what is my main risk? ….. accusation.
    Is this social progress that I, as a law abiding person should have no protection, and be left at someone elses mercy?,

  27. Don't say …. " that's the story of women all over the place …."
    I have never abused a women and should not have to pay for the crimes of other men. That's medieval jusstice.
    My basic human rights are being abused, I should be able to live without this harrasment and it is an outrage that I could risk going to jail if I do anything about it.
    When will you women realize that most men are not rapists, not priveliged, not molesterers etc … just decent men who work hard to support thier family.
    Your movement is the right wing one!
    You define rights and asses the worth of people based on their genetic / birth status.
    You condem, mock and ridicule others based on their birth status.
    Is this your idea of equality?

  28. Why the ridiculous photo of the naked man crouched on the table?
    His posture could easily be from a movie showing a confused and overwhelmed cave man beamed into the future … not very flattering .. or representational for that matter.
    Wasn't one of the main tenants of feminism not to show degrading representations of women?
    So what is the rule? … I don't follow….. is it ok now to degrade others with naked, demeaning shots ….. or is it not?
    Or could it be, that there is one rule for women and one for men?
    Your movement had better get used to people asking for clarification of what appears to be unfettered double standards, or put another way ….. hypocrisy.
    To me, what your choice of photo shows, is that the true nakedness is your hypocrisy … not the man on the table.

  29. Well, this is going to fail (in an academic sense) every bit as badly as Womens’ Studies and feminist ideology in general, because it makes the same error of reasoning based on homogenous classes and unifactorial power structures. Also, in analysing from an inherently biased base set of assumptions.

    Womens Studies is a dismal failure as a discipline studying gender, because it is only willing to consider women; that is inherent in its title and founding principles. A male studies programme will make the same error. Feminism, particularly in its most pure form characterised by the troika of Dworkin/Mackinnon/Steinem, for instance, analyses gender relations from an a priori assumption that the sex act itself is a unidirectional expropriation from the woman to the man. Such a dismal failure of basic understanding of human psychology and biology would render any other field an immediate laughing stock; only the hysterical level of political activism has deluded our society into considering it even vaguely plausible.

    Feminism, anyway, is merely the old Social Purity Movement, rebranded; the neurotic erotophobia of the Victorian anglosphere upper class woman. There is no male analogue, and so it is difficult to see what this field is going to explore. A far deeper rethink will be required before we can as a society truly understand gender relations and, one fine day, banish the delusional feminist ideology from our minds and thus find freedom and understanding and, at last, peace.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Ms.Magazine: New Kid On The Block [...]

Speak Your Mind

*