Newsflash: "Male Studies vs. Men's Studies"

Inside Higher Ed columnist, Jennifer Epstein, recently published an article comparing traditional Men’s Studies to the newly conceived Male Studies, which is popping up in universities and conference halls across the country. While men’s studies developed organically as a compliment to women’s studies, male studies has emerged as a combative reaction to both women and men’s studies. Although the distinction between “men’s” and “male” appears to be a mundane matter of semantics, Epstein insinuates that it has enormous ramifications for the future of gender relations and social movements. Not only is the objective of male studies appalling to feminists (both ♀ and ♂), but it mocks and compromises the trajectory of social progress for everything from sexism to racism.

The president of the American Men’s Studies Association, Robert Heasley, describes the origin and mission of men’s studies as the following, “Men’s studies came out of feminist analysis of gender, which includes biological differences” (Epstein). A modern-day example of men’s studies can be seen at Colgate University in the formation of Men at Colgate, a male-only group dedicated to discussing gender-related issues on campus. These men take a genetic and sociological approach to understanding how they relate to women and society. Male studies, on the other hand, is not concerned with objective analysis of gender so much as it is with the baseless construction of masculinity. These chauvinists believe masculinity is under attack, leaving all men as an underrepresented minority. Their central concern is, “exploring the triumphs and struggles of the XY-chromosomed of the human race” (Epstein). If this sounds ridiculous, it is. That said, this movement is not to be taken lightly as one might eerily predict a connection between male studies and other historic supremacy acts.

The precipitating cause of male studies is undoubtedly feminism, which is described by Lionel Tiger as, “a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon” (Epstein). Tiger, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, goes on to claim that feminist-lead misandry infringes upon the rights of men, “The academic lives of males are systematically discriminated against” (Epstein). While it is certainly in the realm of possibility that some men have experienced misandry, to say that feminism is a movement fueled by man-haters is simply wrong. Although many feminists see men’s behaviour as a conduit for dismantling patriarchy, there is certainly an acknowledgement that women too must play a role. As author Allan Johnson so eloquently articulates, “We can’t do this without realizing that we all participate in something larger than ourselves, something we didn’t create but that we have the power to affect through the choices we make about how to participate” (Johnson 29). The ability to see feminism as a collaborative movement is nothing more than a willingness to see the effect every one of us has on equality. Unfortunately, this maturity is nowhere to be seen in male studies.

Returning to the notion of supremacy, the lack of maturity responsible for male studies is the same deficit that created the Klu Klux Klan. While promoting masculinity seems innocuous when compared to white supremacy, the foundation is the same. In Patricia Williams’ book, Seeing A Color-blind Future, she evaluates racism as the inability to experience the life of another, “Perhaps part of this is, in the words of an old Cherokee proverb, as simple as trying to walk a mile in another’s moccasins. Just the momentary, imaginary exercise of taking to mind and heart the investment of oneself in another, indeed the investment of oneself as that other” (Williams 69). While investment in this context relates to race, it can just as easily be applied to gender. If proponents of male studies were invested in bettering not just themselves but also women, the successful rise of feminism would be seen as a victory, not a threat.

The perceived threat of the female sex is nothing new. Take coeducation, for example, which emerged in the late 1960s. In 1969, The New York Times wrote of this historic moment, detailing both the excitement of some and the fears of many, “Nightmares about expansion and higher costs, and cries of anguish at the toppling of tradition notwithstanding, coeducation fits the ideas, ideals and mood of today’s young people" (Evans). The resistance to coeducation was no different than the resistance to female suffrage, employment, or biological rights. In fact, the fear of losing power to women via coeducation is the same fear now driving curriculum changes, like male studies. Rocco Capraro, associate dean and assistant professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, supports male studies as a means of increasing men’s power, “Men are both powerful and powerless…today’s discourse on individual men is not a discourse of power – men do not feel powerful in today’s society” (Epstein). This is unequivocally true, as one only needs to examine the horrific statistics on sexual violence and domestic abuse to see this power trip in action. The problem, however, is that there are also plenty of women who feel powerless in our society, yet we don’t see them on rape and sniper sprees. Suffice it to say that using powerlessness as an excuse to further the agenda of male supremacy has not and will not stand in the fight for equality.

While Jennifer Epstein does little more than moderate the debate between men’s and male studies, her article is riddled with the same fears I have expressed. If this movement gains power, it will affect both feminists on a personal level, and social progress on a societal level. Men, having always had the advantage over women, can no more justify creating male studies than white students could justify creating white supremacy studies. Suggesting that any majority party needs a support group mocks the efforts of minority progress everywhere. It would be remarkable to see what we could accomplish if instead of competing for attention, we shared it. Again, Williams leaves us with a vision of how the world could be different if plots like male studies did not exist, “Black or white, invisible or conspicuous, English or British, raced or nationed, embodied or alone…Who are we when we are seen but not spotlighted, when we are humble but not invisible, when we matter but not so much that the mattering drives us mad” (Williams 30). Following this idea, the final message in “Male Studies vs. Men’s Studies” is that, regardless of our different genders, men and women are much stronger together than we will ever be apart.

Works Cited:

Epstein, Jennifer. "News: Male Studies vs. Men's Studies - Inside Higher Ed." Home – Inside Higher Ed. 08 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2010. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/08/males.

Evans, Olive. "For Colleges, the Major Is Coeducation." New York Times (1923-Current file) 9 Jan. 1969, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2006), ProQuest. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” [online] Page 29.

Williams, Patricia J. Seeing a Color-blind Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997. Print.