they treat boys and men like defective girls
Posted on 08/30/2017 9:02:49 AM PDT by reaganaut1
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Useless, highly ideological “social scientists” who are mostly parasites on the massive “higher education” debt bubble.
As with most things, massive government money and student debt, in our printed, fiat currency, are supporting a perverse economic, social and political outcome.
According to the libs, gender can be whatever you want it to be, so what’s the point of these men’s and women’s studies? Besides, we are bound to leave someone out, and they’ll be offended.
The joke is on the “women’s studies” and “LGBT studies” majors. Once they graduate, most of them will be lucky to find jobs in fast food or retail sales with their worthless degrees and non-existent skill sets. Let them analyze that.
Womens Studies portray women as victims.
Mens Studies portray men as victimizers.
Maybe they should study how men are behaving in Houston - you know, saving women and children, giving people water, rescuing dogs, lifting wheelchairs into small boats...
It’s a Man Thing. They wouldn’t understand.
Real men don’t sit around waiting to be studied. They are out doing things. More feminization and faggotry of males.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
they treat boys and men like defective girls
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.