Save the males!

Throughout history, says Farrell, men have been encouraged to be “disposable,” that is, ultimately willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the community. Men are trained for this through competitive sports, like football. They learn that they must buy love with their own pain (on the field or the time clock) and, ultimately, be willing to die. And they do, mourns Farrell. Not only do men die an average of seven years earlier than women, but they are five times more likely to commit suicide — and 13.5 times more likely after the age of 85.

“Do you know the root word of hero?” he asks the Borders audience.

Turns out it comes from “cero,” which, in the original Greek, means “servant,” or even “slave.” Historically, men have been servants, says Farrell, slaves to the greater community, the servant-protectors of women, children and old men. The mistake of feminism, says Farrell, is that women equated serving with power and privilege, when in fact both sexes were simply acting out their roles.

Now, for the first time in history, says Farrell, we don’t have to rely on such antiquated notions of gender. In fact, if we do, it will only lead to mutually assured destruction. Western industrialized society has put “our genetic heritage in conflict with our genetic future.” This, Farrell tells us, is because, among other things, we have the nuclear bomb, and men who are bred solely as “killer-protectors” will certainly destroy us all.

And yet, sadly, says Farrell, women are still choosing men as mates based solely on their ability to be “protectors,” at least financially speaking.

Which brings Farrell to another exercise, during which it is established that 100 percent of the women in the audience married for money; all the men married for looks.

Feminism happened, says Farrell, because women naturally chose to marry men who would be the best providers. And men who have good jobs don’t tend to have much of a nurturing side. How can they? They spend all their time at work, the better to show their love by earning money for their families. So these rich women, not understanding that their husbands were demonstrating their love the best they knew how, had a lot of time and money on their hands. Rich women went to therapists. Therapists told them they were oppressed. A movement was born.

I oppose NOW primarily when they express beliefs that suggest men’s propensity for earning more money is a result of male privilege rather
than men’s greater obligation in this arena. And I oppose
male-bashing, distorting statistics, or developing one-sided policies
such as a battered woman syndrome without a battered man syndrome and a Violence Against Women act without a Violence Against Men act, or the option of joining the armed services without the obligation to register for the draft. In brief, I oppose honing victimhood as a fine art and feminism becoming the one-party system of gender politics.
Similarly, I would oppose my supporters being a one-party system of
gender politics.
—  Warren Farrell on his reason why he left NOW (National Organization of Women) (x)

Fuck MRAs and GamerGaters who are trying to use the Lena Dunham shit to get ads pulled from Jez/Gawker and Salon, because you know damn well you don’t give a shit about what happened. You’re using it as a tool to get revenge on people who dared call out your bullshit (which, often, was exactly the same bullshit you’re now pretending to be against because it’s politically expedient). When Warren Farrell was saying childhood incest only damages people because of the taboo against it and that sexual activity between parents and children or between siblings was actually beneficial, you said nothing. You praised him, had him write articles for your websites, had him speak at your conferences. Now that it’s supposed feminists saying it, you don’t get to pretend you’re against what your hero said to further your cause. You are exactly the same scum you were before Lena Dunham’s book came out, and no one is fooled.

I stand firmly against Jezebel, Salon, and anyone else supporting Dunham, but I also stand against anyone who’s pretending to care so they can fight feminism.

You know that talk University of Toronto was going to have about Women's Studies?

The one held by women criticizing Women’s Studies? The one that feminists vowed to protest, just like with the Warren Farrell talk?

Someone pulled the fire alarm on it.

Now, I don’t want to leap to any conclusions, but this sure is suspicious. Incidentally, false fire alarms are illegal in Canada. According to the comments, there were feminists in the audience asking loaded questions, and they dominated the questioning and tried to drown out actual conversation. Y'know, the stuff feminists always accuse MRAs of doing in feminist spaces.

anonymous asked:

there's a post going around showing statements by Paul Elam, Warren Farrell, Karen Straughan, Erin Pizzey, Stefan Molyneux, and Mike Buchanan (all speakers at AVfM's conference) that seem quite troubling. You can find it on a tumblr (pro-feminist I think) named mensrightsactivism. Do you have anything to say? Are these all taken out of context - a neutral, bewildered anon that's tired of bs.

I found it so I’m going to try to answer each.

The rest of the context goes on to say 

And then make them clean up the mess.…

Now, am I serious about this?

No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. Every one should have the right to defend themselves. …

But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.

This seems no different then when people tell kids or women to beat the fuck out of/kill abusive husbands/dads since the target are abusive women that are currently attacking. He goes on to save face by saying that doing that is wrong.

Thing is that Paul Elam is a known asshole who tends to say shock value and inflammatory stuff like this a lot and many in the MRM feel that he’s holding them back with his over the top anti-feminism. Honestly I think people, especially the big names in the MRM need to start calling out his bullshit.

I don’t like the use of the word rape for a something that isn’t rape but I get the point he’s making. In dating it is by a large majority men who have to initiate at almost every romantic level and women act as the deciders as to whether things will escalate to the next level. Men make a move and women decide if she wants him.

This can get confusing and frustrating when you have a woman who is telling you she doesn’t want anything from you while at the same time rubbing your thigh or forcing a kiss on you, a situation I’ve found myself in more than once. Since the dating gender dynamic in the West has men as the initiators then that means its up to them to make the effort, to expend the energy towards getting a romantic partner and when you find somebody sending mixed signals it can feel like you’ve wasted your time or been lied to.

I wouldn’t call it date rape however, that was really stupid since date rape is a serious thing and men already suffer from date rape as well (I’ve had guy friends who were drunk or drugged and raped by women).

I don’t see a problem with this. She isn’t advocating violence but is just talking about a specific form of reciprocal domestic abuse (when both partners abuse each other). Talking about a woman who physically and verbally abuses a man who takes the abuse it until he reaches a breaking point and fights back. Men are raised with not hitting a woman beat into our heads so that even when we are being attacked or sexually assaulted we often try not to fight back. In this scenario it’s talking about men who have abusive partners and take on constant abuse but as soon as they reach their breaking point and hit back they are labeled the sole abuser. 

Erin Pizzey was one of the women who founded some of the first women’s shelters in the UK and has worked with a lot of abusers and abuse victims and this is something she’s ran into and considering that in studies on reciprocal violence support it then I don’t see the issue with the quote.

Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate. For example, Gray and Foshee11 specifically asked adolescents about their initiation of violence and found that among the violent relationships studied, 66% were characterized by both partners initiating violence at least once. In the National Family Violence Survey, both men and women reported that violence was initiated by each partner at least 40% of the time.10 Additionally, studies of community samples found that a relatively low percentage of women endorsed self-defense as a primary motive for violence.13,14 These data suggest that self-defense cannot fully explain the reciprocal violence phenomenon.


I don’t see the issue with this quote either. Rape kinks/fantasies are pretty common. Hell I dated a rape survivor who used rape in our RP’s as a way to deal with her trauma. I don’t know how large of a percentage it is to say ‘most’ women have fantasies about being taken but it’s a thing that happens.

Andrea Dworkin was one of those people who constantly talked about rape and tried to define all forms of sex with a man as rape so I could see how one would look at a person like that and think that they are obsessed with rape and have some unconscious issues with hit.

This is 90% stupid, 10% truth. Truth in that genetics do have a strong hand in determining personality, but stupid in that we are gonna have assholes regardless. It’s pointless to put all the blame on women since good men have been known to date/marry shitty women, so should those women’s asshole genes not be counted in this? People in general have been known to have sex with shitty people for a whole range of reasons (they were attractive, they had money, they had a car) and we can’t just put it women like assholes.

For me, I think it’s not assholes that people (not just women) find attractive but confidence. Confidence is powerful and sexy. Assholes can often be confident or their disregard for common courtesy and such can be mistaken for it. Mr. Molyneux’s words just seem sexist to both men and women and more than a bit ignorant of genetics and it’s applications to sociology.

I’d say there is some truth to it. Young girls are raised much differently than boys for the most part and from what I’ve read less likely to be physically or verbally punished compared to brothers and such. However this can change from culture to culture, with some putting less social responsibility on boys than they do girls.

To say that the above quoted doesn’t happen would be foolish, but I don’t see it as some epidemic. I also don’t see it as being just up to men. This is the job of all people to be good and responsible parents and not raise spoiled kids.


Final Words: The MRM is made up of many different people with many different views. The point of the talk was to bring in many ideas and discussions to the table. Hell I was in the chat room of the live show debating with MRA’s, some of whom were anti circumcision, some were pro. There were people there just to learn what the whole thing was about.

Me, I don’t consider myself an MRA since I don’t believe that focusing on just one gender at a time will help fix the bigger societal issues that plague gender but I’m not going to try to dismiss an entire movement with one or two quotes taken out of context just as people shouldn’t do the same with feminism.



Warren Farrell protest at the University of Toronto - Full version



>harassing people peacefully wanting to attend a lecture and learn about other arguments of contemporary issues
>accusing these attendees of “going to be the people to rape the women in their life”
>Not actually knowing of the lecturer they are protesting aside from being told he they are a critic of something they personally believe in.

It’s fucking shameful that these people react to other opinions by violence, harassment, silencing, intimidation and belittlement. They are in literal practice, the anti-thesis to the very values they claim to champion and are in actuality the embodiment of all the negative traits they seek to eliminate from society. I love how they invite people to “educate” themselves by not attending the lecture and going on google to read secondary and third sources of the speaker rather than letting individuals form their own conclusion from attending the lecture presented by the primary source. This isn’t intelligent rebuttal, it’s an anti-intellectual mob. Universities should be spaces of open discourse, not hostile spaces of selective indoctrination.

Best part is that Warren Farrell, the speaker these people are protesting, was one of the most prominent figureheads in the 2nd wave feminist movement in the 1970s, becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in N.Y.C.

Though today he is a critic of 3rd wave feminism and I guess this is the reason he is so hated by all these people.

My favourite part though is the person who shouted “No fedoras on our campus!” at 0:59

I laughed pretty hard haha

I am a men’s liberationist (or “masculist”) when men’s liberation is defined as equal opportunity and equal responsibility for both sexes. I am a feminist when feminism favors equal opportunities and responsibilities for both sexes. I oppose both movements when either says our sex is THE oppressed sex, therefore, “we deserve rights.” That’s not gender liberation but gender entitlement. Ultimately, I am in favor of neither a women’s movement nor a men’s movement but a gender transition movement.
—   Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power
an unscientific experiment

I’ve had limited internet access for the past few weeks, as I’ve mentioned. I’ve been forced to use my cheap phone’s terrible WAP on a screen that’s maybe three inches, which is provided by T-Mobile UK/Orange/whoever it is this week. 

And one interesting feature is that certain websites are restricted from people under 18 using a Content Lock feature. Including websites that, as far as I know, have nothing really offensive in them, and which are streets ahead of what any given teenager sees on Facebook. I remembered reading about feminist efforts in Canada to have men’s rights sites blocked by several colleges and unis after the attempts to suppress such discussions blew up in their face at the University of Toronto*, as well as similar efforts to get MRA websites blocked by web-filtering services.

Leaving aside the question of what these feminists are so afraid of people hearing (especially when several feminist websites regularly spew more and worse hate speech than most MRAs), the blocking on my phone couldn’t have anything to do with that…right?

  • FeministCritics: Blocked.
  • Toy Soldiers: Blocked.
  • A Voice For Men: Blocked.
  • Genderratic: Blocked.
  • The Spearhead: Blocked.
  • MensActivism.org: Blocked
  • Men’s Rights Edmonton: Blocked
  • National Coalition for Men: Blocked
  • Permutation of Ninjas: No problem.

SYABM (lol, like I’m important): No problem.

  • Jezebel (whose first visible post title was about a giant walk-in vagina): No problem.
  • Reddit’s SRS: No problem.
  • Manboobz: No problem.
  • Shakesville: No problem.
  • Amanda Marcotte @ The Raw Story: No problem.
  • Feministing: No problem.
  • Feministe: No problem.
  • Feminist.com: No problem.
  • Radfem.org: Blocked..

So…out of 9 of some of the most popular blogs that criticize feminism** and support men’s rights (4 of which aren’t even MRA sites), 8 of them are blocked. (And, no offense, but PON doesn’t even come close the visibility and popularity of those other five.) Meanwhile, 1 popular feminist website gets blocked, and it’s a radfem one. The others, including Manboobz, which is primarily about mocking the people in the first group, are fine.


Also, the My T-Mobile homepage on the phone has a link to an erotica section. Makes one wonder about the point of the Content Lock in the first place.

* Needless to say, the Student Union tried to get AVFM blocked at U of T. Oh boy, did AVFM have fun with that.

** Totally not the only ones I could think of off the top of my head.

EDIT: Similar sites are apparently blocked on O2 as well.

EDIT 2: Here’s an article from The Register on the matter.

dirty-diode asked:

Gotcha. Just wondering, do you feel that the actions of feminists at the University of Toronto campus on November 16th, 2012, and April 5th, 2013, were justified? To breakdown what happened on the 16th, feminist Warren Farrell had seminar on his book "The Myth Of Male Power", but the seminar was protested by feminists, who prevented people from going to the event and had to be removed by police. On the 5th, a similar seminar was held, and protesters pulled the fire alarm, interrupting the event.

I feel that those feminists did what we call praxis—meaning theory turned into action. If we sit around talking about things all the time, that can only accomplish so much. The theory is important—the discussion are important, but you have to practice what you preach. At the end of the day, you have to take action or nothing changes.

I support those feminists’ actions because holding a seminar about “the myth of male power” isn’t just someone voicing an “opinion.” It’s the promotion of male supremacy, patriarchy and female oppression. I also do NOT consider Warren Farrell to be a feminist, nor do I think him writing books and giving seminars that conceal male supremacy, cast feminists as victimizing themselves, blame patriarchy on women, and blame feminism for men’s problems are feminist acts. They’re patriarchal/sexist/oppressive acts. If he positions himself as feminist, it’s that much more insidious.


Dr. Warren Farrell on Why Men Are the Way They Are - The Perspective You Haven’t Heard, 1/3 - drwarrenfarrell

Part 2

Part 3

How the focus was centred on women for decades before he started noticing the disparity.

Working was always an obligation, not an option. Just as child-rearing was an obligation for women. It was never about one group oppressing another but about survival.

Historically, men rarely got to do what they wanted to do. The artistic professions generally have mostly women while the men choose construction, engineering or scientific based jobs. The image of men being dull minded and disinterested in creativity came from this, while the image of women being humanitarian and creative comes from their freedom to do what they love. Though few tend to pursue their dreams due to family obligations or lack of money, there are still a greater number of women in those “dream jobs” than men. Men tend to work for money rather than personal satisfaction.

Neither gender historically had power, only roles. While feminism addressed the female side, labelling men as oppressors, they didn’t seem to notice that it went both ways. Men raise money, women raise children. How is it a war between the two? Both lose out.

There is a lot of chatter in this, the audience participates in what Farrell calls “experiences” where each audience member speaks to a small group of their fellows, about what their father did, what he wanted to do and how they came to that conclusion in order to see the sacrifices they made. After they’ve discussed it with their small group some share them to the rest of the room.

Around 57:00 minutes in is pretty powerful.

Part two has a bad picture in parts, so it’s better to listen to than watch. Part three has some audio problems which is annoying.


Warren Farrell Speaks in Toronto: Transforming the Boys Crisis (by EqualityCanadaTV)

Remember, folks, this is the allegedly incest- and rape-supporting sexist that protesting feminists broke the law to silence. He looks so harmless, doesn’t he? You’d never guess at the malevolent evil lurking evilly below the placid, deceptive surface of his evil words.


Equity without Equity: Universities Love-Hate Relationship with Men

As our sons and daughters return to campuses, we pay for them to learn about life, and know that for better and worse they will also learn about love. We may fear, though, that the love part is more likely to be by ecstasy and heartbreak than by curriculum—since we can’t recall women’s studies focusing on the promotion of love.

Has that changed? Since women today are exceeding men at every academic and most emotional levels, has the anti-male anger of women’s studies’ early years been replaced by a concern for our sons’ “failure to launch”? Are men’s studies curricula helping us understand what has created that failure to launch? Are gender studies teaching both sexes compassion for the other?

Answers: no. Good causes often create bureaucracies that become more a part of the problem than the solution. As the only male three-time board member of the National Organization for Women in New York City —  in the early ‘70s — I’ve seen the world change from college-women–as-minority-group to college-women-as-majority-group (57%) even as the universities themselves are still giving scholarships to women as minority groups, and painting males as the “patriarchal oppressor.” Two snapshots in time will give us some reference points:

Back Story, 1972:

In the picture below, I am leading a protest in support of the Women’s Strike for Equality. One banner barks, “Men’s Liberation: Men are More Than Success Objects.” (I’m the object under “Objects”– I can’t recall anyone accusing us of being success objects!)

Back Story, 2012:

I am invited to speak at the University of Toronto by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE). CAFE is among North America’s first attempts to transform the discussion of gender on campus from a monologue into a dialogue. I am speaking on the Boy Crisis.

Or am I?

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) feminists combine with other feminist groups to rip down hundreds of posters advertising the event—most within hours of posting. The SWP has labeled CAFE an MRA (men’s rights activist) group. They label all MRA events as hate speech, creating the rationalization for not a protest, but a blockade of the entrances to my presentation.

Approximately 100 protestors form this human blockade, preventing many students and community members from attending my talk, subjecting those who pursued to endure vicious insults, and, by forcing an hour delay, exhausting the patience of still others.

The protesters alleged police violence. Fortuitously, Steve Brule was filming a documentary. He documented the police restraint and protestor violence—protestors shoving and swearing at police (“you f…ing scum,” etc.). Brule’s video went viral (a third of a million views). It needs to be seen to emotionally absorb what has emerged on our campuses.

Often protesters have a point—if they are protesting hate speech, while one can argue freedom of speech, we can nevertheless see the hatred in the speech, and empathize with the sentiment of the protest. It’s fair, therefore, to see whether there is in fact any hatred — or even insensitivity — in the speech. Here’s the boy crisis speech the feminists blockaded–in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

The Atmosphere of Misandry Your Son Faces

That was November, 2012. What’s happened in the ensuing months is a veritable documentary of the atmosphere your son faces as he enters a college campus in North America, Australia, and most of Europe.

In the first week or two, he is required to attend a program on date rape, but nothing on date communication; by October, he encounters Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but never hears of a “prostate cancer awareness month.” If your son becomes involved in student governance, he has access to significant student funds for women’s centers and speakers on women’s issues, but no student money for men’s centers or speakers on men’s issues.

If your son is heterosexual, he may soon express an interest in a woman who is taking a women’s studies course or degree, and see her assiduously researching papers on how the patriarchy consists of men who made laws to benefit men at the expense of women — but for him, there are no men’s studies courses, programs or degrees. He may learn she is on a scholarship to encourage women in engineering, math or the other STEM professions; if he’s observant, he’ll note that despite few men majoring in the social sciences, he hasn’t run across even a single man with a scholarship designed to encourage men to enter social work, psychology or the other social sciences.

Your son will soon meet many women who will be working on papers and theses on women’s special interests (e.g., women’s suffrage), but virtually none on men’s special interests (the boy crisis; fathering; custody rights). If your son is a good guy, he’ll review their papers on women’s problems (e.g., domestic violence against women), but probably never see a paper on men’s problems (e.g., suicide; life expectancy; disposability; “mancessions”; domestic violence against men; false accusations; being psychologically adrift).

Cumulatively, this creates an atmosphere of prejudice against men, recently known as misandry. Devoid of this misandry, none of the following events could have developed following the feminist blockade…

The Official Canadian Castration of Men’s Issues

The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) is the largest student organization in Canada, and the national coordinating body that oversees most of the Canadian student unions. There is no U.S. equivalent. In 2013, the CFS passed a resolution that prohibited either men’s issues or men’s rights groups or clubs on their affiliated Canadian campuses.

The real-life consequences? First, this Fall, your son or daughter is unlikely to even discover the option of these clubs—and therefore their ideas–because they will not be able to recruit students by setting up a recruiting table on campus. (Such clubs exist in only one major U.S. university—Montana State at Bozeman.) Second, if he or she does find one, it is likely to be ineffective because it cannot receive student activities fees to help fund its activities; and third, their club would receive no support in the promotion of its activities (e.g., creating posters). The cumulative effect? Your son would experience the group’s lack of legitimacy. Especially in your son or daughter’s first year, lack of legitimacy can be a potent force.

Suppose, though, you have a daughter who is a maverick and she wishes to start a club that incorporates a compassion for men. Sarah Santhosh and a womanfriend, Anjana Rao, appear to fit that bill: they applied to start a student group–the Ryerson Association for Equality–at Ryerson University, a large career-oriented university in Toronto. In their application, they mentioned their group would reflect sensitivity to men’s — as well as women’s — issues.

Response? The Ryerson Student Union’s Board of Directors immediately convened and passed a pre-emptive resolution that any group examining gender that was inclusive of “the concept of misandry” would be considered “negating the need to centre women’s voices in the struggle for gender equity”…and therefore prohibited from the campus.

Translation? Yes, women’s voices must be heard above all –except for those women’s voices concerned about sexism against men; those women’s voices must be silenced. The point wasn’t missed on Sarah Santhosh: “The ironic thing is my voice is being silenced.”

Was this Ryerson Student Union Board’s resolution the idea of some student—perhaps a radical feminist? No. The primary advocate was Marwa Hamad, a faculty member. Her position at Ryerson? The Vice-President of Equity. Did the Board, at least, allow for a debate? There was no debate, no discussion, and no dispute. The resolution passed unanimously. All this took place with no input from Sarah and Anjana, the applicants. It pre-empted Sarah and Anjana’s scheduled meeting with the Student Groups Committee.

This made me ponder. In that 1972 “success object” picture, we were a bunch of hippies marching in the street in the hopes of a gender equality that would benefit both sexes—what I called a “gender transition movement” that would free us from the rigid “success object”-type roles of the past, allowing more flexible roles for our futures.

From “day one” the leading universities’ women’s studies’ departments had skipped right past that—and into Marxist feminism with its paradigm of males-as-oppressor/females-as-oppressed. Over the past thirty years that model expanded from the politically correct gender framework at the leading universities, whose professors are typically more radical, into more vocationally oriented universities such as Ryerson, who in the past were barely affected by Marxist-type feminism.

Most recently, though, what Ryerson represents is the expansion of radical feminism from professor-approved to institution-approved. Thus a Ryerson radical feminist as a Vice President of the University—representing, ironically, Equity. And, like syrup in the institutional pancake, once the syrup had soaked in, it could not be removed without the institution being bent out of shape. In this case, by silencing women in the name of giving voice to women. All of this is taxpayer supported.

The Response of the University of Toronto

In the Spring of 2013, the Canadian Association for Equality invited a women’s studies professor who favored a more male-positive approach to women’s studies. The feminist groups interrupted her presentation by setting off a fire alarm. Take a listen…


The University of Toronto Student Union responded to the cumulative stimuli with a “Townhall on Sexism.” So far, so good?

First red flag: not a single representative of any group with a male-positive perspective was invited to speak. To the contrary, the only invited speaker, Danielle Sandhu, immediately supported an audience member who said, “we know there are infiltrators…”

Sandhu then challenged any members of an MRA group to identify themselves, saying, “they should just leave, I could point fingers….” Sandhu had sway, not only as the only invited speaker, but as the former president of the University of Toronto Student Union, the event sponsor.

The University of Toronto Men’s Issues Awareness Society (UTMIA) had, in fact, sent two representatives, with the understanding that as an open, public, Townhall on Sexism sponsored by the Student Union and paid for by student fees, that they had not only a right to attend, but an obligation.

Sandu’s support of the “infiltrators” comment, and her challenge for them to leave or be pointed out, apparently incited audience members, who shouted, “point them out” and “make them uncomfortable.”

When the two representatives did not leave, a Vice President of the student union, Guled Arale, described by the UTMIA reps as tall and large, approached the reps, and, the reps report, intimidated them by moving into their personal space and repeatedly asking them to leave. When one rep said he was just trying to listen, he was told this wasn’t a dialogue; it was to plan strategies to stop the MRAs, and their presence made the organizers uncomfortable. One rep left immediately. The other rep was informed he really had no option but to leave, and after protesting this was an open student event, he nevertheless abided.

What was this “strategizing” about? A representative of the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) suggested a “militant approach.” Although OPIRG is funded by mandatory student activities fees, the woman suggested “making this campus inhospitable to these people.” How? By finding out “where they live.”

Is the U of T administration in some way disciplining the protestors—for example, by at least charging them for the increased burden of the protests on campus security? To the contrary. The Office of Vice Provost Students just decided to charge the UTMIA—not the protestors–a mandatory pre-emptive security fee of $964 should their events be protested again.

The U of T is not just blaming the victim by fining the victim. It is giving the perpetrator the incentive to continue the protests to defeat the UTMIA by bankruptcy since the UTMIA receives no student activity fees. The administration’s approach is akin to the administration fining the women’s center for an increase in rapes on campus.

What’s the Status of Gender “Equity” on U.S. Campuses?

To update myself on the status of gender “equity” on U.S. campuses, I reached out to activists on both the men’s issues side of the aisle, and to Michael Kimmel, the dominant force on the men’s issues-as-defined-by-feminists side of the aisle.

It’s a rich man-poor man gap. Only the feminist-defined men’s issues are receiving funding of any significance from their university or a foundation. Both Stony Brook University and other foundations will be adding additional funding to a $300,000 start-up grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to establish the first Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities. The center will be headed by Michael Kimmel, a male feminist and a Distinguished Professor of Sociology.

Michael Kimmel’s perspective is indicated by the title of his forthcoming book, Angry White Men. As a sociologist, Michael would, were the context different, doubtless be the first to spot the extraordinary wealth of the feminist machine vs. the virtual homelessness of men who wish to define and redefine themselves without the control of the Marxist feminist prism.

Although Michael himself has some empathy for fathers’ issues, the Center’s advisory board is thus far almost 100% the country’s leading feminists—feminists such Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, and Eve Ensler. Perhaps the fame and ubiquity on college campuses of Eve Ensler’s play, The Vagina Monologues, symbolizes the gender monologue on campus. As Guled of the U of T’s Townhall on Sexism made crystal clear to the young man requesting a dialogue, “It’s not a dialogue.” It is, precisely, a vagina monologue.

How are men’s issues as defined by feminists different from men’s issues as defined by other men (e.g., suicide, and the other issues mentioned above)? Feminist-defined men’s issues require acknowledging patriarchy and the power bias it gives men; it encourages men to forfeit their power. Once men are seen as having the power, domestic violence is seen as the expression of male power, leaving women off the hook when they initiate (hence the Violence Against Women Act, but no Violence Against Men Act). Through this feminist prism, it expands the definitions of date rape and heterosexual rape but ignores prison rape; it emphasizes women’s greater contributions to housework and child care, but treats men’s greater contributions to income as male privilege rather than male contribution.

To my knowledge, no person who has taken a non-feminist perspective on these issues has received significant university or foundation funding, or reached Michael’s level of Distinguished Professor in any social science department at any university in the U.S. or world. Neither my contacts nor my emails from readers around the world were able to identify a single men’s studies course—and certainly no program or degree—that was not under feminist control.

There are seven scholarly journals in the field of feminist masculinity studies, and one — a recent one — in the field of men’s studies that is not feminist controlled. That one is New Male Studies. Its editor is Miles Groth, a Wagner College professor who built his reputation on the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger. The connection between Heidegger and gender studies?: both felt the original truths being sought got lost in the seeking.

Is a Transition from “Men-as-the-Problem” to “Men’s Problems” Possible?

If feminism’s focus is on “men-as-the-problem” is there a way to make the transition to men’s problems?

There’s are two potential paths: one financial; the other, legal.

Financial first. Lakeland Community College in Ohio, and Pierce College in Washington State, found that men’s problems could get attention if couched as an issue of retention. James Shelley at Lakeland explained that the new Ohio funding formula is based on success rates, including graduation and retention. And since men are more likely to drop out, the issues putting male students at risk might be more widely considered if it meant more money from the state.

Similarly, after Pierce College’s Bret Burkholder elicited data from colleges throughout Washington State, and discovered male students about four times as likely to be dismissed as women at all of Washington state’s colleges, he got no traction when he presented it as a male problem. It too had to be presented as a retention problem.

Burkholder and Shelley face a problem similar to that faced by people trying to find a cure for AIDS. Only when it was reframed as a disease that could be also contracted by heterosexuals and women was empathy catalyzed and funding materialized.

Learning from this, Burkholder has framed his work less as about men per se, and more, for example, as about veterans, which clears through the patriotism filter; or work with single dads, since the beneficiaries are children.

This approach, while gaining traction, is still slow. As Shelley puts it, “the premise is still, ‘Men are the problem,” rather than “Men have problems.” And this from the man who directs one of only three university men’s centers. (The others are at the U of Oregon, and the Houston area Lone Star College-Kingwood, just approved in 2013). And as far as men’s rights organizations with college approval, the only one I’m able to identify is the new affiliate of the National Coalition for Men at Montana State University in Bozeman.

The Legal Path

When I completed a tennis match with the man who was at the time the president of Northwestern University, he expressed a fascination with my introduction to him of the foreign land of men’s issues. Our subsequent dialogue went like this:

Warren: You could make Northwestern the first university in the world to pioneer a program defining men’s issues.

President: Ha. I’d be annihilated by the feminists before I got to first base.

Warren: Is there any way you could create such a program without being annihilated?

President: (Pause) Hmmm, well, actually yes. If the University were sued as being in violation of Title IX by not balancing women’s studies with men’s studies… then I’d be able to support something in the name of saving the university. I’d be more a hero than a villain.


Empowering women, whether in the workplace, sports, or internally, is a virtue. But demonizing men and undervaluing the family undermines that virtue. Male-female relationships are not about oppressor and oppressed. Men and women have worked together and died together in the family boat that navigated the waters of survival. When either sex unilaterally wins, both sexes lose. The family boat sinks.

We don’t need a women’s movement demonizing men, nor a men’s movement demonizing women. We need a gender transition movement to transition from the rigid roles of the past to more flexible roles for our future.

Dr. Warren Farrell has appeared on more than 1,000 TV and radio shows and been chosen by the Financial Times as one of the world’s top 100 thought leaders. His books are published in over 50 countries, and in 17 languages. They include Father and Child Reunion and the best-sellers Why Men Are The Way They Are plus The Myth of Male Power. Dr. Farrell has two daughters, lives with his wife in Mill Valley, California, and virtually at www.warrenfarrell.com.

The Myth of Male Power 21st Anniversary Ed.

The Myth of Male Power documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable–disposable in war, disposable at work–and therefore, indirectly, disposable as dads.

Universities teach our children that we live in a patriarchal world controlled by men to benefit men at the expense of women. Dr. Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power says “false”: the world has not been controlled by men, but by the need to survive.[…]

I found out about this on AVFM. What was that I keep hearing about MRAs not supporting “real” efforts to address men’s issues?