Graduation Cap, Scroll and Books

Not all academics are like that

I noticed some optimism in Paul Elam’s recent fundraising article for the year ahead (Elam, 2012). Indeed, I get a feeling that there are some signs of change. I don’t see any walls coming down just yet, but I am seeing a few cracks in important places.

What has caught my eye recently is a new international journal called New Male Studies (New Male Studies, 2012). Over this year they have released three issues of papers from academics around the world on what they call the “male experience”.

Whilst the content is not as spicy, say, as AVfM, (the “fuck” count is pretty low) it nonetheless contains the same basic ingredients. I found myself nodding in agreement with much that was written in the articles; similarly to how I found myself “taking the red pill” when I first came across AVfM.

The importance of this is difficult to exaggerate. For the first time the men’s movement can look to authoritative, reliable information in one place on men as a basis for going forward.

It seems to me that much of MRA’s energies have been spent in debunking the various myths, damned myths and statistics of feminism. Whilst this is important, and I for one am glad people took the time to do this, it still left us with a few issues.

“Phineas Fembotcrusher” of “the manosphere” may have had reliable and accurate statistical methods proving that  Dr. X.Y. Realname, a tenured Professor of Anactual University, was full of shit. But, quoting “Blueface” as your primary source doesn’t quite have that ring of gravitas.

Also, proving feminists wrong doesn’t, by itself, make anyone right.

However, real academics doing real studies of real issues is a different proposition altogether.

As an introduction, let me give you an insight into an article by Dr John Ashfield called “Towards an Integrated Perspective on Gender, Masculinity, and Manhood” (Ashfield, 2012).

The opening sentence to the article pulls no punches:

For decades our understanding of gender, masculinity, and manhood has arguably been bedevilled by uninformative pseudo‐academic gender ideology.

With this, Ashfield begins an appeal for a fresh look at gender. What he is calling for is an “explanatory and useful” perspective that is grounded in “the reality of men’s and women’s lived experience.”

He goes on to explain that the current academic climate is due for a change.  “[T]his fundamentalism is being increasingly eclipsed by compelling evidence from a whole range of academic disciplines, including biology, anthropology, neuroscience, endocrinology, psychiatry, psychology, and others. “

Ashfield points out the obvious fact that inherent differences does not justify discrimination. What it does is provide some insight into, for example, the roles that men and women choose for themselves in society. What he hopes is that studying men with a new perspective might provide for “endeavours of human service and social enhancement that are equitable and grounded in reality.”

According to Ashfield, there are a number of topics to be considered in this new perspective on men.

Masculinity is presently seen as a social construct that, because the Patriarchal version is so deficient, should be modified or even eliminated by politically correct social engineering. This view is “detached from biological reality” as it requires “intellectual compromises” such as treating all men as identical in all cases and circumstance.

Ashfield would define masculinity as the blend of masculine potentials that stem from innate male traits that, shaped by culture and circumstance, are expressed in manhood.

Manhood, he goes on to define, is the fulfilment of some of these masculine potentials in the adult male as he takes his place within his culture. There is no one manhood, but different expressions of these potentials within different cultures and even sub-cultures.

Ashfield notes that men do not achieve manhood simply by becoming older, but more by taking a meaningful place within society. This manhood is also never fully achieved, because it can always be taken away. Therefore the bestowing and removal of manhood affects men’s behaviours and attitudes. AVfM regulars will be aware of shaming tactics and the power they have over men.

A practical example of the benefits of Male Studies is in the area of Men’s Health. Ashfield believes understanding manhood is the key to understanding men’s attitudes to health and well being. Only when we understand these can we encourage men to better health without the “blaming, shaming, or the patronising statements commonly exhibited in [current] health literature.”

All of these topics are clearly worthy of proper, rigorous study.

Male Studies is seen by Dr Ashfield and collegues as being a separate from the Men’s Studies that feminists have set up at many universities (Glover, 2012). The difference is distinct and deliberate.

Glover noted at a conference to discuss the curricula for a Male Studies degree course that it was felt by the participants that Men’s Studies advocates “resort to purely social constructivist views of gender…often at the expense of honesty. These views have leaked into popular culture helping to contribute to a climate of misandry.”

Ashfield himself believes that Male Studies should not allow itself to get bogged in debate with feminist ideologues. Instead they should forge independently ahead in the search for practical answers rooted firmly in reality.

The University of South Australia, with the Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies and the support of a group of American, Canadian, and European academics, are proposing to have a degree and postgraduate courses in Male Studies in 2014.

In his conclusions, Ashfield cites a conversation with a first year social sciences student at university. The student was feeling bullied by the feminist agenda to shame the male students for simply being male. This was what Ashfield explained to the young man:

Academe in the West, has, in certain of its disciplines, betrayed a sacred trust. It has acquiesced to a bullying pseudo-intellectual, self-appointed gender commentariat.

That, to my mind, is all red pill.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas….


Ashfield, J. A. (2012). Towards an Integrated   Perspective on Gender, Masculinity and Manhood. Retrieved December 21,   2012, from New Male Studies:

Elam, P. (2012,   December 12). Timeto refuel, march on. Retrieved December 12, 2012,   from A Voice for Men:

Glover, K. (2012). Report   on the Conference on Curricula for New Male Studies. Retrieved December   21, 2012, from New Male Studies Journal:

New Male Studies.   (2012). New Male Studies. Retrieved December 21, 2012, from New Male   Studies:

About Jim Muldoon

Jim Muldoon is an Australian men's human rights activist and Australian Editor for AVfM. He is an advocate for the equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Bombay

    Nice article!

    I have difficulty with this statement:

    “Ashfield notes that men do not achieve manhood simply by becoming older, but more by taking a meaningful place within society.”

    It seems that manhood will still be defined by whoever decides what is a meaningful place in society. It seems there will still be “real” men. It seems “heroes” will still be needed…..

    I have no need or desire to have myself as a Human Being being evaluated as to whether I am masculine or have achieved manhood. I am.

    • TDOM

      “Masculinity” is a social construct, but it is only part of what it means for a man to be human. As Ashfield notes, there is no one manhood. “A meaningful place within society” will be defined not only by the society and culture in which the man lives, but also by the individual man himself.

      My own view is that manhood (and womanhood) is defined on both an individual and societal level. Every individua member of society is worthy of consideration and respect and has value simply because they are each human. But value can vary according to each contributes to and takes away from the society at large. No human being is an island. Everyone is dependent upon a larger society for survival. Thus value is both intrinsic and extrinsic. Masculinity is as much how we view ourselves as men as it is how we adhere to societal expectations of manhood. the same can be said for femininity.

      • Bombay

        Thanks for you thoughtful response.

        “the same can be said for femininity.”

        And how is that definition and societal expectations of womanhood going? I think the old adage of “a woman can always change her mind” is in play here.

        So while there is open discussion of what being a man is and therefore a basis for being a “real man” – there is not and I suspect never will be an open discussion of what being a woman is. Perhaps Billy Joel sums it up best.

        She can kill with a smile
        She can wound with her eyes
        She can ruin your faith with her casual lies
        And she only reveals what she wants you to see
        She hides like a child,
        But she’s always a woman to me

        She can lead you to love
        She can take you or leave you
        She can ask for the truth
        But she’ll never believe you
        And she’ll take what you give her, as long as it’s free
        Yeah, she steals like a thief
        But she’s always a woman to me

        Oh–she takes care of herself
        She can wait if she wants
        She’s ahead of her time
        Oh–and she never gives out
        And she never gives in
        She just changes her mind

        And she’ll promise you more
        Than the Garden of Eden
        Then she’ll carelessly cut you
        And laugh while you’re bleedin’
        But she’ll bring out the best
        And the worst you can be
        Blame it all on yourself
        Cause she’s always a woman to me


        Oh–she takes care of herself
        She can wait if she wants
        She’s ahead of her time
        Oh–and she never gives out
        And she never gives in
        She just changes her mind

        She is frequently kind
        And she’s suddenly cruel
        She can do as she pleases
        She’s nobody’s fool
        And she can’t be convicted
        She’s earned her degree
        And the most she will do
        Is throw shadows at you
        But she’s always a woman to me

        • Bev

          Ashfield would define masculinity as the blend of masculine potentials that stem from innate male traits that, shaped by culture and circumstance, are expressed in manhood.

          Feminists like to discount the former. In fact only by doing so can they argue that in order to change society all we have to do is change the social constructs to achieve true equality. If we accept both (reality) we arrive at a conclusion that men and women can be equal but different. That men and women will take different paths which suit their makeup and innate abilities but does not mean that they are unequal because they are different. Put simply that you cannot put square pegs in round holes.

          So while there is open discussion of what being a man is and therefore a basis for being a “real man” – there is not and I suspect never will be an open discussion of what being a woman is.

          I disagree. Since we are all human by discussing men you automatically question what is a “real woman”. Even if you don’t mention it overtly in the beginning it will bubble to the surface in peoples minds and come up for open discussion.

          • Bombay

            Let’s take a specific example.

            “Scientists prove that women are better at multitasking than men”


            due to their corpus callosum (the nerve connections between the right and left hemispheres of the brain) being 30 percent more highly developed in the female brain than the male brain. These nerve connections allow information to flow more easily from one side of the brain to the other, which allows a woman to focus on more than one thing at a time.

            So here is a female “potential” that may distinguish the sexes. An innate ability!

            Now we have another study:

            “Men ARE better at multitasking than women, Swedish researchers claim”


            When a better explanation may be that our brains rewire themselves based on what we do (there was a recent article here about this).

            So are we going to pigeon hole a person based on the established “innate abilities” of the gender to which they belong?

            I will match my nurturing qualities against any female out there, but because nurturing has been found to be an innate female quality the courts rule against me as a parent due to feminine/masculine studies?

            I agree with you about people being allowed to be individuals – I do not see how gender studies – male or female will do that. I am. We are.

          • Bev

            Reply to Bombay.
            It depends on your definition of innate.

            I worked (before retirement) in the field of training simulator research and development (flight simulation and other man in the loop trainers). At the time (1960’s) I took it up it was considered a mans field. I did the same work as anyone else but in certain aspects my approach was different to my colleagues. Did this make me right or them wrong or the reverse in those aspects. No it added to the discusion and produced a better total.

            It is now being recognized that men and women bring different aspects to child raising. There are obviously common areas but there are differences. These differences are what makes for a balanced approach and is more likely to produce a well rounded adult. Different but equal important.

          • Mike Buchanan

            There are a number of books I recommend to people interested in gender-typical nature differences. #1 on my list is Prof Simon Baron Cohen’s ‘The Essential Difference’ (2003). The next three on my list are:

            Prof Steven Pinker, ‘The Blank Slate’
            Prof Susan Pinker, ‘The Sexual Paradox’ (Steve’s sister – now that’s what I call a smart family)
            Prof Louann Brizendine, ‘The Female Brain’

          • Bombay


            Yes, your example is excellent.

            Any consideration of “innate” is bigotry because people are individuals, not race or gender. The ability to do the job is the only quality necessary.

            In that vein – wasn’t Larry Summers comment out of line? You do not hear NFL coaches making comments about women not making the team?

            Will the battle of the gender studies allow people to be individuals?

            Get rid of gender quotas, different standards and let the gender ratios in any activity reflect the probability that a sex may have a certain predisposition.

          • Mike Buchanan

            Hi Bombay. I really disagree with this denial of gender-typical natures. Of course a small minority of men (e.g. the odious current British prime minister, David Cameron) act female gender-typically, and a small minority of women (e.g. the estimable former British PM, Margaret Thatcher) act male gender-typically. But if we deny most people act gender-typically we unwitringly embrace the now highly discredited ‘blank slate’ theory of human nature which is a cornerstone of femimism. I refer people again to Steven Pinker’s ‘The Blank Slate’. Most people are hard-wired male or female at birth. Always have been and, despite the best efforts of feminists, always will be. Which seems to me a very good thing. The countries with the happiest relations between men and women (e.g. Italy) seem, to me, those which accept that most women are fundamentally different to most men. Vive la difference… (sorry, my French is more fluent than my Italian)

          • Bev


            “Will the battle of the gender studies allow people to be individuals?”

            Perhaps this quote from the article points to the answer.

            “Masculinity is presently seen as a social construct that, because the Patriarchal version is so deficient, should be modified or even eliminated by politically correct social engineering. This view is “detached from biological reality” as it requires “intellectual compromises” such as treating all men as identical in all cases and circumstance.
            Manhood, he goes on to define, is the fulfilment of some of these masculine potentials in the adult male as he takes his place within his culture. There is no one manhood, but different expressions of these potentials within different cultures and even sub-cultures.”

            If that is the line of development which is taken it does allow for diversity. Though I would argue why not diversity within the same culture and sub-culture.

            There is in Australia a place called Lightning Ridge were many of the worlds opals come from. Within this community there is a great diversity of people many who others would say are eccentric/whacho but they (men and women) are accepted for what they are and celibrated for their differences not their sameness though the common theme is opal mining and building a community to suit them (collectivly).

          • Bombay


            “But if we deny most people act gender-typically we unwitringly embrace the now highly discredited ‘blank slate’ theory of human nature which is a cornerstone of femimism.”

            I do not suggest we do not recognize probabilities, but to know there are actually probabilities and let the numbers fall where they may. A problem with femimism is not so much the blank slate, but the forcing fitting of people in roles that they are not suited for. So, I view a person I do not know as a blank slate for them to write on, not me (or feminism) writing on their slate for them.

          • gwallan


            re multi-tasking.

            There is no such thing. Many folk try to do more than one thing at a time and succeed only in doing none of them as well as they could.

        • Lucian Vâlsan

          I totally agree with the analysis provided by Bombay and I lean towards distrusting this Academia member.

          It is probably because I tend to distrust virtually anyone coming from an University and trying to tell me how things are. And this is precisely because I have come to know them better than most people.

          • Mike Buchanan

            Lucian, you make a very good point. We’ve contacted a large number of academics, and concluded that you’d find a higher proportion of intellectually curious people in the general population. The majority of academics are risk-averse civil servants. Which reminds me of two of my favourite quotations, from one of my favourite American writers / commentators, William F Buckley Jr (1925-2008). They’re the last two of the following quotations, from one of my favourite books of quotations (email me on if you want to know the title):

            The so-called conservative, uncomfortably disdainful of controversy, seldom has the energy to fight his battles, while the radical, so often a member of the minority, exerts disproportionate influence because of his dedication to his cause.
            God and Man at Yale (1951)

            Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgement that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them.
            Up From Liberalism 2nd ed. (1968)

            Liberalism cannot sustain our civilization on the little it has to offer. It is sustaining the majority of our intellectuals, but that proves easier than holding together the world.
            Up from Liberalism 2nd ed. (1968)

            A marked characteristic of the liberal-in-a-debate-with-a-conservative is the tacit premise that debate is ridiculous because there is nothing whatever to debate about. Arguments based on fact are especially to be avoided.
            Up from Liberalism 2nd ed. (1968)

            We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.
            National Review 17 October 1964

            The academic community has in it the biggest concentration of alarmist, cranks, and extremists this side of the giggle house.
            ‘On The Right’ 17 January 1967

            I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

            Mike Buchanan

        • TDOM

          “And how is that definition and societal expectations of womanhood going?”

          While womanhood has been redefined by feminists, they have done so by eliminating the societal and cultural expectations while simultaneously frowning on traditional definitions such as that of being a housewife. They tell women that they can have it all, without telling them that in order to have it all, they must be it all. It is a definition that includes rights without responsibilies. This is the definitiion of privilege.

          Conversely, feminists have attempted to place all responsibility on the shoulders of men. This results in responsibilities without rights. That is the very definition of slavery.

          The result is a society that permits a woman to take on as much or as little responsibility as she desires while requiring men (as a group) to fulfill their responsibilites. This includes the necessity for individual men to support individual women and (when that doesn’t happen) for society at large to fulfill that obligation via a combination of law enforcement and social programs.

          So to answer your question, the redefinition of womanhood isn’t going well for men at all.

          • Bombay

            Yes. Depending on whether a person is a feminist (well) or human (not well). Although some feminists may change their minds…… This brings us back to human rights not gender studies.

            I am not opposed to honest scientific study of gender/sex differences, but I am opposed to anyone being pigeon holed as a result.

          • TDOM

            @ Bombay

            “I am not opposed to honest scientific study of gender/sex differences, but I am opposed to anyone being pigeon holed as a result.”

            I absolutely agree 100%. The intent is not to create stereotypes. The intent is to study and understand. Sex roles and gender roles are two different things. Sex is biological. Gender, though influenced by one’s biological sex, is socially constructed. Both are exceedingly important aspects of our identity as members of our society and individually. While biological sex may place constraints and/or on what we can and cannot do, gender is about how we deal with those constraints, restrictions, and biological functions. Because human beings are individuals and demonstrate great variability and adaptibility, none of these things should be stereotyped and individuals (or groups) should not be pigeonholed.

          • Mike Buchanan

            TDOM, I think we should not deny that there is ‘clustering’ with the sexes, and often it is very persistent. The general population is disinclined to see this reality due to the influence of PC thinking. To say women are generally taller than women is not to say all men are taller than all women. But feminists corrupt such realities by arguing with respect to any issue along the lines, ‘Sally is 6′ tall, the average man is 5’10” tall, so women are taller than men’.

            We see this denial of clustering strongly in the area of how the sexes operate in the workplace. 90%+ of engineering graduates are still men in Britain despite 30 years of social engineering exercises to get more women interested in engineering (and in the physical sciences, maths, IT…). There are, of course, no efforts to get more men into female-typical fieldsm e.g. nursing (they’d probably be equally unsuccessful, anyway). All of which must be contributing to the fact that for every three women registered as unemployed in the UK, four men are.

            I strongly recommend Steve Monon’s ‘The Woman Racket’ for coverage on the sexes in the workplace and beyond. Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years’ War Against Men’ is also good, and covers a lot of different ground to the first book.

            Mike Buchanan

      • MrWombat

        Let’s take a step back and think about “adulthood”. It seems obvious to me that there is definitely a societal element. Manhood is the nexus of adulthood and masculinity.

        • TDOM

          That’s an interesting definition.

    • cvar

      I think he’s simply noting the current situation rather than saying “This is the way it should be, as it always has been and always will be.” He also points out that “meaningful” depends a lot on what that man in particular is doing. I think some real study here will cause a greater acceptance of what men choose to do with their lives and steer away from the shame games.

    • ManUpManDown.

      Yes, I, like cvar, got the impression that Ashfield is writing descriptively rather than “normatively.” At least I hope he is. I had to do a double take when reading that as well, as I felt pangs of disappointment before I thought about it a bit more. Off to read the actual article . . . .

    • nikonian

      Men have always had to make a man of themselves….

  • Mike Buchanan

    I wish New Male Studies well, and I have the highest opinion of Professor Miles Groth (Wagner College, Staten Island), the key player. It’s about damned time governments (or their financiers, i.e. long-suffering taxpayers) stopped funding Women’s Studies and Gender Studies ‘academics’ – hate-driven ideologues, almost without exception, why else would they work in this area? – and their courses, which poison the minds and lives of young women (and a few young men).

    The impact of feminists on academia has been truly appalling. For an account of this in the US, I strongly recommend Daphne Patai’s ‘Professing Feminism’.

    May I wish you all a happy 2013. For MRAs and their supporters, it WILL be a happy year, I predict.

    Mike Buchanan

    • limeywestlake

      With the splendid work you are doing, Mike, literally anything is possible…

      My gratitude to you is immense. You see, I have these dark, phantasmagorical nightmares of Harriet Harman (and you fast becoming my own personal Van Helsing.) 😉

      Thanks for everything and a stalwart 2013 to you.

      Neil Westlake
      Vancouver MRA

  • Grey Knight

    That sounds awesome. I bet feminists are going to protest the hell out of it.

  • dhanu
  • TDOM

    Great article. A while back I began writing a series on redefining masculinity based on biological imperative. I got bogged down and have had difficulty moving forward with the definition. Ashfield’s definition is a bit simplistic, but may provide a new direction for me to examine. It’s good to see that a male studies program may be moving forward.

    • napocapo69

      Male studies…no please…
      It is just adopting the gender ideology…

  • scatmaster

    It’s good to see that a male studies program may be moving forward.

    I will believe it when I see it and it is continent wide.

  • Paul Elam

    First, my thanks to Mr. Muldoon for a terrific article with an abundance of salient points.

    I have a short list of things I would do differently here if I had them to do over again. At the very top of that list is that I would have insisted that all articles published had a byline that was not an internet handle.

    It is a difficult challenge. With known handles like JTO, GWW and TDOM floating around, which are names people have put considerable effort into making recognizable, it is asking a hell of a lot, and risking offense, to insist they identify otherwise.

    In the end though, I do think it would serve this movement much better to have real names, or at least stylistically real pen names, to attach to these articles.

    Or am I just too attached to old school thinking?

    • cvar

      Yes and no. Academia is pretty hardcore oldschool, so you’d want to use a real name (or realistic name) to pen articles for them. But most of the people reading here are even younger than me and I’m used to being the youngest in the room.

      For that crowd, an internet handle is a real name. We’re used to communicating with friends over the internet that we’ll never meet. I can’t find a friend I know in real life on Steam, because I don’t know what name he uses there. Having somebody named GirlWritesWhat? lay down some truth isn’t going to bother anybody. Okay, some feminists will get upset, but that’s not because of the name!

      I figure, if you’re going to try to get published in a scholarly journal, you’re gonna have to attach your real name to it. Online? Just use the moniker everybody knows you by.

    • Rick Westlake

      That’s why I dropped ‘BeijaFlor.’ (What’s in a logo?)

    • TDOM

      In the end, we will need to be identified and reveal who we are. At present there is a little too much risk therefore some degree of anonymity is necessary for self-preservation.

      Last year a blogger who maintained two blogs (one of shich was about Buddhism) and who used his own name was attacked by feminists who attempted to contact his employer and have him fired (among other things). He published some of his stuff here at AVfM and by comparison to several authors, he was fairly mild in his language and writing. You probably know who I’m talking about. I got permission to re-post his material on my blog and have done so (there’s a link to it in the right sidebar on my blog’s home page).

      I consider my pseudonym (The Damned Olde Man, TDOM) to be semi-anonymous. I don’t broadcast my name but several folks know it and it probably wouldn’t be too difficult to figure it out. But I’m working on a PhD and want to find a job in academia so I would prefer my MRA credentials not be public for at least a while. A couple years from now I probably won’t care.

      But I think that as the MRM gains some mainstream credibility it will be necessary to have a real name attached to the pseudonym.

      • Jay

        Well done TDOM for getting his material online. I saved every single one of his articles. But great to see you have them online on your website. I highly recommend everyone reads all those articles. He was possibly the best ever writer on issues which affect men and boys.

        I do hope he is well.

    • Stu

      I know what you mean, but on the other hand, GWW has had offers for speaking engagements as well as her videos being used in course curriculum, known as GirlWritesWhat. In a way, why should we conform to academia’s requirements anyway. A lot of people think that it’s the opinions of academics that count, but how much influence do they have over the masses, really. What percentage of the population identifies with them? And apart from the fact that in the area of gender, they are full of shit, Lady Gaga has more influence on the masses then they do. Their influence is only with an important minority. And that important minority is also…..full of shit……and can’t withstand the tide of public opinion turning against them.

      • Bev

        ” A lot of people think that it’s the opinions of academics that count, but how much influence do they have over the masses, really. What percentage of the population identifies with them? ”

        Thats the point the masses don’t have to agree with them but it does not stop them from having a disproportionate say in the laws and norms we live by by pushing it down our throats by force if necessary if we don’t accept their prescriptions.

        • Stu

          That’s because people are preoccupied with bullshit. Distractions, sports, fashion, music, pop culture etc to far too great a degree. They mostly don’t oppose anything because they are to into that video game… busy enjoying trivial shit to notice the house burning down.

          Solution, make the MRM fun, entertain them.

        • Mike Buchanan

          In the current era of ‘professional politicians’ – men and women with little or no working experience outside politics before starting political careers – academics have a disproportionate influence on the minds of those young men and women whilst at university. The leaders of the British Labour and Conservative parties (both in their 40s) read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford University, within two or three years of one another. Both are unfailingly pro-feminist in their thinking and policies.

          Mike Buchanan

      • TCM

        “how much influence do they have over the masses, really.”

        I can strongly relate to that statement. When I was doing high school teaching observations for pursuing a teaching certificate, I observed a teacher who sidetracked her classroom to talk incessantly about gender politics in a very one-sided fashion. I looked around and saw that many of the boys were disengaged, and either half or totally asleep. I thought to myself, “I’m glad they aren’t listening to the teacher.” And then I did a double-take at the irony that I – an aspiring teacher – was glad they were not listening to the teacher.

        I taught students for roughly two years. But I teach many more people now through YouTube, and no longer have to worry about administrators or letters of “wreck-ommendation” (I once heard a faculty member describe them as such, reveling in her power to wreck someone’s career).

        So glad I’m out of there.

    • scatmaster

      Fortunately I will never be confused with an academic or having the skills of a JTO, GWW, or TDOM. Since I will never have that skill set I will never publish anything on AVFM or other male friendly sights so I have no worries.

      Having said that I have no doubt if even in this comment thread I were to use my real name I would be fired from my current position. The timing is not right at this point and for me I doubt it ever will be. Until alimony is removed from the table and I leave my current employer I will speak my piece as an anonymous voice. If it carries less weight so be it.

      • TDOM

        The great thing about forums such as AVfM is that you don’t need to be an academic or have that skill set to publish here.The only things you really need are an opinion and the ability to express that opinion in writing.

      • Paul Elam

        Agreed. I refer you back to the comment, though. I specified either a name or a pen name that was unlike an internet handle.

        I remain aware of the dangers for many people in coming out. I was in no way suggesting that people who could be harmed by outing themselves do so.

    • TCM

      Anonymity does help some people report from the front lines of certain areas without blowing their cover. While I can attest that I have felt a desire to move out from anonymity, I am actually still “in the trenches,” so to speak, in my main area of advocacy, and have more work to do (and hopefully more information to gather) before I can be “seen,” so to speak. So I’m hoping to move beyond it, but I can’t just yet. It is a tricky state of affairs.

  • Kimski

    Much, much better than the results gender studies have come up with so far, which are mostly based on assumptions, generalizations, hatred and gross negligence of scientific research, when it comes to biology, psychology and antropology as forming factors.

    I still have a problem with calling gender studies a pseudo-academic ideology.
    Uninformative works with me, but ‘gender jihad’ would be far more appropriate.

  • TheSameDog

    Feminist “men’s studies” is like agricultural scientists studying the Colorado potato beetle, and feminists’ shock and horror at Male Studies is comparable to the reaction those scientists would have if they saw the beetles take over the lab.

    • Kimski

      From my point of view, feminists “men’s studies” is more like agricultural scientists studying the Colorado potato beetle, without knowing what a beetle and a potato is.

      -Or, as I’ve mentioned before, like hearing blind people discussing colours.

  • Zerbu

    *Grabs some popcorn* I can’t wait for the angry feminist protests against this to start.

  • quolls

    Feminism is tyranny …

    Mz Quentin Bryce
    Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia

    Government House
    Dunrossil Drive


    Prince of Wales
    Clarence House,
    SW1A 1BA.

    Formal complaint Sunday, 30 December 2012

    I ask the Governor General to investigate, these corrupt Family Court Australia proceedings, associated public servants and contracted practitioners.
    Restore my son’s human rights, deliver justice, refer this matter to the elected government, Queensland CMC if the CMC isn’t to busy with their own political campaigns and the Queensland police for investigation.
    Legal Aid Queensland and Family Court Australia are abusing my young son and have been for over two years, illegally using public money to fund their pack of unethical, illegal and corrupt practitioners in their tyrannical political bigoted campaign against my son and my family, lying and cheating us of our natural and inalienable rights, these public employee’s are corrupt and evil.
    Oskar’s Paternal God Mother Dr. Masliza Zaid is a member of the Malaysian Royal Family and is distressed at the tyrannical bigoted behaviour of these corrupt proceeding as perpetrated by pubic employees of FCA, LAQ and CFS.
    Do you now understand a tyrannical treacherous bigot is, do you understand that this has manifested in FCA and LAQ? Did you learn anything from your visit to the Syrian refugee camp in Jordan?
    We have and are fighting war against treachery and tyranny now that treachery and tyranny has manifested here in Australia within the Family Court of Australia and Legal Aid Queensland, it is your duty to take appropriate actions.
    All children have the basic right to be free of treachery and tyranny, half the children in the commonwealth will be exposed to these treacherous and tyrannical family courts, we look to our Sovereign to see to and take action against this treachery and tyranny lowered on Oskar and all the other children and families.
    Steve Wickenden, Oskar’s Wickenden’s Dad.
    3/49 Old Burleigh Road Surfers Paradise,
    Gold Coast Australia 4217.
    Po Box 1507 Broadbeach 4218.

    Please contact …
    Hon Jarrod Bleijie
    Electorate Office Address
    Sunshine Central
    3 Nicklin Way
    MINYAMA QLD 4575
    Phone: (07) 5478 1189
    Fax: (07) 5478 1815
    My young son is missing … my ex took him when he was 1yo … when I got court orders … he was spending weekends with me … from then on he wouldn’t go back to the ex when he sees her he would run away and when my mum had to forced him to the ex he cried … this went on for 2 years … 2 months ago the ex and her Queensland legal aid team pack of fem lawyers and barristers got full custody … even thought child safety on record reported he was found alone in the streets many times over six months between 1 yo and 18 months and documented bruises and turning up bleeding etc … also on the child safety report the ex admitted her legal aid told her to say there was domestic violence when there was none and that the ex was the “primary attachment figure” … me legal aid was cut when I showed I have video of Oskar not going to the ex at 1yo, my mum having to make him go … asked I for a psychology report … then never heard from my lawyers again … Oskar got 1 hour a week in the supervised detention centre with me … LAQ said the ex is the primary attachment figure and I brainwashed my 1yo … 2 weeks ago he came to the detention centre after being with held the week before, again with a lot of unexplained bruises … I called the police to investigate Oskar’s bruises and have not seen him since … I has seen the ex beat him so I knew what he is going through … I was supposed to see him on Monday but the detention centre cancelled visits because at the last visit… I called the police last Wednesday for a safety check in on Oskar … the police didn’t call me back … I called the police again today … they confirmed there has been no one at his address for the last week … I tried to file a missing person report today for Oskar so I can get him a police safety check … the police declined … I tried filing an application in case in the family court FCA it was denied … Steve and Oskar

    • Paul Elam

      Please format all of this into a word document, with some additional background and send it to me at

    • quolls

      Please delete this post and all post and this user account

  • Raykyn

    A couple things:

    1. This will make it more difficult to restrain or revoke federal funding for so-called “gender studies” programs, a la Norway.

    2. I’m concerned that this will meet the same funding shortfalls that men’s shelters do (eg doesn’t speak to the instinctual “buttons” that women’s shelters do).

    3. There is a massive institutional structure in place to essentially drown out a promising field with contradictory, but just as bad as always, research. I predict a war of Big Names, where every male studies article like this one will have a dozen or more responses littered with PhDs saying how wrongheaded it is.

    Alternatively, if they’re smart, they’ll just quietly block funding, avoid citing any of it, and hope it drowns in obscurity.

    Either way, while this is an incredibly promising step, I sense male studies has a long, uncertain future prior to “tenure”. How can we little folks help?

    • cvar

      Write to your local congressman, or whatever passes for such in other countries. They have more direct influence over you and are easier to influence than the head(s) of state.

      Normally, people just kind of ignore them in all the fervor of DA PRESIDENT, so it’s probably a pretty big shock for them to suddenly get a few hundred emails on a topic. If they’re all reasonable and well researched emails, well, then you get a rather direct letter written to the A.G. of Delaware implying that he should pull his head out of his ass or else.

  • JinnBottle

    If there was ever plain old folkwisdom (empirical knowledge, just not formally organized knowledge) borne out, it is the (once) common knowledge – that Woman is eternally practical – as witnessed by 50 years of feminism.

    Feminists couldn’t give a rat’s ass about scientifically, peer-researched, inductively reasoned truth, or knowledge: They care only and solely for that which gives them leverage in the concrete world over the next 10 seconds (or – even better – beyond). Like the corrupt political parties everywhere in the present-day world, Feminism has no principles, only tactics, and the insatiable, ongoing lust for power.

    That said, this Post looks to herald real possibilities – e.g. a planned program of *real* men’s studies (pun intended??); also insofar as it puts forth, or reiterates, the strategy of MRAs not getting bogged down throwing the pearls of logic, science-backed knowledge before the aforementioned principle-less swine . Thank you for it.

  • Falland

    Louann Brezendine also wrote a book called the Male Brain which I highly recommend. It is the companion book to the Female Brain. By approaching the sexes from a biological and evo-psych perspective first it neatly explains why men and women react the way they do. Nurture tends to reinforce nature more than the other way around. It is the opposite of the idiotic blank slate theory which is what feminism and liberalism has been hanging their hat on for the last 40 years.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Falland, many thanks. Steve Moxon argues in ‘The Woman Racket’ that culture arises out of biology. It’s a viewpoint – a variant of biological determinism, I believe – which seems to be uniformly rejected by sociologists, but don’t get me started on that one! My own campaigns aren’t based at all on biological determinism. I find people simply disengage or get vexed when you express a belief in BD being at all influential, and some have suggested we can lay that at the door of the Nazis and Eugenics.

      • Primal

        Are those ‘uniformly rejectin’ sociologists the same ones who have earned a terrible reputation as PC perverts or are they credible debunkers of Moxon’s BD?

        • Mike Buchanan

          Haha thanks Primal, I’ve not come across those ‘credible debunkers’. A Happy New Year to you.

  • Booyah

    So very proud to be South Australian right now. Considering I’ve been screaming blue murder for the past 12 months to anyone who will listen, I think this chap might be going to university in 2014 folks and being very delighted to go. I think I may have a very handy head start on the material anyhow. Way to go South Australia, AVfM and the MRM. I couldn’t ask for better news. Thank you all.

    One minor quibble is the term “male studies” instead of “mens studies.” It further enhances the prevalent use of the term male instead of man to dehumanise masculine identity. Just another reason to go and make a difference really though…

    • Booyah

      Okay after re-reading I see that feminists have already seized “mens studies” hence the term “male studies.” Grrr they just can’t help themselves from meddling. No surprise there really…

    • Bev

      SA was in the past a hotbed of feminism. That seems to have changed somewhat as the extemists have moved on to greener? pastures in other universities on the eastern seaboard or have taken up positions in womens groups.

      • Booyah

        That would explain so much of my childhood Bev and also our radfem prime minister. I’m a big fan of your work and suspect there is no state where they are safe from Bev. :)

        Being the driest state on the driest continent “greener fields” may be very appropriate. I think that SA is friendlier and more nurturing than some of the other states which is why it was probably a good nursery for them and hopefully will be for male studies. (Still hate that name damn feminists….)

  • Falland

    Science will be the undoing of feminism. It just cannot happen fast enough. Women’s Studies probably sounded like a great idea to feminists when there were no competing “Men’s Studies” programs to counter balance the garbage that would be produced but is was just a matter of time before men caught up. Forcing Universities to equally fund MS departments in the name of “gender equality” will be nail in the coffin of feminism. I sometimes wonder, that given the choice of either having Men’s and Women’s programs or having none at all, many feminists would probably choose the latter. Either way, we win, they lose.

    • Bev

      Many do not have womens studies it has morphed into gender studies (gender neutral). Nothing has changed though. Just a neat side step.

      • Falland

        As men get stronger and better organized expect the feminists to step up their efforts to try and co-opt or bastardize our message whenever possible. This is, when they have failed at silencing us first. “Gender studies” is the perfect example. The same teachers are teaching the same shit as when it was called Women’s Studies, they just now claim to speak for men; ugh. The GMP is another example of this aggressive mimicry. By claiming to speak for men, their job is to be male lookalikes that can be used as a prop for their feminist and Democratic allies. It is somewhat ironic when considering how sensitive women are to being “patronized” or their endless claims about how independent they are in spite of their constant need to glom onto men and their resources at every turn.

  • Kukla

    “Feminism men’s studies” made me laugh. It’s like “Nazi ethnic studies”.

    • Raven01

      More like “Nazi’s Race Relations”.
      Never forget that being born with a penis is as much a crime to a feminist as being anything but, Aryan to a Nazi.

      • Lucian Vâlsan

        The UK has a parody like that.
        In the UK, there’s a woman who is the “Minister for Women and Gender Equality” – which is as laughable as having a “Minister for White People and Racial Equality”.

  • TCM

    “Phineas Fembotcrusher” of “the manosphere”

    On a related note, Robert O’Hara said something – I believe it was in his article concerning FIRE and Cato – about the need for us to begin to move beyond pseudonyms – “out of our shells,” so to speak – and use our real selves to confront real misandry in the world. This does expose us, certainly. But it does give us some legitimacy. I am currently debating doing this myself.

    I was originally concerned about Male Studies, both for its own well-being, and also that at one of its conferences it seemed to skew a little too partisan/conservative for my taste. But after looking at the journal I feel a lot better.

    “[T]his fundamentalism is being increasingly eclipsed by compelling evidence from…anthropology…psychiatry, psychology, and others. “

    This is very much news to me. I would really like to see what the criticism of Feminist ideology in these fields in particular look like.

    Very smart that they plan to forge ahead. This has been something I’ve had to come to grips with in the past: if we focus entirely on Feminism, we still make women, albeit indirectly, our focus. Focusing on misandry, the harm it does to, and the needs of men and boys is key.

    Oh by the way, site admins: a lot of people who have updated to WordPress 3.5 have lost the functionality of their visual editor (as opposed to their html editor) when adding or editing new pages. I am currently much in frustration. If I go to edit my profile here, it says “WordPress 3.5 is available. Please notify the site administrator.” Beware! The “update” is a devil to fix.

    • Paul Elam

      “Oh by the way, site admins: a lot of people who have updated to WordPress 3.5 have lost the functionality of their visual editor (as opposed to their html editor) when adding or editing new pages. I am currently much in frustration. If I go to edit my profile here, it says “WordPress 3.5 is available. Please notify the site administrator.” Beware! The “update” is a devil to fix.”

      Thanks, and I have passed this along.

  • Mike Brentnall

    Word association time.
    Beautiful. That was, after finishing Jim Muldoon’s letter featuring, among other things, optimism and eventuality. That is, admission (ambiguity intended) of men/maleness rightfully back into the human fold.

    Yet, there is one thing I’d like to add and I’ll begin with one quote mined by Mike Buchanan (thanks, btw, Mike. Buckley said it in more dignified terms and eloquently but I’ll add a common touch afterward):
    “The so-called conservative, uncomfortably disdainful of controversy, seldom has the energy to fight his battles, while the radical, so often a member of the minority, exerts disproportionate influence because of his dedication to his cause.
    God and Man at Yale (1951)”

    While having no real bone to pick with any adherent to group leadership within public management (governance) or the scholastic employed in Academe I would like to point out how interdependent people are upon each other, regardless of their station in life, as similar in scope to what TDOM also mentioned earlier in this thread.
    Quoting Jim Muldoon now: For the first time the men’s movement can look to authoritative, reliable information in one place on men as a basis for going forward.
    Couple with: But, quoting “Blueface” as your primary source doesn’t quite have that ring of gravitas.
    While academics authored in men’s issues, at risk to themselves, can make a decided difference in social progress/awareness it is people like ‘Blueface’ and others similar who can supply digestible street or household (computer, actually) level informed preludes to debate and change. Essentially, it is the on-line anonymous with their repudiations of status quo fallacies that can popularize an issue and create a certain amount of safety for the academic and politician to advance what many know could or should be but are reluctant to publicly announce.
    Still, the politician and the academic risks career and tenure representing both popular social culture and reasoned ideas as does the blog handles who have likely suffered from there not being enough outspoken people influencing issues or outcomes, and in our case ‘gender’ and men’s concerns.
    I’d go so far to say that, proportionately, more common men have suffered at the hands of the state sponsored matriarchy than the minority of men exerting greater public influence.
    It is the evidentiary articulators in academia and the creative adaptors to informed discourse who both advance or progress cultures to whole new levels of existance. Like a bridge between the university and public. Akin to what Ralph Nader once envisioned with Public Interest Research Groups in the 1970s and 80s, something I once spent some time trying to accomplish.
    In my mind we’re kind of stuck with each other. With the constancy of human foible I do hope we, our culture, do well.

  • Mike Buchanan

    Thanks Mike. One of your sentences in particular struck me:

    “I’d go so far to say that, proportionately, more common men have suffered at the hands of the state sponsored matriarchy than the minority of men exerting greater public influence.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Feminists are continually claiming that women are advancing because they (feminists) are fighting on their behalf, while the reality is, of course, very different (e.g. Steve Moxon in ‘The Woman Racket’ shows how those geniuses, the Suffragettes, DELAYED female emancipation in the UK).

    I digress. Again in the UK, tin late 2010 he feminists in the business community pulled off a strategic masterstroke, which remains effective to this day. Decades of moaning about the small number of women on FTSE boards had little effect, but in November 2010 Helena Morrissey established the 30% club, aiming at 30% female representation on boards by 2015. About 25-30 FTSE100 chairmen are now members, and many FTSE250 chairmen. Not one FTSE100 chairman has publicly criticised the organisation or their objective, to the best of my knowledge. Even the chairmen of FTSE100 companies with no women on their boards (now down to just eight or so) witter on about the importance of harnessing the power of diversity, blah, blah, blah…

    The impact of the 30% club (along with government support)? In 2010 just 13% of newly appointed FTSE100 directors were women, in 2011 it had risen to 30%, and in 2012 it’s been 55%. All the 2012 female intake have been as non-execs. The FTSE100 chairmen have shown little interest (to date) in our compelling evidence that their financial performance will decline as a result.

    One of the chairmen, Sir Roger Carr, is also President of the CBI, the major employers’ association. In an email exchange with me he admitted he didn’t believe that having more women on boards improved financial performance, but they improved ‘meeting dynamics’. Which must be nice for him, if not for his company’s shareholders, or the men kicked into touch while less talented and experienced women take the board places that should be rightfully theirs.

    These alpha males, like alpha males everywhere – politiciand are the worst – are lauded by the women to whom they hand economic and political power on a plate. It’s always the non-alpha males (the overwhelming majority) who suffer as a result.

    These alpha males are as much our natural enemies as the worst militant feminists. David Cameron, prime minister, is an outstanding example of the breed. Which is why we’ll probably contest his parliamentary seat when our new party fights the 2015 general election.

    In the words of Mahatma Gandhi:

    ‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.’

    In 2013 our enemies will increasingly progress from ignoring us to ridiculing us. I can’t wait…

    Mke Buchanan


    • Mike Brentnall

      “Alpha” white knights, perhaps?

      As we’ve observed behaviors of pack leaders, and I regret making this comparison, but, within the larger animal kingdom where the ‘alpha’ eliminates his competition such may also be true for those driven to accumulate in the human realm. So, quite possibly, one keeps the less competent in near proximity. But that is thinking the worst. Adoration from granting favours is as powerful as reaching a personal and business pinnacle. Merge this with the male protective instinct and we may have a recipe for transcendence or aware improvement in the works.
      But, as you’ve shown, bearing fast tracking silver platters and acting as program granters can only go on for so long before these types may realize that they are promoting truely unworthy individuals who reveal their true sordid nature. The same old corruption but from a different angle.
      Yet, which true alpha would want to endure a harem of harridans intent on eventually destroying him? ‘Alpha’s themselves may not yet realize that their own positions could in time be eliminated by forces more organized and numerous as he. (Or by the bigger alpha, har).

      All is not lost however. We live in a time and within similar systems where participation in how individuals or similarly minded groups of such wish to conduct affairs is permitted AND acted upon. In its current battered warted but enduring form ‘democracy’ (numbers) can work just as swiftly for men’s issues as for those groups who have practiced intentional but ambiguous deception and self-interest have.
      Your participation within this forum as one knowing the macro business realm is also key to understanding the bigger picture of what sort of shenanigans confronts us all. This is an area not regularly covered in the men’s forums that I read.
      As alluded to in a previous comment on how those of differing stations in life can assist or benefit one another, it appears to me that this is occuring, especially here, and I count myself fortunate for being here observing it happening and to be somewhat part of it myself.

      Back to the theme of the lead article by Jim Muldoon. The theoretical of men’s existance is being developed. Respective awarenesses of the common mundane are being articulated broadly. Moreso out of having to. For men, as far as I know, this has never occured before. I’m going with it. Co-operating with mutual understandings of the bigger picture shouldn’t be that difficult. Or hope not.

      I’m sure that reading your blog could be instructive (there is so much good reading in many places but the time, the time). Thanks for putting it out, Mike.
      I really cannot apply official welcome to you here as I’m a part-timer but glad to see your CV nonetheless.


  • keyster

    The young woman’s right of passage to womanhood is her first menstration and eventually motherhood defines her “purpose” in life. (Feminists hate that) A young man has no such biologically defining event, so he’s defined instead by accomplishment and status, which he strives for and more often fails at.

    If you want “Male Studies” to gain a foot-hold in academia in the USA, you will need to tear down the idiology that permeates our campuses first, from the Ivy League to Berkley. This ain’t happening any time soon.

    It would be like proposing a Conservative Studies Dept and bringing Pat Buchannan in to head it up. The opposition would be so vast and swift, it would make the University of Toronto look tolerant and inclusive by comparison. “NO MEANS NO!” would take on a whole new meaning.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      The dismal economics of the bloated university establishment may possibly offer the opening we would like to see. What I mean is — that the US economy, combined with the top-heavy administration (thought police and quota-enforcement “deans,” etc.) — cannot be sustained during the dollar collapse and continued de-industrialization, therefore the university system will have to undergo a revolutionary change of some sort.

      Male undergrads (apart from the top 5% or so) no longer believe that putting up the the professors’ BS indoctination will help them become prosperous. They are going to figure out that the rapidly expanding private prison system (with state-guaranteed capacity fulfillment agreements!) is being built not just for ne’er-do-wells, but for all males who refuse to be harassed, spied upon, censored, groped, searched, falsely accused, fraudulently evicted, tasered, robbed and big-pharma-drugged.

      There is a big bust-up coming pretty soon. We cannot accurately predict how it will play out, but we writers and video-makers can help pave the way for whatever is to come after the soggy feminine napkin hits the fan.

  • Primal

    “Perhaps our most effective recourse is to resolutely refuse to engage with it polemi- cally, and to “step around” it, ignore it, and forge ahead independently of it, focusing on evidence, reinstating our prerogative and responsibility to express a reasonable opinion, and striving for a fresh, sensible, equitable, and practicable perspective.” Ashfield in Towards…


    “If you want “Male Studies” to gain a foot-hold in academia in the USA, you will need to tear down the idiology that permeates our campuses first, from the Ivy League to Berkley.” Keyster

    I’d sure like to know how Professor Ashfield came to the above conclusion. This tactic is one that I’ve noticed other male writers using but I can’t quite see how it’s going to effective…particularly with Hoff Sommers’ condemnation ‘of the faint hearted men in academia’ ringing in my head. Seems to me that one MALE Paglia would do a world of good by destroying the old so that there is room for the new. That said, maybe Prof. Ashfield knows something that we don’t about the internal workings of the academic racket.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      Yes: cowardice. The grad students are assigned dissertation topics by their superiors. The staight-A PhD students have very little real knowledge of life or of history — they know mostly just the info they are fed, and they are overwhelmed with just keeping up with the orthodox social engineering-infused readings. The good ones will buck the bosses and be weeded out (no tenure offers). The system is efficient at recruiting cowards. There are exceptions, but the game is rigged to keep the status quo in charge of the money and resources. Plus there is a revolving door with gov’t, NGOs and deep pocket foundations — all staus quo.

      • Primal

        Love your systematic analysis here. Very helpful to better understand the game holistically. The saddest aspect of this the colossal lost opportunities to create credible knowledge that could be of benefit to both sexes/genders.

  • bowspearer

    Great article Jim, however I there is one part of your article I feel needs discussing:

    “The importance of this is difficult to exaggerate. For the first time the men’s movement can look to authoritative, reliable information in one place on men as a basis for going forward.”

    While this is certainly true, there are a few caveats that need to be thrown in there for those who might see academia as dome radical feminist zeitgeist.

    First off, there is the issue of specialisation and interest areas. An academic might have a completely different area of research to men’s issues (meaning they’re unlikely to be published if they did submit something) but agree with other academics. My Australian modern history lecturer from the beginning of last year comes to mind here. The articles in this journal aren’t going to be representative of the total number of academics who agree with them.

    Secondly, this might be a first in terms of journals, but certainly not in terms of articles. It’s important to point out that pro-male academics such as Tosh have been published in journals prior to this with pro-male articles of their own.

    Finally, this move is predictable. To begin with we had the fallacy of Patriarchy, which then evolved to the Kyriarchy. People can be quick to criticise the
    Kyriarchy, however it is a fundamental stepping stone to dealing with men’s rights as it opens the door to something which Tosh has described as “Subordinate Masculinities”.

    Once you start talking about hegemonic masculinities vs subordinate masculinities, you are in the territory where you are dealing with an oppressed group of men. Furthermore the notion of a hegemonic class of women coexisting with a hegemonic class of men is also blatantly implied. From here, a move to dealing with the oppression of men is a minor ideological leap.

    In short, a men’s rights based academic journal was an inevitability and I look forward to seeing things snowball from here.