A Joke of a Men’s Studies Center

fonda4The thrilling news was announced just a couple of weeks ago: the State University of New York at Stony Brook is starting a brand-new Women’s Studies Center. Among the distinguished members of its Advisory Board will be iconic Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, renowned stand-up comic Andrew “Dice” Clay, gridiron legend and screen actor extraordinaire O. J. Simpson, former President Bill Clinton…

Oh, sorry. My mistake. The real story is this: according to a May 20 press release, Stony Brook, which happens to be my (cough) alma mater (cough), has received a hefty grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to start a “Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities.” The Center, which will open this fall and which will also get additional funding from the university and from other (unnamed) donors, plans to offer an M.A. in Masculinity Studies, to host “the first international conference on Men and Masculinities in 2015,” and to hold seminars, forums, and all kinds of other activities on a regular basis.

But the real kicker (and what follows, unlike my first-paragraph attempt at whimsy, is no joke whatsoever) is the list of Advisory Board members. I’ll quote the press release in full – and keep in mind, please, that this is a Center supposedly devoted to the study of men, not women: “Members of the Center’s advisory board include Gloria Steinem, Martin Duberman, Jane Fonda, Eve Ensler, Carol Gilligan, James Gilligan, Frank Ochberg, Gov. Madeleine Kunin (Vermont), Catharine Stimpson and Hampden-Sydney College President Chris Howard.”

Where to start? Well, perhaps by noting that this list includes the names of six women and only four men. Six to four! Not to be a bean counter, as they say, but can you imagine a university press release in this day and age announcing the establishment of a new Women’s Studies Center and including more men’s names than women’s? Me neither.

Anyway, let’s unpack that list – shall we? – starting with the men. Who’s Duberman? He’s a longtime Queer Studies macher whose involvement in this undertaking is no surprise. James Gilligan is a psychiatrist who specializes in violence, and I guess he’s on the list partly because violence is perceived in the academy as the province of males – but probably even more so because he’s married to Carol Gilligan (see below). Ochberg, as I’ve just now learned from Wikipedia, is an M.D. who specializes in trauma; I have no idea why he’s part of this. And Howard, it appears, has a background in business, philanthropy, and the military; I suppose they tapped him at least in part because the military is also a guy thing. And it doesn’t hurt, given the way things work in the academy, that he’s African-American.

The real news, however, is that list of women. And what a list! Again, keep in mind that these people are going to preside over a Center whose purported purpose is to deepen our understanding of male identity. Gloria Steinem, longtime editor of Ms.? Vagina Monologues playwright Eve Ensler? Carol Gilligan, who in her 1982 book In a Different Voice attempted to identify a distinctively female way of thinking? Catherine Stimpson, founder of Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society and author of Where the Meanings Are: Feminism and Cultural Spaces? Madeleine Kunin, who in addition to being Governor of Vermont has written books entitled The New Feminist Agenda: Defining the Next Revolution for Women, Work, and Family and Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead?

Every single one of these women has evinced, over the course of her career (and most of these careers have been long ones indeed), a virtually undivided preoccupation with the study of women – not men, who appear in their work only marginally, and then almost exclusively as bullies, oppressors, impediments, encumbrances, annoyances, predators, and, at best, unnecessary appendages, the human equivalent of the vermiform appendix in the sense that they have no known useful function. (Steinem apparently wasn’t the first person to say that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” but she repeated it enough to make people think she’d made it up herself.)

And, oh yes: last but not least, Jane Fonda?

What’s wrong with this picture? Nothing, if you’re a member of the academy in the year 2013. At the relatively few colleges that offer courses in manhood and maleness and masculinity, it’s commonplace for those courses to be part of Women’s Studies departments or programs. (Stony Brook’s M.A. program in Masculinity Studies, we’re told, will be “a free-standing program associated with the Department of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies.”) For with very few – and very controversial – exceptions, the academy today peers at maleness through the narrow and highly distorted lens of PC academic feminism, the extent of whose understanding of the male of the species is pretty fairly summed up in the sentiment, drilled every year into the minds of countless college freshmen, that every man is a potential rapist.

To be sure, Stony Brook’s Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities will be run by a man – namely, Michael Kimmel, who’s already a “Distinguished Professor of Sociology” there. But the Women’s Studies commissars need not worry: Kimmel is a loyal protégé of Robert W. Connell, the founding father of Men’s Studies – a discipline that heterodox California professor David Clemens has succinctly defined as “a camouflage version of Women’s Studies” in which the “operative question” is “Why are men so awful?” It was Connell who coined the term “hegemonic masculinity” – and who was so fond of being a man that (again, this is no joke) he ended up getting sex-reassignment surgery and becoming a woman named Raewyn Connell.

Like his mentor, Kimmel is a reliable practitioner of the feminist approach to the subject of men, focusing obsessively on patriarchal oppression and female victimhood. Co-author of The Guy’s Guide to Feminism (which sounds like the last book you’d ever want to be left alone with on a desert island) and co-editor of an anthology entitled Against the Tide: Pro-Feminist Men in the United States, 1776-1990, Kimmel is frank in Stony Brook’s press release about his utter devotion to “the prisms of feminist theory, multiculturalism and queer theory” (to which he refers as if they were fresh and exciting new ideas rather than stale academic clichés) and his intention to foster dialogue “between academics and activists,” which he says is “too rare on both sides of that divide” (an assertion that could hardly be less true: identity studies is all about mixing academic activity with political activism, to the point that it becomes impossible to tell one from the other).

Miles Groth, a professor at Wagner College who actually takes the study of maleness seriously and whose own determinedly non-feminist version of Men’s Studies, called Male Studies, deals not in activism and grievance-mongering but in objective scholarship, is – to put it mildly – less than thrilled by Stony Brook’s big plans. The absurdity of that list of women speaks for itself; but none of the men on the Advisory Board, either, has any real background in either Male Studies or Men’s Studies. In addition to pointing out that – contrary to the press release’s grand claims – neither the vaunted M.A. program nor the “international conference” will be the first of its kind, Groth has a few things to say about Kimmel, calling him “a prolific anthologizer of pro-feminist apologetics for undergraduate consumption” and describing his book Guyland as having been “discredited on the basis of faulty research methodology.”

But a mediocre academic record is no impediment to stellar success in today’s humanities and social sciences departments, where the profs who rise to the top tend to be not brilliant scholars but spectacularly gifted self-promoters. It’s ironic that while there’s no type that comes in for more derision nowadays in the reflexively anti-capitalist academy than the aggressive businessman or salesman – the George Babbitt, the Willy Loman – the faculty members who are most successful tend to be those who most closely approximate academic versions of Babbitt and Loman: that is, slick, smooth-talking hustlers who could sell sand in the desert.

If Stony Brook’s press release makes for especially depressing reading, it’s because the subject of maleness is one that actually deserves serious and objective scholarly attention but in today’s politicized, feminism-drenched, male-bashing academy has received next to none. As Groth explained to me in an interview for my book The Victims’ Revolution, he started teaching a course on male psychology a decade or so ago because it’s something “about which we know next to nothing.” While the behavior of men “has dominated the history books,” the fact is that “apart from a few standard explanations – testosterone, an irrational desire to dominate women sexually, hunger for power – the deeper story of what motivates men remains untold.” Nothing in the press release announcing Stony Brook’s new Center suggests that it’ll do the slightest thing to answer the questions with which Groth is so deeply engaged. On the contrary, if you wanted to parody the feckless, fatuous way in which today’s academy pretends to study maleness, you could hardly have improved on Stony Brook’s inane press release.

Although no savvy prankster, of course, would have included the name of Jane Fonda – that would have been taking the joke one step too far.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Howard Goldman

    As a fellow Alma Mater, I too am disgusted by this development. All we need is yet another male-bashing feminist-laden center that will certainly indoctrinate male students into the mantra of “You are scum, and masculinity is dangerous. Now change and be feminized or else.” Our education system demonizes men at every turn and no wonder we are on the verge of men only being 1/3 of those enrolled. Of course Obama considers this stat as a “great American achievement”.

    • Raftsman

      Not only in the States. Canada has its share of male-bashing feminists attempting to dominate universities.

      The University of Toronto students union president (a feminist) wants to ban All Men’s Rights Group from ALL universities in Canada.

      Page 7
      “Be it further resolved that Standing Resolution 3, article 4 be amended to read:

      Anti-Oppression Procedures, Mood-Watchers and information-Helpers.

      In order to ensure that conversations remain productive and safe, a minimum of one mood-watcher who has undergone training in anti-oppression politics and facilitation frameworks will be appointed by the voting members at the beginning of plenaries.”
      Here’s another gem – banning of Men’s Rights Groups

      Page 17
      “Whereas there has been an increase in the presence of ‘Men’s Rights Awareness Groups’ on campuses across the country; and Whereas these groups provide environments for sexism, patriarchy and misogyny to manifest and be perpetuated on campus, which should be safe(r) spaces for students; and Whereas these groups promote misogynist, hateful views towards women and ideologies that promote gender equity, challenges women’s bodily autonomy, justifies sexual assault, and decries feminism as violent”

      Further reading – http://studentunion.ca/cfs/2013/CFS%20-%20SAGM%20Opening%20Plenary%20Agenda%20-%20May%202013.pdf#page=17

    • http://www.facebook.com/snoozeri.lostio Snoozeri Lostio

      It’s time to start telling the truth: http://manhood101.com

  • Tim N

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

  • Zachery Lorentz

    Some fellow anti-feminists are making an open letter to Stony Brook regarding this debacle. Would you be interested in it?

    • http://www.facebook.com/snoozeri.lostio Snoozeri Lostio

      If feminists want shame men, we should be sending a comparable message to women. Since women love equality and all…

  • Rocky Mountain

    “violence is perceived in the academy as the province of males” As a fully functioning male I don’t think it would be incorrect to observe that violence is the province of males notwithstanding a few feeble slaps and screams that occasionally emanate from the other side.

    • Brigitte

      Yes. US: 90% homicides, committed by men, murder victims 3 times more likely to be men. Men hating other men – or loving hurting other men – appear to cause most violence.

      However, isn’t most childrearing still done by women? Too scared, lazy, or clueless to do a good job?

      On a positive note, humans are getting less and less violent.

      • Drakken

        Humans are getting less violent? Your not up on current events are you? We are as violent as we have ever been, we just have a means to do it better.

        • Brigitte

          i just repeat current scientific findings. you have every right to disagree with scientific findings. me no care man.

          • Drakken

            As they say, garbage in, is garbage out.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “On a positive note, humans are getting less and less violent.”

        Thanks to all the fine work by you femi-Nazis.

        • Brigitte


        • Drakken

          Brilliant !

    • MaleMatters

      See “Open Letter to Senate Judiciary on the VAWA”


      Women are more likely to commit major physical abuse of their children than are men: 56.8 percent to 43.2 percent. [Source: Fire With Fire, by feminist Naomi Wolf, p. 221, hardcover] See also this: ”According to the American Anthropological Association, about 200 women kill their children in the United States each year.”

      Women are more likely to kill their children than are men: 55 percent to 45 percent. [Source: “Women and Violent Crime,” a paper by Prof. Rita J. Simon, Department of Justice, Law and Society and Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, D.C]

      Women commit almost all of the murders of newborns. In Dade County, Fla., between 1956 and 1986, according to the June 1990 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:2, mothers accounted for 86 percent of newborn deaths. [Source: When She Was Bad, by Patricia Pearson, p. 255, note 71; see relevant quotes by Pearson athttp://science.martianbachelor.com/WSWB_quo.html.]

      Women’s brutality against small, defenseless children – a common form of violence that takes place in the home but which VAWA supporters do not call domestic violence – carries a painfully obvious meaning:

      If women, without provocation, batter and kill children, whom they’ve supposedly been socialized to love, they can, without provocation, batter and kill men, whom they’ve been socialized – by the media, feminist literature, and VAWA-type legislation – to distrust, fear, and hate.

      “In the chapter on domestic violence, much of the censorship I discussed emanated from the US Department of Justice. It was the Department of Justice that censored abuse by women from a 1979 poll. Finally some professors discovered the data on the original computer tape.[22] The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Murder In Families” stressed women-as-victims although its own raw data showed 55.5% male and 44.5% female victims of family murder.[23] Similarly, it issued a report on Violence Against Women,[24] but none on Violence Against Men – despite the fact that two-thirds of the violence is against men. We saw also how the FBI hides the female method of killing by contract by calling it a multiple-offender killing.” -Warren Farrell, from his book “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say”

      • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

        Sorry, these statistics are meaningless because we do not enforce child protection laws against absent fathers. Many abuse cases are neglect, and neglect is simply not enforced against the dad if he has abandoned the household. Until we rationally insist that both parents be held responsible for all offspring they create, then child abuse and neglect statistics will tell us nothing except that far too many men have abdicated their responsibility to father their children to the state, at the expense of the taxpayers.

        Also, 75% of domestic homicides are committed by males, a statistic that is rising, not falling. So, those are the facts. The rest is just opinion.

        • Bill98

          The statistics are perfectly valid. One has not committed neglect if one has left the children in the care of a capable adult. Or, do you consider women to be “incapable” adults?
          Further, how many of these men have no idea that they HAVE a child, because no court requires that men be notified? Speaking of courts, how many of these men have been ordered out of their children’s lives by family courts and vengeful mothers? Oh, the state still claims part of their paychecks, but that is about all of the involvement that these men are allowed.
          In addition, the child abuse statistics stand because they represent actual abuse. Try to slant things as you will, women harm their children more than do me. If you want to include absent fathers, then the rate of abuse by women INCREASES, because they are the ones who banished the fathers to begin with.
          Finally, if the absence of a father constitutes neglect, in your eyes, then this would make women who willingly choose to be single mothers guilty of neglect, as well. So, too, would women who divorce their husbands and seek sole custody of their children be immediately unworthy of such custody, since to do so would constitute neglect.
          You now have a hobby. Having imprisoned yourself in your own “logic”, enjoy spending hours trying to extricate yourself.

  • Insecticide

    Hey Jane Fonda wanna squeeze my biceps?

  • butpygmies

    Hmmm…Mail studies…Who’d want to study post office stuff in college? Oh, Male studies…Never mind…

    Well, they could start with Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid; skip to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Ver Meer, Darwin, Einstein…Oh wait…That’s the foundation of western civilization. Never mind…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Well, they could start with Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid; skip to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Ver Meer, Darwin, Einstein…Oh wait…That’s the foundation of western civilization. Never mind…”

      They do, and use those men as examples of deceivers, thanks in part to Darwin.

      That’s a big part of the problem. They hate the world we live in. They want to build Utopia after they get rid of those that they blame and they claim are in their way.

  • nhtom1

    This is so funny it hurts. You repeat something enough and it becomes “truth.”

    The good news is that maybe these feminists are burned out enough that they simply want to retire to academia.

  • DannyZeta

    Well researched and well written.
    Thank you.

  • NWOslave

    Male studies isn’t needed, that’s not the problem. The problem is getting rid of all womens studies, gender studies, queer theory, psychology, political science and the like. For thousands of years nothing was “broken.” Suddenly, over the last fifty years common sense and reality has given way to countless ideologies. We don’t need more stupid, we need to eliminate the pervasive stupid already in place.

    • MaleMatters

      I would agree except:

      Getting rid of all …. and the like is virtually impossible. Tell us how you’d do that.

      Since we can’t get rid of all those things, we do need a balance to the thinking of those who promote views influenced by the apex fallacy. “The apex fallacy is the idea that we use the most visible members of a group to make generalizations about the entire group; i.e. we see prominent men at the top of the pyramid and think all men are doing well, when, in fact, there are a great many at the bottom of the pyramid too.” -Alison Beard, a senior editor at Harvard Business Review: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2013/03/whats_worse_glass_ceilings_or_glass_cellars.html

      To give you a more detailed picture of men’s issues, see:

      “The Doctrinaire Institute for Women’s Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality”

      • NWOslave

        Oh I agree completely with the generalization aspect. Every woman is Madame Curie and mother Teresa rolled into one, and every man is Genghis Khan and Jack the ripper rolled into one. This came about due to the teachings of feminism. The core problem is ideology. All the present day woes were brought about through indoctrination to ideologies.

        Looking at this problem or that problem or enacting more laws only further imbeds the dogma into place. Take VAWA for example. Shall we enact another law like VAMA, the violence against men act? VAWA is an expensive fraud that only serves to steal wealth from the population, exhibit fraudulent studies to justify it’s existence and gives a world of power to the state. The counter to VAWA would be VAMA, but the solution to VAWA would be to dissolve it completely.

        Pruning the problem doesn’t solve the problem. Pruning an ideological branch means two new ideological shoots grow in it’s place. The problem must be destroyed at the root.

        • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

          Concur on generalization and your colorful version of it — probably closer to true than funny.

          VAWA as originally implemented had a variety of parts. One was used for both women and men — the funding of infrastructure (evidence collection training, resources for DNA database development) to prosecute sex crimes. It was accompanied in the states by the removal of gender from sex offense statutes — an excellent move and one that created equality regarding prosecution of this offense, protecting male victims (virtually all of whom were victimized by males, btw).

          You can thank “non-campus,” “second wave” or “equality/pragmatist” feminists for that work (several are prominent conservatives). And we are considered the big bad by the current crop of potty-mouthed self-infantilizing girls and gender benders who call themselves feminists today — worse than men, believe me.

          Sexual violence is almost universally committed by males. But when you factor in child victims, there are a few more female offenders and many more male victims (the reason why, I suspect, that feminists have been strangely disinterested in the issue, along with the desire to avoid implicating gay male offenders). There was nothing irrational about setting up funding for these needs, largely articulated by law enforcement. But in retrospect, I would prefer to see financial needs like these addressed directly rather than as a part of huge, sweeping, ideological legislation.

          But I, like you, object to the funding of academic feminism and feminist studies that warped the anti-rape movement, at least the part that spends its time hectoring all men and writing articles and running campus programs.

          Unfortunately the fruits of that labor are evident in the hostile environment towards men on campuses and the reactive hostility towards anyone who works in real victim advocacy, as evinced in comment threads like these.

          Just what the campus activists wanted — not problem solving but eternal complaint.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Male studies isn’t needed, that’s not the problem. The problem is getting rid of all womens studies, gender studies, queer theory, psychology, political science and the like. For thousands of years nothing was “broken.” Suddenly, over the last fifty years common sense and reality has given way to countless ideologies. We don’t need more stupid, we need to eliminate the pervasive stupid already in place.”

      They’ve created an entire competitive virtual universe with claims about history and science that we can’t just ignore. They want to use these false claims to build their road map to Utopia. It’s a problem that has to be battled directly.

      They would argue that it’s been broken the whole time because of “male hegemony” and “religious liars.” If not for that, we’d already have a perfect society by now…they say.

      They are attacking us just as surely as the jihadis are trying to force belief in allah on the world. They are simply fewer violent leftists percentage-wise.

      • Albert8184

        Yes. The virtual universe is created by something called Marxist “critical theory”.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “The virtual universe is created by something called Marxist “critical theory”.”

          A virtual universe is created by something called Marx-derived “Critical Race Theory”.

          • Albert8184

            Have you looked at critical theory as a broad category? I’m afraid we have a much, much bigger virtual universe to contend with than just the race issue. This cultural Marxism attacks on a broad front.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re not wrong. It’s just that these virtual universes are not coherent and lots of folks don’t understand Marx’s influence. Even within gender studies it seems like there are several various angles of attack, all influenced by Marx one way or another. A lot of it comes indirectly from his BS delusional theories.

    • Albert8184

      But… I respectfully submit that your first misconception is that male studies isn’t needed. On the contrary, it’s needed. Needed by the Left Wing NWO to destroy your culture down to the stubble until there’s nothing left of it. It’s needed for the same reason that all other victim identity and critical theory movements are needed by the Left. To fracture the populace into radicalized victim groups who hate the “white male capitalist Western Civilization patriarchy” so that it can be toppled and replaced by some sort of Marxism.

      Oh, it’s needed all right. It’s important to understand why/

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    See http://clarespark.com/2012/11/15/female-genitals-as-red-flag/. “Female genitals as red flag.” The emphasis of this Stony Brook Women’s Studies center will be on sex and sex alone. For that was the preoccupation of the second wave f feminism. Or see this brief account of what the first wave of feminism was about: nothing like the second wave: http://clarespark.com/2013/06/02/hair-and-make-up-megyn-kelly-smackdown/. “Hair and Makeup: Megyn Kelly smackdown.” The first wave of feminism was not anti-male, but rather had a positive program.

  • tagalog

    It figures that the women would eventually incorporate men’s studies and courses on masculinity in the Women’s Studies departments of universities. They think they’re authorities on what it means to be a man.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “They think they’re authorities on what it means to be a man.”

      They think they’re authorities on what it means to engineer the new man. The old one won’t be suitable for life in Shangri-La. He’ll just rape and murder everyone. Just like now. All of the problems of mankind are caused by the male gender.

      Maybe I could run the new program.

  • Cathy1000

    I brought my 3 boys up to understand women and the games that they play in relationships and otherwise.

    I wanted to make sure that they reasoned with these women from their minds and not their hearts (at least until they were married). They now understand that women can be real big manipulators and try to project that onto men.

    They were raised knowing the biblical definition of manhood and the roles of men and women. Because they were raised that way, there are some women who assume they were raised misogynists, which they were not. They are decent hardworking young men that are very family centered. They love God, their family and their country!
    It is wrong for any women to think that they can teach manhood! There is no substitute for men… and, regardless of what some women think, all children NEED a father….

    • Albert8184

      I salute you ma’am. Lord knows, this country needs you now.

  • fools2234

    For a complete list of men’s issues see this list that I discovered:


    How much you want to bet that these pro-feminist trash dont even discuss or “study” one of the issues on that page?

  • Chris Cole

    Next up:

    Jack the Ripper and Richard Speck team up to head new Women’s Sensitivity Department.

    What a pair of jocular cut-ups they will be!

    Ol’ William Bendix had it spot-on in the way-old “Life of Riley” episodes:

    What a revoltin’ development this is!

  • Paul Elam

    Great article. What you are reporting on is Kimmel’s crowning achievement, after a shopworn career floating conferences on cutting edge works in “queer theory” and “black masculinities” done by grad students, and in some cases undergrads. Kimmel now finally gets to cement his legacy in an area of study that he has contributed roughly nothing of substance to for over thirty years.

    He has left out one unfortunate detail on his CV. He hates men. From the gratuitous and transparently seething pages of his opus, “Guyland” to this latest sham of scholarly pursuit, everything about Kimmel, and all those in his affiliation, is about shredding men and remaking them in the image of hateful gender ideologues. He doesn’t want to study men. He wants to destroy them.

    Your article is very funny. Oh how I wish it was only a joke.

  • Everett Vulgamore

    in all honesty, if they want equal rights, awesome. you have them. but trying to put one gender over the other doesnt fly. this needs to stop

  • Suzanne

    As Dennis Prager says there are some ideas that are so preposterous they can only come from a university!

  • popseal

    The American male has had his identity stolen by years of being portrayed in the various media as a stumbling ” caricature”. Mothers today begin the neutering process by hovering over their little darling that one day is presented in mock servitude to a bossy wife. His minister supports the homosexual agenda and his military is run by PC bureaucrats also neutered by Mom. Then there’s me and a few friends who have recaptured our identity. Deployed eight times with a gun. Married to a wonderful wife for 44 years. Golf every other day, a fine Scotch late evenings, gym, distance swims in the pool, and loves pistol competitions. There’s plenty more where I come from and most of them are Christians.

    • Drakken

      Agree with your post except the golf part, who the heck has the bloody time to do that these days unless your retired of course, as for the wife part, I took the Marine Corps motto where they are concerned, if they wanted you to have one, they would have issued you one. ;) Oh I prefer Bourbon. ;) That was made all in jest so don’t sic the wife on me ok? ;)

  • ralph

    Why does there need to be a Men’s Studies Center in the first place? I remember years ago seeing Robert Bly in some PBS show about ‘reclaiming your manhood’ or something. What was it? A bunch of guys in a drumming circle whining about how their daddies were mean to them. In other words they were acting like women. If your going to be a man then just be a man, as it’s been known from forever. We may be knuckle-draggers, but a blue collar background does have its advantages. One of them is avoiding this stupid nonsense.

    • ralph

      Correction: If you’re going to be…

      • ShlomoShunn

        Right. Muttonheaded macho muchachos thought there was no need to have a male army to oppose the invading feminist one. It was enough for “true bros” to scratch and clang their mighty balls. THEN, they assured us, all would be well. No need to show emotion…or get sad…or angry. All guys had to do was… nothing. Millions did.

        Ergo, they created the current situation.

        Faced with feminist activism, the “just be men” advisors chose inactivism. They were sure anti-male laws and courses and customs would never gain traction. So, as they do during most significant cultural events, they drank beer and watched sports.

        They also urged other guys to similarly “ignore the little ladies.” So when the latter walked off with men’s kids, the latter acted shocked, shocked. Little boys being dragged off while “brave” men did nothing was quite a lesson.

        Such men also mock combat grunts with PTSD returning from wars. Like fembots, they view males as lesser beings whose feelings don’t matter. Perhaps feminists are right when they say such clueless fathers shouldn’t be around kids. After all, the guys would just teach the next generation how to be passive patsies, too.

        The truth: millions of blue-collar “real men” let feminism spread, ruining whole cultures. The same “no need to get off the couch” dudes let manufacturing jobs disappear overseas.

        Confronted with politics and other abstractions, they break out hammers and “manfully” try to smack them into oblivion. They are as useless as tits on bulls.

  • Jim4146

    While yes it is disconcerting, my hunch is most men who get finessed into this “Men’s center” will either hijack it and set it to “straight” to actually benefit men, if not it will dissipate sooner or later…or it’s name will have to change to suit its predominantly female members.

  • Xtrnl

    So, currently men make up around only 40% of university students. This seems like a great way to drive that number down even further. Isn’t getting a feminist to teach male studies kind of like getting a Nazi to teach the Torah?

    The university I’m at is more on the conservative side, and even they have feminist policies that are beyond ridiculous. I mean to the point that I feel bad for any male students dating female students. Students can be disciplined for “sexual harassment”, which when broken down into layman’s terms is basically any action which could offend a female student. Feminism = women are equal to men; that means they need to be protected like special snowflakes!

  • Mark Neil

    This is just another example of feminists attempting to co-opt any movement that threatens to inject an alternative viewpoint on power dynamics. They demand sole control over the discourse, baracading talks about men’s issues, demanding conference policies that makes the word dongle an international offense, convincing Norton/O2 to block men’s victims support pages as hate speech, bullying facebook to censor dissenting views, etc. This is just another attempt to pay lip service to men, in order to get their support, then the blame and shame will begin anew, all under the guise of helping men.

  • Albert8184

    It’s obvious what this Stony Brook thing is, isn’t it?

    Marxist critical theory with a decidedly different twist. Whereas it is usually focused on building a victim consciousness in the selected group AGAINST white male capitalist Western civ culture – this “discipline” seems aimed at building “guilt consciousness” in males themselves. And most likely, in white males themselves who conform to the model of the “white patriarchal power structure”.