Male Bashing in Academe by Ilana Mercer Dr. Veronica Dahl is a professor of computing science at the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. While the estimable Prof. doubtless has considerable expertise in her field, computers were not the topic on which she was asked to expound by the local Knowledge Network. In a taped interview some time back, Prof. Dahl offered that the reason boys were falling behind girls in the school system was that boys were lazy. They know they are the "ruling class," she said in a soothing dulcet voice, and they know that no matter how badly they perform, their position in society is secure. I followed up with a column in a local newspaper in which I identified Dahl's faux pas with second wave feminism whereby women are seen as a besieged political class fighting to unseat the ruling class whose members refuse to let go of patriarchal privilege and power. Dahl and colleague, John Dewey Jones, director of the school of engineering science, protested to the editor that I had failed to divine the laudable context of Dahl's message. Here is the gist of Prof. Jones' rebuttal: Dahl didn't say what Mercer alleged she said, but even though she didn't say what she is alleged to have said, what Dahl didn't say is accurate (see satire "Yes, Prime Minister"). Plainly, both Dewey and Dahl deny the quote, but go on to reinforce its message, namely that girls work hard because of society's expectations; boys often don't because they dominate society. Voila, second-wave feminism! There are so many disturbing things about this pronouncement not least its blanket condemnation of half the population. Here is a woman who should know something of the scientific method, yet is advancing opinion based not on data, but on radical feminist ideology. To anyone who has any doubts, feminism and second wave feminism in particular is a theory, no more, no less, and a conspiracy theory at that, since it claims that throughout history men have conspired to dominate women. The position of men right now contradicts this dogma. It is quite striking that an educator like Dahl can shrug off the facts: Women continue to live longer than men. Five times as many young men as women commit suicide, men are twice as likely to be unemployed and find it twice as hard to get another job, and men are infinitely more likely to suffer industrial accidents and diseases which may destroy their lives. Boys, moreover, are far more likely to be slapped with the diagnosis of learning disabled than girls, and subjected to the Ritalin assault, as are they less likely to graduate from high school and go on to college. Judging from the letters I received from students at SFU, our devoted faculty are blithely unaware of the experience many men have on campus. Wrote one student: "...I cannot seem to escape the biases of feminism no matter where I turn. Every female teacher somehow manages to bring the argument around to point out that males overrun everything. If I produce any artwork with any sort of tall thin form in it, I immediately am criticized for producing artwork that involves phallic symbolism. Thus meaning that I obviously am promoting male dominance in society". The young man described this as "wearing of his spirits". The academe, once dedicated to freedom of expression and learning, now let's philistines hound males for producing personalized imagery. The wild fire of radical feminism has pretty much engulfed universities, evidently not sparing the computing science departments. Women's studies courses and English departments are littered with its lumpen jargon, which takes the tack of reducing works of literature and art to the bare bones of power relationships in society. When treated with this academic acid, great artists like Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or T. S. Eliot are dissolved into pale, patriarchal ruling class oppressors. Text is routinely deconstructed and shred using sophistic constructs, my point being that radical feminism is nothing but a subjective world-view based on a narrow insular and partial view of history. Why then is it touted as an immutable truth fit to guide public policy? Up until the last stages of the industrial revolution, writes columnist Barbara Amiel in her book Confessions, societies were preoccupied with the propagation of its members. The division of labour was the culmination of necessity and biology; it was necessary to make the most of man's superior physical strength and woman's ability to bear children. For a few children to have survived, explains Amiel, a woman had to give birth to ten or twelve. Were women not pregnant or in labour for most of their arduous lives, the tribe would not have lingered. There are other biological differences that separate the sexes. These have become taboo to study or discuss. Men do have an advantage in the perception of spatial-geometrical relationships. This advantage was vital in earlier societies that relied on brute force and hunting for survival. Feminism is staple doctrine in the secondary schools as well, and it animates the child-centered education system and the 1960s vision its teachers hold. My daughter's schooling has for the most transmitted sentimentality over reason, attitude and mush over canon and curriculum. She has been forced-fed a pedagogic diet of pop psychology. Her female teachers have been feminists who promote every mythical, politically correct orthodoxy that pervades the Zeitgeist. The dyed-in-the-wool feminist teachers will invariably greet a show of individualism or a sharp retort from the child with sly assertion - not reasoned argument. No doubt, the child-centered progressive public schooling is bad for girls and boys alike, but it is probably particularly bad for boys. Some research has indicated that boys thrive in a disciplined structured learning environment. The child-centered schooling shuns discipline and moral instruction, and promotes co-operative working habits and groupthink over individual achievement. Boys like competition and are hard wired for it. But when they invariably bubble over with unbridled testosterone, rather than challenge, discipline, and harness their energies, they are all too often subdued with Ritalin. While the child-centered schooling system, with its lax standards, and shopping mall assortment of flimsy courses is girl friendly - it is hostile to boys. Boy biology is demonized, and boys are made over in the emotional image of woman, or at least in the image of the caricature-of-woman feminists promote. SFU Prof. Doreen Kimura, on the other hand, is not wont to theorize into the ether. She has demonstrated empirically that there is "no evidence for systemic discrimination against women...and that when women do apply for science jobs they get preferential treatment". Her findings, reported in the National Post, confirm that women "self select out of certain science careers." She confirms that men and women differ cognitively in how they solve problems. As I've indicated, men, on average, are better at spatial tasks, mathematical reasoning and co-ordination of visual and motor activities. Given these findings, women would not be equally represented in professions such as physics and engineering. After years of producing bad science on the wage gap, Statistics Canada has finally admitted the pay gap is not due to discrimination, something the quasi-free market Fraser Institute demonstrated almost 2 decades back. The faulty premise held by public school educators like Dahl and Jones is equally hard to relinquish because it is politically expedient: The fight is on for power not truth. An aside: What do you think would have befallen Prof. Dahl had she ventured that the only reason women are underrepresented in the engineering sciences is because they are lazy and know a man will eventually take care of them? I wager the Prof.'s fitness to teach women would have been called into question. ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Hehe... we had to deal with the entire Mary Daly controversy two years ago, here at BC. For those not familiar: Mary Daly was a tenured professor that wouldn't allow boys in her class because she said they "repressed the girls" and prevented them from "reaching their full potential." The university had repeatedly tried to force her, but she would just take a sabbatical, then return with the same sexist practices. It eventually even got national attention. Finally, BC's President got in a huge fight with her, and gave her an ultimatum: "allow boys in, or leave"... and she screamed "fine!" Then, she refused to sign the paperwork, saying she had just been angry, and refused to admit anything. BC signed or papers for her, and it went to court, where she lost, since the judge claimed that violating the 14th amendment allowed for radical measures. But the feminists on campus DIDN'T back her up. One of my 3 favorite professors is a renowned feminist, Mary Kowalski-Wallace, and she was incredible. I didn't consider her discriminatory at all. She viewed it all in a sort of historical fashion, and viewed gender-roles as a sort of evolving historical dialectic. She *hated* Mary Daly, and actually made snide remarks about how glad she was that she was gone in a course I had with her. A few feminists *are* crazy, but I think the vast majority simply believe in equality and social rights. Post-modern and liberal (in the classical sense) feminists are fine... I just can't stand the "standpoint feminists," many of whom actually believe in female superiority because of their innate nuturing features, as opposed to male aggression. Joshua Goldstein wrote a very good book summarizing these positions, and positing how gender roles evolved and become universal. BTW, I like the evidence that suggests that boys are falling behind because of early elementary school bias. Boys are regarded by female teachers as unruly agents that will disrupt the class. Instead, their natural intrepidity should be channeled to more productive mediums, like investigation and creation. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 17, 2001).]
I read Mary Daly in college. Can't remember it particularly. I don't know if she was as strident then or if that is her only work. I remember the controversy in the news. What's your take on Camille Paglia (sp)? ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Sadly, I have no idea who that is... feel like enlightening me? If she's another Utopian feminist, I'm not surprised I haven't heard of her. Those people generally make me so angry that I have to quit after a couple of sentences. I only know about Daly because she taught here freshman year, and was so frickin' crazy and caused such a controversy. Now, *she's* the type of feminist that dr. laura was right about. I just object to people assuming all feminists are like that, since Professor Wallace was so great. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 17, 2001).]
I only know Camille Paglia as a talking head on television: Politically Incorrect et al. She is an academic (Columbia I think); she is a lesbian and she ridicules the feminist movement for much of its anti-male polemic. I think she was also pretty distancing from the gay rights movement. She was definitely a pioneer of more than one sort. She was very visible a couple of years ago but I've not seen her much as of late. Sorry to see her go, I liked her world view very much. ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these." [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 17, 2001).]
That article uses a little too many generalizations in regards to feminism taking over academia, etc. However, there are issues that often arise. Favoritism has always existed and while the past has always been male-based, now perhaps the pendelum is swinging the other way. I can live with it if it means that it will eventually settle in the middle. I say this having been "oppressed" by feminists. This is going to happen when you are an undergrad in a female dominant art history major. Despite being the programs top student, I was not shown as many opportunities by certain professors (who, unfortunately, carried all of the weight in the department). But that is life, I lived. I continue. On the graduate level, the field seems to shift as there are either equal or more men going for PhD's -- it all depends. I think abuses such as have gotten attention occur as a backlash against the process women have to go through to get their advanced degrees. I, therefore, will not fault them for that. In general, the facts are that girls are outperforming boys -- a brand new study was just published a week or so ago further illustrating this fact. I, personally, feel that women are the stronger sex in everything except physical strength (on average) but not in other areas of the physical realm (pain, endurance, etc). ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
I find Camile Paglia interesting. She isn't fond of feminists but she HATES male oppression. She is a HUGE fan of Madonna and that should say something. A more interesting and enlightening viewpoint would probably be that of Susan Faludi who wrote "Backlash" (the modern feminist Bible) and then turned around and wrote "Stiffed" two years ago about the backlash by feminists against men. Backlash lit a fire under many who called it everything from radical and irresponsible to inspiring. It was really a call to arms for women against a patriarchal society. Stiffed is not a complete about face but a very interesting look at how men have suffered (especially boys and young men) under the more poltically correct and sensitive society since the advent of womens liberation and feminism. The fact is that our society has rapidly changed and it is no surprise we struggle with it. Only 40 years ago, blacks were not allowed in the same bathrooms or schools with whites. Women were still supposed to be homemakers. Prior to the 60's, life in America had remained relatively stable sociologically since the late 1800's and the industrial revolution. Robert Bly wrote the controversial and enormously popular "Iron John," a look at a Brothers Grimm fairy tale and how it applied to manhood. It was considered the ignition for the men's movement in the 80's where men formed drumming circles and went into the woods to get in touch with their "wild man" inside. He and Faludi agree that as positive as many of the changes have been for women, they have been uncomfortable and confusing for both genders. It requires time for women and men (and African Americans and gays, etc) to learn the new roles being forged in our society. We can't expect to go from female icons like June Cleaver to Madonna in less than a half centruy and not expect some bumps along the way! Frankly, I find the sociological implications of the sweeping changes in America from feminism and segregation to gay rights and single-parent families to be fascinating. It has been made even more complicated with the incredible surge in technology and the ever-expanding role it plays in our daily lives. The fact is that it is a bumpy time because change is uncomfortable for everyone. Even change for the better creates a significant level of discomfort. There is a popular stress test for determining how much stress you've had in your life during the past year. It asks you to check off things on the list that you have had in your life in the past year and assigns a number value to them. On the list are things like serious illness, divorce, unemployment, etc. But the list also includes wedding, birth of a child, new job and vacation to name a few. There is just as much stress caused by what are generally considered positive changes in your life as is caused by negative changes. That old blessing/curse sounds very true of today: May you live in interesting times. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited June 17, 2001).]
rimbaud: the problem with the pendulum theory is that real people get clobbered by the moving pendulum. There is no great historical scoreboard in the sky-- just young people moving through life getting shafted be they boys or girls, women or men. Jeff: thanks for the reminder of "Shafted." I meant to read that when it came out but didn't. Now maybe I'll go find it. ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
"Stiffed" actually, but you're welcome. I have only glazed over Stiffed and I did read Backlash (although I buzzed through it and didn't really get too deep - I found it kinda dry reading) as part of a class in college. They both seem to be interesting, well thought out looks at gender issues in society. Personally, I admire Faludi for being scholarly and looking at both sides of the coin. If you really want to understand the full breadth of the issue, it would be a good idea to read both books. You don't have to agree but it is always helpful to see both sides. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
Since the article mentions "second wave" feminism, why not mention Betty Friedan's The Second Stage. Anyone read it? Rich, I understand your point, but it seems to me that that is life. Someone will always get screwed. The hope is that it can be more and more limited. As I said, backlash occurs first, then settling. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
Of course, I've seen issues where the pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth never hitting a middle ground or "settling". (Also, it takes people being upset about the direction things are going to get things moving the other way. If we were to all sit back and say "It'll even out eventually", it never would because there wouldn't be enough force pushing things back to the center). ------------------
Jeff: "Shafted" instead of "Stiffed." How Freudian. rimbaud: in what millenium does the settling occur? What stops a pendulum? What is the point of just trading out dis-advantged groups from generation to generation? ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
OK, then count me as one who will sit back and not care. I still say it is not as extreme as the article implies. I also say that, even if it is, I do not care. I was born at an advantage, a few minor irritants in my path will not change that. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
Sometimes image IS reality and, always, image shapes reality. I was dating (again) from age 37 to age 43, so yeah I've heard it all. I think the world is flooded with women who think the world owes them something because it wasn't fair for their mothers. Well, I had nothing to do with that and I'm sick and tired of paying the dues of a previous generation. In my first marriage of some 13 years, we slected female professionals (taxes, teeth, pediatricians, and GPs) in our own version of individual-initiative affirmative action. We socialized as a couple with mostly HER friends. I worked to put her through both undergrad and grad school (a PhD). I was a stay-at-home Dad to enable her first work experience. I relocated for her first job. While she was finishing her PhD, I worked a day job. I also worked two nights a week. She played volleyball two nights a week. We got divorced and she HAD to move my kids an hour away so she could pursue her chosen career. Now tell me about fair-mindedness and the effeteness of images. In reality, I deserved far better. She was led around by the nose by a bunch of feminists. I doubt this story is atypical. ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these." [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 19, 2001).]
rimbaud: certainly change the specifics of the story to make it plausible. You are missing my point. I used to fantasize about two women raping me, too! A movie about men abusing women and being celebrated as heroes would be considered to be repugnant at best! ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
RichRocket: What did you think of Fight Club? Not quite rape, but... still very unpc... dealt with repressed savagery, etc. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Fight Club was mildly interesting but kind of dumb (my apologies, I know how much you like Edward Norton!). It was about violent and repressed stupid guys beating up guys just like them. It was too savage. Women didn't suffer did they? You say it was too PC... how? Who complained from a political viewpoint? It was patently criticized for its violence. It ended weirdly, didn't it? Was it just a fantasy of that guy's or what? I can't remember. I drowsed through it on the sofa. Did I miss something? ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Rich, I do not understand why you did not get the kids. I did when we divorced 8 years ago. I agree with much of what you have said. There is a terrible double standard today, which can be summed up as... Woman good. Man bad. There is a very unhealthy prevalence of female dominated thought in today's socialization of boys and young men. No longer can boys just be boys. They are expected to be girls with that penis thing going on. A little boy gets kicked out of school for using a piece of paper like it is a gun. Rough housing in Kindergarten and grade school is verboten. Every little boy with a little wildness needs Ritalin. While women are suppposed to be equal partners with equal rights and responsibilities, on the one hand, even as adults they are treated as victims. When two college students get drunk and have sex, it is the male who risks being labelled guilty of sexual assault, if not actually prosecuted. A twenty two year old woman in Houston is suckered into sex by a charlatan who tells her his sperm will purify her. Is it nice? No. Is it rape? It shouldn't be, but it was prosecuted and he was found guilty. This double standard is appalling. I'm with Bill Maher on this issue. The feminization of America is emasculating far too many boys and young men. There is an obsession with getting men and boys to talk the language of women (issues, communication, etc.), but no quid pro quo. Biology destines the genders of species for certain roles and attributes. Sometimes they overlap, and sometimes they are distinctly different. In the past 35 years, social theories have attempted to overturn biological imperatives, particularly in the US, and it ain't working. It has created a lot of very unhappy, angry, depressed women, and a lot of men and boys trying to figure out what they are supposed to do next. I sense a cultural backlash is beginning. ------------------ [This message has been edited by PinetreeFM60 (edited June 18, 2001).]
Rich, Don't blame feminism for troubles of your past. I am being honest and sincere here, too. I am sorry you had a bad experience, but it is not feminism's fault. If anything, it seems a communication/power struggle thing. Perhaps your wife was just overly selfish? And, yes, I understood your point about T & L, I just thought that was funny. however, again, it would be repugnant for a male view because there are different societal factors. It would be like making a move about how bad white people have it because of all the blacks. Interestingly enough, I too have been oppressed by blacks, just as I have been by women. Woe is I. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
You couldn't be more wrong. Most recent, serious work on the issue has demonstrated almost no biological "roles." Women do bear children. That's about it. The actual role of testosterone is minimal... estrogen doesn't do much either. Much of the rest is truly the result of the male socialization process which teaches little boys to revere violence, and enjoy control. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
