So many tons of ~ma to you, Sox. Health~ma, just-stress~ma, coping and calmness~ma. Anything you need, as much as you need.

The thing that bugs me about the men's studies programs is that feminists have been saying, just about since the dawn of feminism, that it's not just about women; that patriarchy hurts men too. I started reading Gloria Steinem at seventeen, and ran out and read everyone she'd read and everyone she recommended, and I know that's a theme that feminist writers have been going back to over and over and over. With sympathy and empathy and careful scrutiny of how our society functions and what the cost of patriarchal gender essentialism is to boys and men as well as to women and girls, how it constrains and diminishes everyone.

That's been crystal clear since the beginning of feminism, and it was a large, loud part of mainstream feminist discourse by the 70s when the Steinem crowd and Ms. Magazine rose to prominence. And it's just a little crazymaking for feminists to see, once every few years just like clockwork, another group of men who haven't listened to anything but the media's selective filter of What Feminism Says pop up and say, "Hey, you know what, patriarchy hurts us too! We should look at that in some depth!"

It doesn't bother me that the boys want their program. Whatever.

I think there's academic value in a well-crafted Male Studies program, in the sense of What It Means to Be a Man? Shir has gone into the details far better than I can on that point. (Though I'd add an exploration of how men cope when they don't -- or can't -- meet societal expectations.)

But that doesn't seem to be the sort of thing proposed in the symposium that Vortex linked. That symposium strikes me as a bunch of old fogies whining because they aren't allowed to chase their secretaries around their desks anymore.

OK. I also stand behind what JZ just said.

I just don't understand this.

Almost every man I met who studied Men's studies showed how patriarchy did and does wrong to men as well as to women.

This may also be a difference between US and non-US academic culture -- it's absolutely true that there's legitimate study to be done of gender issues from all sides. It's just that the specific history of the phrase in the US context is more closely tied to a not-really-academic but rather conservative-punditry-driven movement to say that the white straight guys are being oppressed and excluded from the discourse (and, frankly, also to a lot of hyperprivileged knobwanks saying "Women's studies? Oh yeah? Well WHAT ABOUT MEN'S STUDIES? Huh? Have you thought about the mens?" as if they were saying something incredibly funny and original).

Lots of ~ma for Anne and for Sox.

I've got no opinion on the male symposium thing because as has already been mentioned, could be good, could be bad. Who knows? I will say, that with my cynic's attitude, the likelihood that something useful will come out of it doesn't seem particularly high.

Also, Spotted Dog and The Enforcer are pure unadulterated WIN.

wrod. And, dudes, have you ever tried listening? I would have a lot more respect for male feminists if the ones I've met who did not post here did not have to be first in line in every conversation, derailing perfectly cromulent conversations with, like, purity tests, and some kind of sexist nonsense Some Other Guy pulled on his wife, or the chronic trauma of being told to "man up" on the playground. To understand what it's like being a woman most of the time? It helps to play second banana. The next guy that does this, I'm going to tell to look pretty and make me a sandwich.

This may also be a difference between US and non-US academic culture

Could be.

The next guy that does this, I'm going to tell to look pretty and make me a sandwich.

Yes, that doesn't mean I agree with all of the men who studies it. A lot of times, when I'm taught about feminism from Great White Prof., I have to hold myself down not to reply with "oh yeah? We're depressed? Good to know. How about giving me 1/3 of your salary, just to make things more even, for starters?".

Yeah, I'm gonna stick with "boo fucking hoo."

That's been crystal clear since the beginning of feminism, and it was a large, loud part of mainstream feminist discourse by the 70s when the Steinem crowd and Ms. Magazine rose to prominence.

Then why do you call it FEMinsm, huh? Shouldn't it be HUMANISM??!?!?!

Which is right up there with "Then it shouldn't be the NAACP!"

Is it my job to teach you history? To shove you in a wayback machine and show you the world when these movements began? Or should I just be happy that they've been successful enough that these questions are askable and get the eff out of Salon letters?

@@ forever at MRA people. Also, men who tell me I don't have to wear makeup and heels and that I'm enabling my own oppression when I do, so I must not really be a feminist.