I am sure many of you will have seen the press about a man suing LSE as he believes their Masters course in Gender Studies discriminates against men because the taught materials do not focus enough on men’s issues. Unsurprisingly, I think this case is completely silly.
There are a number of issues that make this case thoroughly ridiculous. The notion that a man is complaining about a woman-heavy focus in a gender studies course has been covered well elsewhere, and I do not have much to add to this issue. Another very noteworthy point is that it is hard to see how this is actually “discrimination”. LSE point out that as men and women had equal access to both the course and the key readings, no direct gender discrimination took place. This point is expanded here.
Many have already covered the important points, so I would like to add something from my own perspective. Basically, I wonder, what the fuck did Tom Martin expect from a Masters degree? From everything he has said on the matter, it would appear that what he wants is for a course to spoon-feed him information, for every lecture and seminar to provide a constant drip of knowledge with absolutely no independent study. The source of his complaint appears to be that the reading list did not consist of articles and theory that he wanted to read.
Well, Tom Martin, here’s some big news: that’s not how Masters degrees work. They’re hard work, because you’re supposed to read around the issues. The taught components of Masters degrees–lectures, seminars, reading lists–are a suggestion: a possible starting point. Everything else is entirely up to the student. In my Masters, I ended up conducting my research project and dissertation on a topic we had not been taught at all, nor had it been in any of the reading lists. But am I suing UCL for discrimination against the Implicit Association Test? Of course not. That would just be silly.
A solution to Martin’s problem is simple, and what is generally expected of a Master’s question. If Martin believes that there is some sort of systemic bias against men, or that the gender studies literature is lacking in its discussion of men’s issues, he should write his dissertation about it. Essentially, that’s what academia is all about: one reads, one identifies gaps in the literature, one researches, one plugs the gap. The dissertation Martin didn’t write could have been really interesting. It could have been worthwhile. It could have been brilliant.
Having checked out Tom Martin’s Twitter feed, @sexismbusters, an interesting picture emerges. Martin does not seem to be engaging in debate: rather, if someone tweets at him with a point with which he disagrees, he will generally respond with the cerebral argument of “if you hate equality, go to Yemen”, or requests to donate to his legal fund. There is no actual discussion of points–valid points, which should be addressed. Likewise, Martin wrote an article in the Guardian’s CIF, which he claims to show that there is systemic male bias, particularly in LSE’s Gender Studies course.
Unfortunately, the piece has all the intellectual rigor of a toasted tea cake. Martin falls prey to accidentally turning his whole argument fallacious by declaring texts “never” discuss misandry–which can be neatly popped by just one academic article about misandry (of which, of course, there are loads). Martin also makes repeated unreferenced assertions about things “the research” allegedly shows. When a reference finally appears, it is to a video on Youtube uploaded by a user called TheHappyMisogynist. The video appears to be based on a single academic paper, which Martin himself was clearly unable to critically appraise: he claims the paper shows that women are more likely to be violent against men in an intimate partner situation. What is actually shows is that this is the case in a certain type of violence among a certain population group, assessed by self report, is more commonly initiated by women.
With an ability to construct an argument like that, Martin probably should be suing LSE. Their teaching of academic skills appears to be deeply flawed if a few “if you like it so much, why don’t you go and live there” tweets and a very shonky, short article are all one of their former students is capable of doing.
It is hardly surprising, then, that rather than take the intellectual route and write a simply blinding, groundbreaking dissertation on gender dynamics in gender studies courses, Tom Martin has decided to hide behind the skirts of litigation. I don’t think there’s much else he can do.
Another angry woman 
If you hate Tom Martin so much why don’t you go and live there?
Good post.
YouTube’s “TheHappyMisogynist” is Paul Elam, the owner of “A Voice For Men” and author of this:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/bashing-women-in-the-name-of-a-better-world/
He thinks he’s some kind of big deal in the Men’s Rights Movement – and it wouldn’t surprise me if Tom Martin hangs out on those websites as well.
“It is hardly surprising, then, that rather than take the intellectual route and write a simply blinding, groundbreaking dissertation on gender dynamics in gender studies courses, Tom Martin has decided to hide behind the skirts of litigation. I don’t think there’s much else he can do.”
This is the point where it becomes impossible to see him as the underdog, even as a dyed-in-the-wool MRA-ite. Even if we assume Tom Martin is right, and The Bad Feminists are discriminating against his penis using books, he’s not fighting them on their own turf or the terms of their own alleged privilege. Instead, he’s using a different form of privilege – having the money or financial backing to sue – to right a different wrong. A bit like taking out your anger at racial discrimination by beating up gays.
He’s basically paying a better-educated guy in a wig to fight his academic battles with Wimmins for him.
Alex that’s just stupid. But I will let it go. You and your penis really do not inspire me to argue anymore.
If you don’t like arguing, have you considered taking legal action instead?
Congratulations QuietRiotGirl. You are a sexist. You just demonstrated demonstrated that with your comment “you and your penis”. If someone said to you “take your vagina and go home” you would, no doubt, have a fit at the sexist condescension-but you see no problem engaging in the same behavior yourself.
Sexism is sexism-and anti-male slurs that dismiss what someone has said based on the supposed gender of the poster are wrong-whether they are anti-female OR anti-male. If you are unable to recognize that, than you are asserting that “sexism is ok, as long as it is against men and not women” which makes you a hypocrite, a sexist, and frankly rather pathetic. True empowerment does not come from bashing others based on their sex.
My Honours English Lit Dissertation was on Problematic Masculinities in Post-Modernity, and I must admit that I was somewhat surprised at the comparative lack of masculine-specific secondary materials available. That said, my supervisor (a gay woman) pointed me in the direction of some excellent sociological studies on the topic, and the fairly well-known literary tropes of male homosocial desire and hyper-masculinity.
The result was that I had too much material to fit in a 10,000 word dissertation.
The other result was that I discovered “defensive insecurity”, the process whereby the (post-)modern male is told by society that he is “priveleged”, and yet he does not feel that way. Broadly because he is bound by self-policed gender codes of conduct that are taken for granted e.g. antifemininity, status and toughness; because contemporary culture apparently criticises the white male as a either complicit in patriarchy, or as the only identity exempt from equality (e.g. “nobody says it’s sexist that TV ads make guys out to be stupid” – like that was all feminism was about); basically because he is not actually an “old white dude” who runs the world. Also, traditional femininity – marriage & motherhood – is still relatively sacrosanct, while traditional masculinity is generally frowned upon as oppressive or archaic. My personal take is that he feels Otherness through the alienating effects of capitalism, but lacks the means or power to articulate or fight it, and becomes complicit instead.
The result: a reactionary compensation to assert personal identity rights in the face of imaginary insult, all generated by personal insecurity.
It is interesting that Mr.Martin is 39: I am 35, and am of similar age to remember when there was a brief burst of “caring sharing male” ideals during the 80s, before the 90s thrust “the lad” back in the spotlight – these contradictory archetypes lead to some interesting confusion as to the nature of (post-)modern masculinity. Unlike Mr.Martin, I am mixed-race, and am therefore under no illusions whatsoever as to what genuine persecution on the grounds of identity actually constitutes.
Very unbalanced article. I’d give it a 45.
The Guardian editor advised me there was no room for references, so I didn’t include them, but did do in the comments section. Paul Elam’s video on domestic violence, which I hyperlinked to, does contain links in the lowbar – to hundreds of studies which find women are at least as violent as men – yet the curriculum only mentioned violence against women, by men.
That is hateful.
I mentioned there was research showing women are four times more misandric than men misogynistic, and did not include a hyperlink to the abstract – because the abstract is written in a victim-feminist way, to hide the full extent of the misandry that the actual research uncovers.
Nevertheless, here is that reference: Goodwin and Rudman, 2004 – you’ll have to read the whole paper as I did.
And no, there were absolutely no references to misandry in the core texts.
Nor, to hostile sexism, nor to male-bashing, nor to victim-feminism, nor to anti-male, nor to any other words, which might draw attention to the dirty little problem.
The argument that ‘men can study men if they want to’ is a window-dressing front. As the bottom line is, no men’s equality issues debates are present in the curriculum, because it is an open secret that they are actively blocked. One text recommend they be blocked. ‘Refusals’ as the gender elite would say – so no men have succeeded, apart from the male apologists, like Jeff Hearn, Michael Kimmell et al.
I am not a masochist, and neither are most men, which is why gender studies is on trial.
When are anti-male victim-feminists going to stop giving feminism a bad name?
Once again, you thoroughly miss the point: a masters degree is independent research, not for the curriculum to contain everything you want it to contain. As I pointed out, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from challenging paradigms, critically thinking and writing a dissertation on the issues you find interesting. That is what a degree is for. Where is the link for this text–which, I presume was an LSE piece of guidance, the way you frame it–that such debates be “blocked”?
Now, your ability of academic referencing is pisspoor, as Goodwin and Rudman have collaborated frequently, and wrote together several times in 2004. The correct way one references an academic article is like this: Surname, X. Paper title. Journal, volume page number. Failing that, even a newspaper editor will allow for hyperlinking references: have a look, for example, any Guardian article by Ben Goldacre which is referenced thoroughly, and admirably.
Perhaps you mean the “Women are Wonderful” effect, in which case you’ll likely know of the rest of the research into that area, including why that effect appears. Or are you talking about research using the Attitudes Toward Men Inventory? I hope you’re not, because once again, you’ll have noticed, had you done your reading, that people who took a gender studies course–both women and men–displayed a more positive attitude towards men following that course, and those with a feminist identity tend display lower levels of hostile sexism. As an aside, that research wasn’t even conducted by Goodwin or Rudman, but I expect, if you’ve been researching properly, you’ll have come across it.
Now, as for the “wealth” of research linked beneath the youtube video, the first was the study I discussed in the piece, which I read and the authors themselves clearly discuss the limitations of it. The other articles are simply about violence against men, without much towards comparative data. So, therefore, one cannot make the argument either way, but what can be said is that violence against men does exist, and there is less research into it than violence against women. Again, there is a lot of interesting discussion to be had around this, and were you interested academically in the topic, I’d wager that there’s easily a dissertation to come from it. Have a look at Thierry Ennui’s post below yours for writing an interesting dissertation about “men’s issues”. What you could take from the teaching on the Masters, though, would be vital: the ability to construct a solid argument. So far, you’re a little unclear on what kinds of evidence and literature back up an argument, but with a little practice you could improve and be able to study issues that interest you in an academic capacity.
If I were you, I would drop the litigation. It will cost you far more than it benefits. The financial cost would be better spent in getting an education to learn how to research, then researching a topic which interests you.
P.S. By the way, I never studied psychology relating to gender in my degrees. I researched it independently, as it was a topic that interested me.
It may or may not be hateful. But it certainly makes a mockery of everything gender studies claims to stand for.
Feminists often claim they are all about “equality”, Some people mischievously suggest they should therefore use another tag. “Feminism” sounds dangerously as though they might be thinking about women and not at all men!
Which might just entail exclusion and prejudice – if you were able to thing further than one step ahead at a time and even remotely self-critically that is…Anyway Gender studies is a nice and neutral name at least :
Whereas in fact the boring truth is that exactly the opposite is the case. Feminism and “Gender studies” (ridiculous) exist purely to get an even better deal for women, at the expense of men.
I’m well aware there are people obtuse enough to think otherwise. But Gender studies are a pitiful, laughable attempt to claim scholarly relevance and standards for a bunch of women making stuff up.
It’s pure politics and should NOT be taught at a university
So should feminism have a different name or is calling it “gender studies” ridiculous? Make your bloody mind up.
Also I believe politics is taught at some universities.
Good point. We should also stop teaching Friedman in economics classes, lest people start getting ideas about neoliberalism.
I tried to study as masters in gender studies, but due to the anti-male nature of the course, am now suing them.
There’s stacks of research on women’s violence against men, that has been around for 40 years, but is all kept out of the curriculum. Discuss.
Women use considerably more misandry than men do misogyny,
and also, the media is overwhelmingly negative on men too (Macnamara, 2004) – yet no mention of these male-bashing cultural and media tendencies – in a degree called ‘Gender, Media and Culture’. Discuss.
When you know the cards are stacked against men, due to such omissions across the board, mixed with all the hoary old male-blaming myths on top – then only an idiot would assume men face an equal educational opportunity in that environment.
Get real.
Now, I think you still don’t really understand how academia works, so I will explain again: researchers tend to have an area of expertise–i.e. they work in a certain area, and develop a knowledge of this. They tend to teach their areas of expertise. So, for example, an expert in aeroplane wings would be more likely to teach a course in aeroplane wings, with much less focus on aeroplane wheels, if any. However, if you want to understand how an aeroplane works, it’s probably best if you learn from this expert nonetheless, even if you’re more interested in aeroplane wheels. So it’s hardly a big conspiracy that a taught masters degree will focus more on some topics than others: this is how academia works! There is, of course, nothing stopping you from independently researching a perspective and discussing it in your seminars, unless this document you mentioned in your previous comment really does exist. As I’ve seen no evidence for it, I can only assume it doesn’t.
Even though I’ve given you a guide to referencing you’re still not using it: Macnamara is a fairly common name, and you didn’t bother citing anything to say:
A. Where you found the study that women use more misandry than men use misogyny
B. How misandry and misogyny were operationalised in this study.
Research is difficult. It’s not spoon-feeding you whatever you want to learn. I’m sorry you didn’t receive what you expected from your course, but perhaps those expectations were not particularly realistic.
“There’s stacks of research on women’s violence against men, that has been around for 40 years, but is all kept out of the curriculum. Discuss.”
Then research it, and bring it to your seminars. This is not hard to understand.
I really don’t get the impression you were cut out for masters level study.
Everything you say is absolutely true.
You are banging your head against the full power of human stupidity. You’re not the first person in history to do so. Watch as people revile you for saying this..Don’t relent, buddy. This stuff has to be said
I particularly like the idiots claiming to tell you how academia works. And all the insults you’re getting (you must be onto something!) It’s very entertaining.
Historical note. Mary Daly was successfully brought to book for discrimination against men (she didn’t want them even studying her course) So there’s a small precedent in the US
I fail to see how it’s discrimination. Quick google throws up:
“dis·crim·i·na·tion
[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun
…2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. ”
How was he personally discriminated against, by the fact that the reading material simply covered more female issues than male? Did anyone tell him specifically, because he is a man, that he had less to offer the course? It’s not discrimination, so I suspect the case will be thrown out.
I totally agree RE researching independently. Thinking about it more, the potential for some brilliant, brand-new, ground-breaking academic research into the representation of men is there. It’s a shame that he clearly does not feel capable of actually doing the research. It could have been really interesting.
Also ‘anti-male victim-feminists’ is an incredibly loaded phrase. In the interests of aiding his learning curve towards becoming an academic, I’d be interested to see exactly what that means, and where the evidence is for it. Mr Martin, have you ever met a feminist? I mean, an actual, live feminist? Quite a lot of us have excellent relationships (even -gasp- sex!!) with men. And quite a lot of us *have* been victims. Like I say, I would have been thoroughly interested in some research into this. But sadly litigation is probably easier than engaging brain.
Oh dear. Let’s have a look at the courses available at the LSE’s MSc in Gender.
Okay, you’ve got your core modules, such as ‘Gender Theories in the Modern World: An Interdisciplinary Approach’ which in all fairness do have a heavy preponderance on feminist thought in their reading list, but there’s also the likes of Michel Foucault, a noted Penis Operator.
In the options, you’ve got courses such as ‘Anthropology of Kinship, Sex and Gender’, which includes a lot of classic texts by seminal anthropologists (and Wang-Havers) such as E.E. Evans-Pritchard and Claude Levi-Strauss.
Or ‘Globalising Sexualities’, for which you can read such wonderful titles as Suck My Nation – Masculinity, Ethnicity and the Politics of (Homo)sex.
You could also do ‘Demography of the Developing World’, ‘Cultural Constructions of the Body’ (more Foucault in the reading list, also the Transgender Studies Reader, if you fancy getting outside the usual male vs female dichotomies) or ‘Urban Environment’. I’m sure there’s plenty to be written about masculinity in all those courses.
Or, for that matter, how about the module on ‘Gender and Militarisation’? The link for it is sadly broken, but I find it hard to believe such a course would have nothing to say about the Menz.
And then of course, there’s your dissertation, which can be about anything you like!
I’m sorry to read from your website that you’re short of £1160 in order to pursue your case any further. But hang on a minute, that would pay for nearly a year’s part-time postgrad studies.
My advice is the same as what others have said here: give up on the litigation, and write some academic papers instead.
It is so naiive to say ‘write some academic papers’ when getting papers published in academia is so riddled with politics and power relations.
If you actually read Foucault you would know what I meant.
For me, the bias of feminism is not just ‘anti-men’ it is anti anything that isn’t feminist. Why should feminism dominate gender studies? I think that is a question worth asking.
Also a lot of the male writers you mention are boxed into ‘queer theory’. It turns masculinity studies into ‘gay studies’.
But I have read, and written about ‘Suck My Nation’- it is a brilliant piece of research/writing.
“There’s stacks of research on women’s violence against men, that has been around for 40 years,”
And yet you can’t produce decent references to any.
“but is all kept out of the curriculum.”
Really? You have evidence that this is a deliberate policy?
“Discuss.”
Ah, male privilege in action. Everybody must conduct the debate on the terms I set. It’s like a microcosm of this entire ludicrous charade.
““Discuss.”
Ah, male privilege in action. Everybody must conduct the debate on the terms I set.”
Yeah, since when does he get to set the essay topics? You need a Master’s degree to teach in University and he doesn’t have one.
Zoe you are so hot right now 🙂
If this chap wants to sue, let him, as I suspect he’ll get a far more effective lesson than one attempted through reasoning.
The names of the core units and core texts sound innocent enough, don’t they.
But when carrying out a line by line analysis of the core texts, and considering whether men and women are being spoken of favourably, negatively, supportive, critically, politically, or at all – v-fems will find, they have not been able to see the woods for the trees. Gender curricula are jam-packed with negativity and bias against men, and on receiving my analysis of these texts,the university changed its tact, claiming any discrimination against men is ‘plainly justifiable’ – so if they’re hedging their bets, diversifying from the ‘no discrimination here’ argument, it’s probably a sign sisters.
The seller must conduct the taught degree, by the terms set out in the contract – in a way which does not discriminate against women or men.
They must not use discriminatory learning materials, as they have stipulated that they will not.
They should avoid making negative stereotypes – and particularly ones which are misleading and biased.
It is ridiculous to claim that all the men’s inequality issues in relation to women, were just accidentally omitted – and especially when there are core texts which recommend men’s issues be omitted from the gender project.
If a lecturer’s area of expertise is gender, or ‘gender violence’ or ‘gender and the media’ – then they have an obligation to avoid bias in what they teach – it was a science degree after all – not a propaganda degree.
So, when I say, discuss – I mean, contractually obliged to discuss things in a non-biased way – and that would involve including men and men’s equality issues – especially when related women’s issues are being discussed.
And, for a bit of an update, I have received £650 in donations so far, with a further £700 to cover other costs still required so, we’re getting there.
Thanks to everyone who has donated, and for all the messages of support.
Men can change, women can change, and so can entrenched victim-feminists.
So, you’ve done this line-by-line analysis have you? I would love to see some data from that, please link me to it! That is, if you’ve actually done that, and it’s not missing like the mysterious missing document wherein it is decreed that nobody must debate. I’m starting to believe that it may not exist. In academia, we tend to have a policy of not making shit up.
I think perhaps you still don’t understand how academia works, and it’s getting a little wearing, but from discussing this issue with you, I suspect you are not cut out for research as you have proved yourself unable to construct a coherent argument.
Now, I do hope you have transparent criteria for dealing with any excess money raised. I’d hate to think that you were doing all of this just to swindle a bunch of misogynists.
I filed 200 pages of evidence at the county court.
I have 25 financial donors, from five countries, men and women, and you’re calling them all misogynists.
They don’t normally hate women is my guess.
But do go on.
Stavvers: ‘I suspect you are not cut out for research as you have proved yourself unable to construct a coherent argument. ‘
I saw a few comments on the Guardian cif thread suggesting Tom was not capable of post graduate study. That is personal and nasty. It’s also incredibly arrogant. Arguing on the internet does not an MA make.
And if men were saying things like that to women on comments threads they would get called out on it. And probably accused of ‘misogyny’.
Really, I don’t think he is. He still doesn’t understand academia, so has decided to drag the thread off topic.
At least you link. At least you know your stuff.
I haven’t read the comments, apologies if I am repeating anything.
But I’d like to say that stavvers you are completely misguided about how easy it is to challenge the feminist dogma of gender studies degrees. I did a PHD in gender and I had to fight tooth and nail to study and write what I wanted. And I was not rejecting feminism at that time, merely being critical and independent. And this happens a lot. I also had a really hard time in my viva due to my stance which did not toe the dogmatic feminist line.
I’d say it is hard to challenge the dogma in any academic subject, but as gender studies is based on a political perspective it is very stark in that area. You are a feminist you see everything through that lens. Calling people ‘silly’ and ‘ridiculous’ who do not, is welll… you used the words yourself.
I may be a feminist, but I am also an academic, and academia is not easy. I had a nightmare on my viva for using a somewhat obscure methodology. Vivas are there to give you hell. I ended up crying in mine.
At any rate, I am genuinely curious: do you believe litigation is an appropriate response to this issue? I sure as hell don’t. I’d’ve thought you’d want to see more academics who “don’t toe the line” going into academia rather than storming off when the going got tough (as an aside, this is a reason I genuinely do respect you even though we disagree most of the time).
‘Men can change, women can change, and so can entrenched victim-feminists.’
I changed! I dont think I was an entrenched victim feminist. But I was an entrenched feminist. Being a feminist does not make you superior in your outlook to anyone else. But the arrogance of feminists rarely fails to amaze me.
And one other point- why is there hardly any research on gender violence against men? Or by women to anyone?
BECAUSE GENDER STUDIES IS RUN BY FEMINISTS
It is a vicious circle.
There most certainly is less research into female-perpetrated violence against men, and it’s research I’d like to see more of. A similar issue pertains to violence outside of traditional binary notions of gender. Once again, there’s a massive dearth of research into that.
I’m not sure that it’s all down to a massive feminist conspiracy, though. You’ll know as well as I do that much of academia depends on what people fancy funding, and of course more money is going to go into something which is more visible and with more “public interest”–here, I mean those issues which generate media interest and more familiar with the general public. It is no surprise, then, that male violence against women is the one which is most researched, and that is again not simply the fault of the feminists: violence of this kind has been appearing in songs, plays and books long before feminism existed.
Then there’s the issue of finding willing participants and available data. There is more stigma attached to men who are victims of violence by women, or in queer relationships, or not binary identified. Again, this is not some huge feminist plot; it is because of marginalisation of the latter two groups and traditional notions of masculinity for the former. Because of this, these voices are quieter and harder to reach, and thus, harder to research.
Much as I wish feminists had infinite power over even one small branch of academia, unfortunately we don’t 😉
No you don’t but gender violence is studied in gender departments which ARE run by feminists. I know. I studied and worked in them.
Yes vivas are hard. Yes Phds are hard but there is hard and there is deliberate politically motivated obstruction to someone’s thesis. That is what I experienced. I had to go over my supervisor’s head to get another supervisor who was not so hostile to me and my perspective. If she had not have needed the RAE points she would have dropped me there and then.
Lord knows supervisors can be dickish. Again, though, think the problem is more how academia is structured rather than anything else.
IPV isn’t only studied in gender studies departments. It’s of interest to a lot of fields. I only ever touched on it academically when I took a criminology module.
This sort of thing happens in academia a lot.
You’re quite right QRG. Though, as usual, good luck persuading anybody…
Even the Grauniad (in some of their best pieces, actually) have uncovered these startling truths about domestic violence. (hint: it’s really REALLY not the story you think it’s going to be):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
There IS more and more research to back this up – but it’s in no-one’s interests to support it. Hence the stats (that everyone hears) have been screwed with.
It’s a crazy story, but absolutely true.
Look, nobody’s disagreeing violence by women against men exists. Please read the whole thread.
Yes but criminology takes its gender cues from gender studies. Gender studies has its tentacles in a lot of social science. Even the study of masculinity – which Tom Martin has not articulated clearly – is informed by feminist dominated gender studies. If you are not a feminist and you want to write about masculinity in a university you have a real problem.
Some of the ‘masculinities’ literature attacked men even more than in normal weeks.
It’s all a cover, so they can say ‘Oh, we do men in week 14.’ – and then when it gets to it, men get done.
I agree Tom. I’d add that it is often men who ‘pathologise’ masculinity – I *really* hate the work of eg Michael Kimmel and Jackson Katz for example.
Like you mentioned in your cif piece Warren Farrell is one of few men who have stood up for men’s ‘rights’ to not be marginalised in gender studies.
What sort of attacks?
I can’t speak for Mr Martin Alex but if you think about it – people like Bidisha, Kat Banyard, Julie Bindel, Suzanne Moore, Cath Elliott, the women at Feministe, they must be getting some ‘theoretical’ back up for their misandry.
Where do they get it from? Gender studies texts.
I meant masculinities literature, rather than just a list of feminists QRG doesn’t like. I can get that any time.
OK BIg Boy.
Kimmel, M (he is a dick)
The History of Masculinity: Essays (SUNY Press, 2003)
Shira Tarrant (ed): Men Speak Out (Routledge 2007)
In which Robert Jensen writes:
‘We live in a time of sexual crisis. That makes life difficult, but it also creates a space for invention and creativity. The possibility of a different way of understanding the world and myself is what drew me to feminism. I was drawn to the possibility of escaping the masculinity trap set for me, and the chance to become something more than a man… I was drawn by the possibilities of becoming a human being.’ (this makes out men are not human beings).
Alan Down The Velvet Rage (2006)
(Pathologises gay masculinities):
QRG, these look very interesting. Do any of them discuss masculinities outside of traditional binary notions of gender?
“people like Bidisha, Kat Banyard, Julie Bindel, Suzanne Moore, Cath Elliott, the women at Feministe, they must be getting some ‘theoretical’ back up for their misandry.”
And once again, sweeping accusations without a shred of evidence, just one in a barrage of posts which always, but always, no matter what the topic, end in exactly the same links and exactly the same arguments being posted.
QRG: the trolling equivalent of the Duracell bunny.
Here is a reference for you, stavvers:
Simpson, S (2011) ‘Misandry, The Acceptable Prejudice’ http://www.marksimpson.com
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/02/09/misandry-the-acceptable-prejudice/
I’d be very interested to know if this is on the GI reading list.
It is by Catherine Hakim (yes the erotic capital stuff is rubbish but her main area is gender and employment) and it comes from the LSE itself. Basically it challenges feminist calls for further equality legislation, especially in gender and employment:
Click to access Feminist%20Myths%20and%20Magic%20Medicine.pdf
My guess is it won’t be on the reading list. Sure it will be accessible but reading lists set out the agenda of a course.
Catherine Hakim is a truth teller, and was was not on the reading list at the Gender Institute – certainly not in the first six weeks.
I think Hakim is now in their sociology department, but may have previously been in the Gender Institute.
Hakim tells the truth about the real reasons for any wage gaps. She points out that white and Asian British women express half the work ethic of Black British women, or of men – which is why Black UK women earn more per hour than white women, and more per hour than black men.
Shows the ‘glass ceiling’ thing is a fiction. Maybe that’s why she didn’t fit in in the Gender Institute. We may never know.
Gender academics love to cite their own colleagues, so if Hakim was still missing from the 2011 programme, then that would be a glaring omission, given how prominent and authoritative she is.
concepts such as ‘patriarchy’ and ‘the glass ceiling’ are very powerful because they come attached with definite imagery as if they are real things we can touch. But they are not they are just concepts and they are concepts that can be and should be challenged, critiqued and contested. If they survive that, they may have some value. But feminism is not prepared to go under the microscope. It is a sham.
Having read Hakim’s work, her methodology’s awful, with unsupportable conclusions, and that sort of level of research probably should be on the curriculum for a critical review practice.
Stavvers – you are actually wrong about Hakim’s work on employment. She is a very well respected statistician and theorist of gender segregation in employment. Honey Money is shit I agree. But dismissing her whole oeuvre (when I am sure you have not read it) is just childish.
I’m talking about some of her stuff on employment, particularly the CPS research you linked. Some of it is acceptable. In some places, she falls prey to some worrying traps, such as drawing conclusions about differences between men and women based on studies where only data from women were collected.
Only one in five applicants got accepted on to the MSc course I signed up to, which indicates the experts thought I was capable of studying at post-graduate level.
…the same experts you’re now suing for not being fair to you?
*snork*
It really is not in academics’ interests to enrol poor students on their courses. They need the results for their funding. They may be hostile to Martin not just for his lawsuit but because he had the cheek to drop out and spoil their pass rates. Suggesting people are incapable of study is just nasty and again, childish.
Now, what you say about pass rates and capitalism is VERY salient, and once again, not a Great Feminist Conspiracy. Or discrimination.
Stavvers – the books I listed on masculinity are examples of the drivel being written by ‘feminist’ men on masculinity. No they do not challenge the binary. They reinforce the binary that Martin says is taught by the GI – ‘women are good/men are bad’.
So, what we have here is a massive megathread, only some of which is on-topic, and I’ve been a little sloppy moderating the off-topic ones. From now on, off-topic stuff will not come through the moderation queue. There’s quite enough comments here.
We’ve established that there is a masculinities literature. We’ve established that there’s reasons some forms of IPV are studied less then others, for reasons other than a Great Feminist Conspiracy. Tom hasn’t produced for me the “evidence” that he mentioned of a Great Feminist Conspiracy, and neither has anyone else.
From now on, to keep this thread manageable, we’ll stop with the off-topic repetitions of “what theory is lacking”. We know theory is lacking. I mentioned it right at the top in the original blog post.
What I would like to see answered is the following:
1. Why Tom couldn’t do what QRG did: continue studying, even though it’s tough. Particularly as he’s interested in some topics which could do with more research.
2. Actual, direct evidence of the Great Feminist Conspiracy. Direct. Not theoretical, not “I think”, not anecdotes.
3. The “line by line” analysis of documents Tom claimed to conduct, and the document apparently passed around LSE which informs people to tell men to shut up in seminars.
Once again, stay on topic, people.
That is such bullshit stavvers. This thread is completely on-topic.
You’d make a great Gender Studies school ma’am. I suggest you get a feminist fast-track career pass and start work right away! Oh, you already have.
I am going to stop commenting on this thread and I will write a blogpost in response instead.
Nobody has used a ‘conspiracy theory’. We have been talking about *power* in institutions. If power exists to benefit men in institutions, that feminists have shown to be *illegal* in many cases, why can it not exist in women’s (feminist women) interests too?
yes I continued studying, but as I pursued an academic career in gender, I was completely done over, by feminist gender professors and I left, in a very crap position career-wise, and completely disillusioned in the doctrine I had been raised on since birth. I am glad Tom has given up on the charade of gender studies. It is not worth the hassle.
The masculinities literature that is endorsed by gender studies is *awful*. I will write some ‘line by line’ critiques of it to show you.
Bye for now
QRG
Actually, I work in a very male-dominated field of psychology which has literally nothing to do with feminism (smoking cessation). Your post is the first I’ve seen to use the word “power”.