How Higher Education “Studies” Men

In 2013, Stony Brook University (part of the SUNY system) revealed plans for a new “Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities.” Since I’m a Stony Brook grad, I was quite interested in this development. Would the new Center do anything to enhance the school’s reputation for scholarship?

I didn’t think it would, but the announcement of the ten advisory board members erased all doubt. Six were well-known women: feminist icon Gloria Steinem, actress Jane Fonda, author Eve Ensler (author of the play The Vagina Monologues) and leading women’s studies figures Madeleine Kunin, Catharine Stimpson, and Carol Gilligan, whose claims that girls were being denied their “voices” in education led to Christina Hoff Sommers’ book The War Against Boys.

Only four men were included: Martin Duberman, a queer studies historian, and three obscure individuals, psychiatrist James Gilligan (who is married to Carol Gilligan), physician Frank Ochberg, and Chris Howard, president of Hampden-Sydney College.

As I noted in this piece, Steinem, Ensler, and the female academics had spent their careers preoccupied with women, not men. To put such a crew in charge of a center for men’s studies seemed like a joke—but is perfectly routine in today’s academy, where the few courses on male issues tend to be part of women’s studies and invariably view maleness exclusively through a feminist lens.

The Stony Brook center was to be run by sociology professor Michael Kimmel, author of Angry White Men, co-editor of an anthology about “pro-feminist men” and a protégé of men’s studies founder Robert W. Connell, who coined the term “hegemonic masculinity,” had sex-reassignment surgery, and changed his name to Raewyn. The whole point of Connell’s discipline, as I wrote in my book The Victims’ Revolution (2012), “is that men are authoritarian bullies.”

It seemed clear from Stony Brook’s press release, in any event, that Kimmel’s center would be right out of the men’s studies playbook. In other words, we live in a patriarchal culture in which all men enjoy systemic privileges denied to all women, and the goal of any proper academic study of maleness should be to teach men to recognize and check their privilege and to dedicate themselves to helping women to achieve true equality.

In his press release, Kimmel announced that the center—founded with a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, with additional funds from the university and anonymous donors—would study men through “the prisms of feminist theory, multiculturalism and queer theory” and pursue dialogue “between academics and activists.”

Four years after its founding, I thought it might be worth checking in on Stony Brook’s men’s studies center. One glance at its website and I had a distinct impression that the whole thing has turned out just as foreseen: the first thing that greeted me was a slideshow of photos of Fonda, Steinem, a woman named Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka (“Executive Director of UN Women”), and, last but not least, Kimmel giving a TED talk entitled “Recruiting Men to the Cause of Gender Equality.”

In sum, it is an ideological rather than a scholarly project.

The center has held several seminars, among them a talk about “the need for further regulation on pornography” in the European Union. It has sponsored a white paper, “Men as Allies in Preventing Violence against Women,” in which Bob Pease lays down the law: men should take part in such violence prevention, but because of their “dominance and privilege and…structural gender inequalities,” they should play only “a supporting role…under women’s leadership” rather than seeking to be “leaders or equal partners.”

Pease makes another point: women deserve “women-only spaces,” but men-only spaces are verboten, because excluding women “reinforces the notion of male authority” and men “need to learn how to communicate outside of traditional frames of masculinity and male sociality.” (Pease, as it happens, is the author of a book called Recreating Men, which argues that men need to undergo fundamental change for the sake of women’s equality.)

The Men’s Center, in short, is not about understanding men’s psychological and emotional development and their personal and professional lives; it is about encouraging young men to feel guilty about being born male, to check their own natural male impulses and interests, to emulate (as best they can) the manners and mores of women, and to subordinate themselves, in all ways and all circumstances, to their female friends, relatives, and colleagues.

The center has a blog, which is full of whining about “toxic masculinity” and about men’s lack of respect for women. After Trump’s election, it featured a letter addressed to “White Men.” It read, in part: “This is on us. And now it’s up to us to undo it. I keep hearing us say: ‘we’ll be fine.’… [But our] friends of color, our Native American friends, our Muslim friends and Latino friends, our LGBTQ friends and the women in our lives are not fine…. They are afraid of what is to come. And they will be, and already are, under attack. If you’ve ever questioned the existence of the concept of privilege, being able to say ‘we’ll be fine’ is painful proof of its existence.”

One big piece of news from the blog is that the Center is in the process of developing the first MA program in masculinities studies. Stony Brook, it should be noted, is a major international research university that turns out top-flight physicists, chemists, biologists, and engineers who make a real difference in this world. It is a puzzlement, and a disgrace, that this splendid institution should want to institute an advanced degree program in identity studies that involves not education but indoctrination and that doesn’t prepare graduates to do anything other than spend their lives whining about gender inequality.

Other identity group “studies” at least purport to advance the cause of the group in question, even if through dubious scholarship. Stony Brook’s version of men’s studies, however, is about demonizing men and teaching them to knuckle under to women—this in a culture that already teaches boys that they’re oppressors-in-training and potential rapists and where more and more young men skip college because they perceive campuses as anti-male environments.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to “Men’s Studies.” In 2010, in reaction to its “denigration of maleness,” as Rutgers anthropologist Lionel Tiger put it, several respected authors and scholars founded Male Studies, which seeks to study male identity from non-ideological perspectives. But such courses are still rare at American institutions of higher education, where they face hostility from feminist faculty and administrators.

Case in point: Professor Dennis Gouws, who for several years taught a “Men in Literature” course at tiny Springfield College in Massachusetts. Then the campus feminists stepped in. As Peter Wood wrote in the Weekly Standard in May 2016, Gouws was dragged before administrators and accused of creating a “hostile environment.” His course was canceled, and he was placed on “Official Warning Status.”

This is the fate, mind you, of a professor at an obscure college who dared to offer a single undergraduate course that addressed men on their own terms.

Meanwhile, at Stony Brook, where the men’s studies center is an entirely feminist-oriented operation, Michael Kimmel is a superstar, rubbing elbows with Jane Fonda and being cheered for talks in which he essentially apologizes for being male. All of that does nothing but degrade the academic standing of Stony Brook University and waste the money of New York taxpayers.

  • Harry not a slave

    This reminds me of the old observation that a woman might marry a flawed man with the idea of fixing him later.

    • Q2 Duplex Drive

      Actually, it was Oscar Wilde. ‘ Women marry men hoping to change them; men marry women hoping they’ll stay the same. Both are disappointed.’

  • Ed Wapole

    When a man asks, “Honey, where do you want go out to eat tonight?” She either won’t give a straight answer, or says, “You decide.” Yet, this article says men should allow women to be their leaders, because “reasons”. Yeah, Riiight.

    • Kenneth Slayor

      It is not that simple. We are raised speaking the same words but completely different languages. Men are raised to be physically and sexually expressive. Women are raised to be intellectually and emotionally expressive. This is not to say they don’t both express all four but that there is an emphasis.

      Because of this men speak predominantly in interjections. They play collective games with individual problems. Consider baseball. There is one problem to solve – the ball. Each man has a territory while he plays. Those not on the field will interject ideas for those attempting to solve the ball problem. If the idea is used and worked both the actor and the spectator get bragging rights for solving the problem. If the actor does something else and it works, the spectator can approve while still suggesting his idea would also have worked. If the actor does something different and it doesn’t work, then the spectator can brag his idea would have worked if followed. If they both have the same idea and it fails they can share the misery.

      Women speak negotiationally. One cannot play tea party or dress up the same way one plays base ball. These are social sports that are truly interactive or team events, not merely activities played in the same place at the same time with only one person responsible for a territory and solving the ball problem. So, when Cheryl says,”I COULD wear the red dress,” and Tina replies,”You always wear the red dress. I don’t want to wear the blue dress.” Cheryl comes back with,”I wear the red dress because I thought you didn’t like it,” and the exchange continues.

      So, when a man comes home from work and asks,”Honey, where do you want to go out to eat tonight?” He has already framed the question in a way that tells her he doesn’t want to eat what she was going to fix. Since he has rejected her intentions, she then proposes he “decide”. However, she doesn’t mean he should “De-Ciiiide”. She means he should negotiate in options he could live with so that she can pick something she finds at least tolerable, maybe even agreeable.

      I also don’t agree with your assessment that the article suggests women should be in charge. It is however factual that men are women preferring in and women are women preferring in conflict resolution. It is for this reason that the best advocates, and best received advocates, for men’s rights has been from women. If men said what for instance the Honey Badgers say they would be dismissed. What we should not be allowing is for female supremacists, that is most persons calling themselves a feminist today, to teach male studies courses and programs.

      • Button Gwinnett

        He says: “Let’s order out. Pizza?”
        She says “How about Chinese?”
        He: “Great! New China Garden?”
        She “I don’t like them. How about Great Wall?”
        He: “OK. Orange chicken sound good?”
        She: “No, I want Pu Pu platter for two and paper wrapped chicken and fried shrimp.”
        He: “Fine. I’ll order.”
        She: “How come you’re not eating what “we” ordered? I thought we had negotiated an acceptable compromise.”

        True story. Happened to me Monday night.

        • anon

          what did you order?

          • John Brave

            I learned to speak woman a long time ago and I learned to speak in a way that doesn’t lead to that kind of situation.

            Me: I feel like pizza tonight. You want some?
            Her: I’m not in the mood for pizza, how about Chinese food? There is this new place on MainStreet I heard it was awesome.
            Me: Sure thing, I’ll order the pizza while you get the number of that new Chinese place and hopefully the both deliver at the same time.

            Women respect a decisive man. If you’re wishy washy then they’ll guide the decision process to their liking and you might not like where they guide you.

            Know what you want and make the decision that suits you while taking her needs into consideration. But don’t let her needs override yours if you care about the subject.

            My wife learned not to pull bullcrap on me.

            She would come to me with something like ‘I don’t know which one of these dresses I like better, which one do you think I should buy?’

            At the beginning of our relationship I would say ‘The blue one is nice. Buy the blue one.’

            She would buy the red one.

            It pissed me off until I stopped falling for that crap. Now I answer with ‘Don’t ask if you’re not going to take my opinion’ first. If she asks again, then she better buy my choice otherwise I wouldn’t answer her in the future. She learned that about me too, she knows that I don’t talk like her girlfriends. Now we’re good.

            Women tend to stay away from actual responsibility. They want to make the decision, but they want to be able to blame somebody else if it’s the wrong decision. So they try to make you make the decision that they want so that they can blame you. You have to learn to not let them do that.

          • kj

            One of the biggest mistakes women make in relationships is to assume that their husbands will behave like her girlfriends. One of the biggest makes men make is to assume their wives will behave like they did when they their (his) were girlfriends. 🙂

          • Mr_SP

            I’m going to throw in my first assumption: He ordered what she said, then ordered something from the same store for himself (probably the orange chicken), rather than purchasing the same main meal for the both of them.

            It feels like the appropriate combination of “exactly what I’d do” and “bizarre to complain about.”

      • Man with Axe

        Are you certain that “Men are raised to be physically and sexually expressive. Women are raised to be intellectually and emotionally expressive?” Perhaps men and women are, on average, born already with these inherent attributes?

        Perhaps men enjoy competitive sports because they are played according to rules, whereas women prefer activities in which they can make up the rules as they go in order to be sensitive to the feelings of all in their group.

        An example: My daughter played on her high-school tennis team. She was the 5th ranked player. She could move up by challenging and then beating the 4th ranked player. She told me that she felt that she was better than the 4th ranked girl. “Why don’t you challenge her?” I asked. “Because if I beat her she would be upset.”

        On the question of what and where we are going to eat, my wife cares a lot more about it than I do, so she almost always has the final word. I have the final word on things I care about, such as what movie we are going to see.

        • Kenneth Slayor

          Pay Attention: “This is not to say they don’t both express all four but that there is an EMPHASIS.”

          And yes, I am sure. Further, your daughter’s response fits the proofs of my point.

          • Man with Axe

            I’m only challenging the “raised” aspect of your comment, as opposed to the innate characteristics. Most parents know that their boys and girls behave differently right out of the box. Socialization is not necessarily the cause of these differences, is all I’m saying. Maybe we don’t really disagree.

          • Kenneth Slayor

            I reject the idea of Tabula Rasa. So, to the extent that raised would to some imply sole responsibility for the shaping of an individual, you and I agree. I consider the single most unavoidable evidence against tabula rasa to be puberty. If we are born with an empty mind then sex traits are only trained.

            However, the genetic environment can be contradicted by training. While the evidence I cite here is decades old, I doubt it has changed much. Nearly all (like 99.9%) serial rapists turned out, regardless of race, to come from a familial background that dramatically emphasized all sex as bad, all sexual connections a evil and unclean – even when necessary for procreation. The cognitive dissonance with biological programming resulting in the negative backlash.

            What I suspect and have proposed is that we have more in common than we do separately. However, those sex traits which do exist, such as women having “nesting syndrome” when pregnant, passed from letting people do what they do naturally into ritualized roles which culture then magnified through emphasis over time. So, existing natural tendencies become socially exaggerated.

            There are other effects as well. I know of a young woman who had too many children back to back in her teen years. The result was biochemical imbalance leading to her permanent hospitalization because of the severity with which it affected her cognitive ability. Before society was advanced enough to start practicing various forms of birth control (some of which are quite ancient), such results would have occurred more often. I suspect this may have affected the legal and social status of women in earlier societies. So, not so much that men were brutal patriarchs, as that nature is brutal and does not have to play fair.

          • Singlemalt

            “Men are raised to be physically and sexually expressive. Women are raised to be intellectually and emotionally expressive”

            Does not answer the STEM problem. Or is this more of a:

            “Most people do not communicate accurately, they communicate generally and take for granted they will be interpreted accurately” problem?

          • Kenneth Slayor

            STEM is a different issue because the qualities of sex differentiation are not as expressive. A good study on temperament in approach comes from Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in which he only studied male children because he assumed women were incapable of moral decision making. (And I give Kudos Supreme to his research assistant Ann Higgins for putting up with his crap all the way through the study.) A decade later she performed the research again on both sexes using his original work as a control group. Her observation was that boys treated ethical dilemmas as problems to be solved, and formulated them as equations. Girls in her study treated ethical dilemmas in a narrative fashion and analyzed them as social events. Both would often achieve the same conclusion using different analytical approaches.

            Another issue which really irritates feminists is that men have a shallower curve that is broader from end to end on the scale of actual IQ testing. Meaning that women tend toward the median in IQ scores and have fewer geniuses and fewer idiots. Men as a group score both more geniuses and more idiots respectively. This means that men are more likely to achieve the status of a Stephen Hawking or Terence Tao as a percentage of that group. It also means men will dominate the percentage of the lowest IQ group.

            As to the communications issue. Of the 5 levels of communications, 5 being highest 1 being lowest, level 5 is something achieved 0-2 times in a persons lifetime and almost never with someone they are very close/intimate with relationally. The daily average in comm.s is about a 2, meaning people say words at each other and catch about 30% to 50% of what the other person said. Level 5 is an almost epiphany like communion of shared meaning – which may or may not involve words.

          • Singlemalt

            Ken, I was speaking specifically about your mind numbingly over broad generalization regarding all men and women and assigning each to a two denominational cognition regime. You may comfortably fit that scheme very well but I do not. Further, your 2 x 2 format cannot explain objectively why men outnumber women in the STEM world.

          • Kenneth Slayor

            You weren’t paying attention. You are as bad as the leftist who call science hate speech because it doesn’t give them the answers which they want to hear. Since, you don’t want to pay attention, your comprehension cannot be established.

          • Singlemalt

            You generalized all cognition into four quadrants, 2 x 2 split by gender. Your prior comment back to me was non-responsive in its entirety. Now I get condescension – the last refuge of a failed argument made by an all too tender ego.

          • Kenneth Slayor

            Incorrect. You have no ears.

          • Singlemalt

            Laughter. I could mention all the organs you obviously lack but then I would receive another edition of your tedious comments.

          • Kenneth Slayor

            You are chained to the floor worshiping shadows.

        • kj

          Perhaps? No, certainly.

      • Mr_SP

        No, what you should say is: “she doesn’t mean decide, she means ‘what would you like?’ “. Decide actually means decide, as in to make a final choice. Decide and “start a negotiation” are not the same thing. She is explicitly using a word in a way that does not align with what the dictionary claims the word means, and what schools teach that it means. Thus the conversation is distorted, because each side is interpreting language differently.

        (Whether he doesn’t want to eat what she’s going to fix may or may not be relevant. I’d interpret it as benefiting her, presuming she hasn’t cooked yet, rather than dismissal of her abilities. Saying that it has to be the case that he’s dismissing her cooking just seems strange.)

        When it comes to sports, all sports, mens or womens, require that the players are individually responsible for their own roles, while being aware of, and coordinating with, the roles of other players. It’s not a group of individuals playing individual games. Not if they want to win. Society explicitly teaches that you have to work together to succeed.

        When it comes to non-sport games, men and women still work the same way. If you changed “dress” to “superhero”, you’d have the exact same conversation, with the exact same intent, but with possibly a higher rate of “I want to be”. Not that I’m convinced that the girls would be any less prone to “but I want to wear the red dress!” And, of course, boys can just as easily argue/negotiate about what roles they play in the baseball game, but they do that before the game, not during it.

        And the audience is always certain of their own superiority in decision making, whether it’s baseball, or a soap opera.

        • Kenneth Slayor

          First of all, the examples are text book style. Your quibbles are effectively meaningless. Most people do not communicate accurately, they communicate generally and take for granted they will be interpreted accurately. So, my usage of words in the examples is representative of real life.

          Second, women hear less of what is said and more of how it is said. Men hear what is said, and less of how it was said. Because men are built for burst strength, genetically, the only emotional instruction they are given is to control their temper. Aligning emotional expression with data expression is not required until after they are unleashed at women sometime in their teens or even tweens. Which is another reason women hear things men never said.

          Three words which are used poorly as they relate to one another are opposition, competition, and cooperation. In their best sense, they are a polarity with competition in the middle and meaning precisely to walk together, but still be independent. Too often competition is used to represent opposition, which leaves a hole in the English language. Jumping rope is a cooperative sport where every player must be in sync at all times or the game ends, whether it is one player or five. Baseball is a competitive sport where players do not have to be in sync with each other they have to be focused on the ball problem. If you do not comprehend this separation I can’t help you further than that. But your description above, while not wrong in a generic sense, lacks accurate analysis.

          As to what you style “non-sports games”, the exact same conversation would not happen. Why? Because boys, the vast majority of boys, analyze data nor social relation. Girls, the vast majority of girls, analyze social relation and data is minimized or disregarded altogether. Are their outliers in the spread of the curve? Of course. Further, the competition in the games social games is lateral, not hierarchical. There is less stratification in the game of Tea Party. That is not the case in sports standardly associated with males where position demonstrates hierarchy and merit. The “arguments” between males are interjectory statements in the establishment of pack hierarchy before the hunt begins. This hierarchy will be in nature higher in range of top to bottom while the social structure of a tea party will have an assigned hostess and participants.

          As to your audience statement that would be a corollary of the same principles which effect: Every person is the hero of their own story. However, the assertion misses the result of when both the spectator and the actor function on the same conclusion and it doesn’t work. In such cases there is no certainty left, all other things being equal.

      • ipencil

        “Men are raised to be physically and sexually expressive. Women are raised to be intellectually and emotionally expressive.”


        • Kenneth Slayor

          Facts don’t care about your feelings.

          • ipencil

            The funny thing is you’re the one getting all emotional with your essay long responses. The ironic thing is that those essay responses are entirely opinion based containing exactly zero facts.

        • Boris

          Well actually I’d say it’s more like men are raised to be macho, repress their feelings and get taught they don’t matter unless they’re a success story, and women get taught that their feelings are of utmost importance beyond anything else. Really we need to meet in the middle

      • Mr_SP

        It seems like your response to my comment was deleted, or otherwise cannot be found. So let’s pretend it still exists.

        Yes, people phrase things generally – or, rather, with minimal effort taken in order to speak relatively quickly. That only makes the poor word choice of “decide” more prominent. Tone and word choice matter to both sexes, even if to varying degrees. It is important for both sides to make sure they are using correct word choice, lest any misinterpretation be their own fault.

        Competition is, and always has been, a word that implies opposition of another group. It does not refer to inter-group dynamics. Competition does not mean “to walk together, but still be independent”. It means, precisely, “activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.” There may be a hole in the English language, as compared to other languages, but “competition” has never filled that hole. You must be thinking of a different word.

        The social structure of a tea party is hierarchical. As you said, Hostess and Guests. The hostess maintains control over the party, including food and drink, games and activities, and supervises social interactions. That’s quite advanced for children, but that is the role of the hostess, and children are doing their best to emulate the scenario.

        Furthermore, tea parties are just as much “collective games with individual problems”, if not more so. After all, there is no team. Each person participates with their own interests in mind. Of course, there is also no competition or end-goal beyond eating, drinking, and talking. If the collection of the ball and the passing of it to a base keeper is an “individual” problem, then surely the reaction to other people’s behavior and the response to it is equally so?

        Whether it’s more or less stratified is dubious. The role of the hostess is extremely rigid. The stratification in boys play is extremely fluid. Due to inter-group competition, roles can change in the same game. There may not even be a clear hierarchy, depending on the game, though girls are hardly restricted to one form of play themselves. Baseball has a slightly complex hierarchy, but it’s a 20 person game. You will see distinct multi-leveled hierarchies in 20 person tea parties, as well. Frankly, baseball and tea parties are not even remotely comparable examples of gendered games.

        As for the audience… I have even less idea what you’re talking about than I did before. Spectators are spectators. They are not participants. They have no role in the game, and their interjections are meaningless outside of their own egos. They are a completely separate subject. If the spectator is wrong, nothing happens. The invested will adjust their thinking to correct the inaccuracy, and the un-invested will not, and that applies to either spectator or player. My statement was to suggest that the audience is not gender-specific. Women also interject with their own opinions in their own pass-times.

        • Kenneth Slayor

          “It seems like your response to my comment was deleted, or …”
          Disqus doesn’t seem to like conservative commentary as far as I can tell. This would not be a first.

          “poor word choice of “decide” more prominent”
          No, it makes it more accurate to the nature of the example. I have been telling people most of my life to be more accurate in both meaning and in word usage. I also will use actual logic to determine when the dictionary is defining things poorly or has a social agenda in the the changes they are making to the definitions they currently publish.

          You did not properly read my statement on Opposition, Competition, and Cooperation. And yes, Competition did hold that meaning because that is its literal definition. It literally means “walk together” with the original meaning of “to come together”. It was the piss poor education of the dark ages which resulted in the meaning which you limit it to developing in the 14th c.

          You cannot legitimately argue that a Tea Party social structure is hierarchical. It is lateral, the hostess is server and primary presenter of possibilities, nullifying her “privilege” with obligation. The rest are equal participants whose cooperation is depended upon by all members equally in order to maintain the game. Your analysis is flawed because you are limiting your perceptions of the reality.

          I suggest that the definition of team as you use it is inadequate and inaccurate. The reactions of the various persons in Tea Party has no field of limitation based on assigned territory. They all work at negotiating solutions to a shared interest simultaneously. More than one person may have the figurative ball or balls at the same time and more than one group of conferees may exist at a time actively manipulating the figurative ball or balls. This does not happen in men’s sports. There will be one ball moving from the territory of one player to the territory of another player at a time. There is never shared usage of the same ball by the first baseman and the third baseman at the same time. They never solve the same ball problem at the same time. It is a collective game not a team game. When the ball is thrown from third base to first base once the third baseman releases the ball that individual no longer has the ball problem. It then becomes the problem of the pitcher to attempt intercept or not as it passes through his territory (unlikely as that may be) and of the first baseman to catch and use at his post or send to someone else.

          So, just how often is Drew Butera substituted for Alex Gordon? Positions are assigned by the coach based on merit determined through rated effort. Stratification is determined by ranking in stats. And the reason baseball is a hierarchical game can be solved by considering the fact that no archaeological study has ever found a group of naturally occurring humans larger than 15 which did not show signs of violence. Men have stratified hierarchies in order to direct energy to a common goal and prevent conflict. Women do not naturally resolve conflict as often by physical violence because they are adept at social violence – shaming being one example. Because of this, their group dynamics do not require the same rigid hierarchies which groups of men require. And what makes baseball and tea party comparable games is the fact that they are expressions of naturally occurring tendencies ritualized by social convention.

          You lack of knowledge about communications dynamics is clear. That is why you do not understand the relationship between transmitters and receivers. Further, you chose to attempt to change the statement. I stated those not on the field, which implies that they are part of the group and not on the field. You inferred that because they were not on a position that they must be armchair quarterbacking from their living room. They are participants and they do have a role in the game. Their interjections do have meaning beyond ego. Even if they were not however on the bench, they would still have more of an investment than that for which you allow. As to there being women who have adapted male communications patterns after exposure over time in male dominant areas, that does happen. The terms originally used in discussing that phenomena would now be considered innuendos and politically incorrect, conjuring images that have nothing to do with the discussion. It still would not make such outliers pertinent or relevant.

          • Mr_SP

            Competition – “from late Latin competitio(n-) ‘rivalry’, from competere ‘strive for’ (see compete).” Initial uses of the word pop up around the late 16th century. So, no, it didn’t mean that before then. And it certainly hasn’t meant that for centuries now.

            Tea party – what you just said is equally attributable to a baseball team. The role of the captain possesses both privilege and obligation (as is common for nearly all modern meritocratic hierarchies, at least in theory), and all other members of the team are equal participants who must cooperate to achieve the team goal.

            “They all work at negotiating solutions to a shared interest simultaneously.” – By what definition? The host supplies food, so that is not something which involves negotiated solutions. Conversation is hardly a negotiated solution, either. Multiple people do not negotiate a subject to discuss, a person individually declares a subject (typically the host) which may or may not be responded to. There is a message and a response, but the subject is not negotiated upon by multiple parties. If you’re referring to the message->response behavior as negotiation, I would disagree with that. If you’re referring to the subject being discussed as an exchange of counterpoints intended to reach a mutual agreement, then that’s more of a debate, a disagreement; a social equivalent to the physical sport. And I would disagree with that being vital, or even common, to the tea party dynamic.

            Also, not really gendered at all. Female children are more prone to practicing it, but you’re ignoring the men often do the exact same thing in real life, let alone the existence of family discussion and group dinners, formal or otherwise. Hell, men playing the social game has existed for nearly as long as the aristocracy.

            “More than one person may have the figurative ball or balls at the same time and more than one group of conferees may exist at a time actively manipulating the figurative ball or balls. This does not happen in
            men’s sports.” – There absolutely is. It is because you are limiting yourself to the dynamic of the ball, when the “problem” of men’s and women’s sports is the opposing players. The ball is a tool. The players are the ones directing it. In baseball, the field may be occupied by as many as four opposing players, but only one ball exists to counter them. On the other hand, each batter is opposing 9 people at once, and often relies on the support of other batting teammates to succeed. In soccer, there is one ball, and each player has an opposing counterpart, who must be constantly handled and interacted with to minimize the opponents control of the ball, and maximize the self’s control of the ball, and each score requires the team to be coordinated, and team members to be individually capable. There is a degree of complexity and interactivity in men’s sports which you are refusing to admit to.

            “You inferred that because they were not on a position that they must be armchair quarterbacking from their living room.” – No, I assumed they were in the crowd. How is someone in the bench going to be heard by someone in the field? They are not. In this situation, the field bound player will not be receiving orders from the bench. Even if they could, they would not act unless they already trust that person’s insights and awareness. If it was the captain, or coach, or negotiation between pitcher and catcher, they would, but that’s a different situation to what you’re suggesting. After all, knowing and implementing play strategy is the job of coach and captain, not random people on the bench.

            I don’t even watch baseball, and yet I understand the interactions of it’s players better than you.

            ” And the reason baseball is a hierarchical game can be solved by considering the fact that no archaeological study has ever found a group of naturally occurring humans larger than 15 which did not show signs of violence.” – You are making a leap from one idea to the other, without considering the major distinctions between them. Baseball requires hierarchies for fast response time. It is not because the team will erupt into violence at the slightest justification, though I will hardly call it impossible for inter-group conflict to exist, it is because specialists are set aside for directing the team.

            A group of people without hierarchy will come to a decision slowly, so a leader is used to negate that. And that’s without getting into the differences in requirements between athlete and strategist. If you’re referring to the player positions on the field as a hierarchy, then you’re wrong – that’s not a hierarchy, it’s a series of different roles that require slightly different skills, without clear superiority between roles. An outfielder does not a good baseman make, and a pitcher even less so.

            As you say, women have social conflict systems, like shaming. (So do men, it’s just more direct.) Guess what? Women’s sports are also just as hierarchical as men, because shaming is not a good leadership tactic, whereas a designated leader is.

            At best, the things you are discussing are things which apply to both sexes, on a regular basis, but more often to one side than the other. This is not enough for me to say that this is a strongly gendered behavior, in which I would require it to be overwhelming true. In my experience, your claims do not match observed real-world scenarios on a regular enough basis for me to fully agree with.

          • Kenneth Slayor

            Habetis non satis educationem et opes. Hoc vester assertionum ostentus est. Peragrabatis ad viam sinistram.

  • rich poorman

    Camille Paglia said it best: If civilization had been left up to women, we’d all be living in mud huts.

  • Dick_Gosinya

    OK, so six man-hating women and four men who haven’t seen a vagina since birth. No one with a background in brewing beer, monster truck construction, home made explosives or gutting a deer? Sounds like the deck is slightly stacked in favor of beta/cuck “males”. At least they can get a group discount at the nail salon.

  • tylerkent

    Ha! Queers, traitors, and small “c” communists to study men.

  • Alex Simonelis

    Good article. Bad Center.

  • Peter Wright

    Very nice summary of what is essentially an othering of all men and boys on the dime of taxpayers.

    • Kenneth Slayor

      And I still feel the urge to call them out on it. Just haven’t yet.

  • GarySweeten

    Please. More compassion for a group of men with chronic periods.

  • Percy Murphy Taggerts

    Great article, fascinating that rational minds in these “enlightened” institutions can’t see through the obvious gynocetrism. It’s rampant.

    I avoided college entirely and went to a tech school instead, because I knew all this man-hating insanity was waiting for me in the university system. I’m a masculine man and I’m proud of it. The internet has done a great job of exposing the biased misandric narrative that exists in the higher education system. Luckily I was well-informed in part due to articles like this. Now I make around $100k annually and I spent only two years in college. I’m happy, my wife’s happy, screw the feminists who try to make me feel guilty for being me.

    I wouldn’t get married if I was a young man these days. I found a unicorn, but I’m an outlier.

  • sestamibi

    What this shows very clearly is that feminism is not about “equality”, but about domination. There have already been suggestions in some of the further reaches of the fringe Left (soon to be mainstream, sorry to say) that men be denied the vote.

    George Orwell once characterized a vision of the future as a boot stamping on a human face, forever. What he didn’t realize was that the boot would be a stiletto heel and the face would have a beard.

  • Gypsy Boots

    What this shows is that many colleges and universities have entirely too much money to play around with in harmful and destructive ways that contribute nothing to education. It’s more than past time to have a serious discussion about tax exemptions for universities–why we have them, what they are for, and whether they are fulfilling their purpose.

    • kj

      True, but tax exemptions are just one vehicle for public funding of colleges. The field of higher education is almost begging to be cut off entirely by middle America.

  • One treatment, though no cure, for toxic matriarchy is attention to Erin Pizzy. She is an author and essentially invented the abuse shelter. Her own biography is a story of vicious abuse and neglect by her mother and her struggle to get any attention from authorities in govt or society. Female Privilege was a serious problem that was nearly the end of at least one female.

    • Infernal Child is her best known book.

      • Lou

        Erin Pizzey’s book ‘This Way to the Revolution – A Memoir’ (2011) is probably a more important book, though. it talks about her early life, creating the first women’s shelter in the world, the opposition and threats that she got from the women’s/feminist movement, and her being driven out of England for 15 years. (I believe that it was 15 years.) Overall it’s an excellent book and gives a good recounting of the rise and problems of the modern feminist movement and helps to explain how we got where we are today.

  • Rick Caird

    Well, just looking at the people who are on the board, marks this as not a serious effort, but rather just another exercise in propaganda.

  • As a Ph.D. graduate of Stony Brook, I emailed President Stanley yesterday reminding him that our will, which mentions Stony Brook as a beneficiary, has a contribution restricted to my old science department. I got a hurried email back from someone in Gift Planning stating “…Please rest assured that serious research and inquiry remain the hallmark of excellence here at your Alma Mater.”

    Gee, I hope so. I don’t support the football team and I sure as Hades don’t want to support this nonsense. Nelson Rockefeller is probably turning in his grave.

    • Glen_S_McGhee_FHEAP

      I’m also a Stony Brook graduate. How the heck did they get the center funded by the MacArthur Foundation? That’s who should be held accountable. Someone needs to hit up the Foundation for some funds for Christina Hoff Sommers, too.

    • kj

      I don’t blame you for restricting your gift, but remember that money is fungible. Every public dollar they don’t have to allocate to the science department is then available to support this type of trash.

  • bdavi52

    Color me unsurprised.

    Identity politics and Identity Studies are founded upon the bedrock belief that there are only two types of people in the world: Victims and Oppressors. And one gathers or loses Brownie Points (in the Market of Group Identity) according to how many groups of which type one can simultaneously inhabit.

    Yes, being Female makes you a victim. Better still to be Black and Female (becoming thereby an Intersectional Victim). Best to be Black, Female, and Lesbian! And if you can combine all this with being a Muslim (or a fat Muslim!!) so much the better.

    The reverse is also true. Being Male makes you an oppressor. Worse still to be White & Male (becoming an intersectional Oppressor). At the bottom of the Oppressor barrel you are a White, Male, Heterosexual, Cisgendered, well-educated, fit & trim, Christian American! Hard to imagine a creature much worse (like ‘Mikey’, he hates and oppresses EVERYONE….simply by existing).

    Which, of course, is the purpose of the Center for the Study of Men and Maculinities: to point out exactly how often Oppressors oppress even and especially when they remain oblivious to their oppressive presence. The Center’s Mission Blurb makes this all abundantly clear… “to bring together researchers, practitioners, and activists … to develop and enhance projects … that REDEFINE GENDER RELATIONS TO FOSTER GREATER SOCIAL JUSTICE.”

    Clearly if we are to achieve ‘social justice’ (an equivalent distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privileges) we must absolutely change the fundamental relationship between men and women. The corollary being, naturally, that whenever we find unequal distribution (as in everywhere, all of the time), we have identified social injustice which is always caused by the degree to which men oppress women. What else could it be?

    This is insane of course, beginning as it does with the Marxist assumption that “equivalent redistribution” to create an artificial social/political/economic equality (in the face of the absolute reality that Man is naturally unequal) is a fundamental social good. But never mind all that.

    As Hoffer pointed out in his seminal work on True Belief, “Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.” And the Devil, obviously, is Male, is White, is Heterosexual…and responsible for all human sin.

    “If you want a picture of the future (there at the Stony Brook Center for Men & Maculinities), imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” It would be pathetic if it weren’t so tragic.

  • Justin Mathis

    It’s time we burned universities to the ground.

  • Meittimies

    Reminds me of that women’s rights conference in Saudi-Arabia that had only men in it. Defeats the purpose entirely. And these college feminists don’t notice the irony.

  • XwhY?

    Current academic research protocol:
    If you wish to understand a topic concerning our society simply ask a white college girl her “feels” about it.

  • Paul Cwik

    The President of Hampden-Sydney College is currently Larry Stimpert. Chris Howard was President between 2010 and 2016.

  • Henry Vandenburgh

    Rubbing elbows with Jane Fonda? Well, la di da. They need several evolutionary psychologists or they won’t get anywhere.

  • Thanks for this, Bruce.

  • HappyCheese

    Michael Kimmel really is the Uncle Tom of white men.

  • Island Joe

    Damn that toxic masculinity on Display in south Texas rescuing hundreds from rising flood waters. Damn that toxic masculinity bring jacked up trucks and boats by the hundreds to pluck people out of the storm waters from the flooding. Where was pajama boy at? Probably being carried to a boat by a jeans and camo wearing toxic man.