These pages are intended to offer teachers interested in offering a (non-feminist and objective) course on men, suggestions for course outlines, text books, content, lectures, assignments, and resources. These pages offer a new teacher a running start for such a course.
Prospective teachers should remain aware that rational and objective analysis of feminist politics in the classroom may be hazardous to their careers. Jeffrey Asher, who prepared this outline, taught a course on men for five years, He was academically lynched by the Matriarchy in his college, who cancelled his Men’s Lives course, and forced him into early retirement. He remains available to teach for a college which respects equality between the sexes, and treasures freedom of speech.
Men's Lives
Course
Description
Men's values and experiences will be examined from birth to old age; at home, in education, work, in the family, and at play. We will investigate the cultural meaning for men of career, success, sexuality, family protection, patriotism, duty, fidelity, courage, and love.
We will examine historical and current beliefs and views on the cultural and biological sources of male behavior in the social structure. The material, intellectual, political, scientific and cultural achievements of men will be surveyed throughout history. We will investigate excessive male rates of illnesses, crime, assault, disability and death.
Reasoned and compassionate analysis will be used to dissect sex-biased laws, quotas, feminist dogma and anti-sex, and anti-male hysteria in academia, the law and the mass media.
Students will be encouraged to identify their responsibilities to seek solutions to violations of justice, equality, freedom and responsibility. Throughout this course, we will search for routes for reconciliation away from political-sexual confrontation, so that men and women may live together in families and society, in harmony.
… Students' discussions should show that they have learned the data, terminology and theories in assigned materials for each class. Informed, rational, and considerate discussions are encouraged in class. Students are expected to eschew personal impressions and experiences in favour of objective and statistical data; encourage expression of divergent opinions; not dominate classroom discussion; and treat each other with courtesy. Questions on any course requirement or topic are welcome, in class, at the break, or during office hours.
Textbooks
|
General Texts |
||
|
Baber, Asa |
Naked at Gender Gap |
Birch Lane s 1992 |
|
Cook, Philip |
Abused Men |
Praeger 1997 |
|
Deutschendorf, Harvey |
Of Work and Men |
Fairview 1996 |
|
Driscoll, Richard |
The Stronger Sex |
Prima 1998 |
|
Farrell, Warren |
The Myth of Male Power q |
Simon & Schuster 1993* @ |
|
Fitzgerald, Matthew |
Sex-Ploitation |
April House 1999 |
|
Newell, Waller |
What is a Man? |
Regan- Harper Collins 1999 |
|
Sommers, Christina Hoff |
The War Against Boys |
Simon & Schuster 2000 |
|
Thomas, David |
Not Guilty q |
Morrow 1996* |
|
Young, Cathy |
Ceasefire q |
Free Press 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
Biological
Foundations of Sex Differences in Behaviour |
||
|
Kimura, Doreen |
Sex and Cognition |
Bradford MIT 1999 |
|
Moir, Anne & Bill |
Why Men Don’t Iron |
Harper Collins 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
Multiculturalism,
Political Correctness, and Feminism |
||
|
Bernstein, Richard |
Dictatorship of Virtue |
Vintage 1995 |
|
Christensen, Ferrell |
Pornography q |
Praeger 1990 |
|
D’Souza, Denish |
Illiberal Education |
Vintage 1992 |
|
Fekete, John |
Moral Panic |
Robertson Davies 1994 |
|
Gross P, Levitt M |
Higher Superstition |
Johns Hopkins 1998 |
|
Kors A., Silvergate H |
The Shadow University |
Free Press 1998 |
|
Loney, Martin |
The Pursuit of Division |
McGill 1998 |
|
Lynch, Frederick |
Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action |
Praeger 1991 |
|
Sacks, D., Thiel, P |
The Diversity Myth |
Independent Institute 1998 |
|
Feminist Critics |
||
|
Davidson, Nicholas |
The Failure
of Feminism |
Prometheus 1998 |
|
Denfeld, Renee |
The New Victorians |
Warner 1995 |
|
Friday, Nancy |
The Power of Beauty |
Harper 1996 |
|
Laframboise, Donna |
The Princess at the Window |
Penguin 1996 |
|
Patai D, Koertge N |
Professing Feminism |
Basic Harper 1994 |
|
Patai, Daphne |
Heterophobia |
Rowman 1998 |
|
Prizzey, Erin |
The Emotional Terrorist |
Commoners (Ottawa) 1998 |
|
Roipe, Katie |
The Morning After |
Little, Brown 1993 |
|
Sommers, Christina Hoff- |
Who Stole Feminism? |
Simon & Schuster 1994 |
|
Steele, Betty |
The Feminist Takeover |
Tercet, Irwin 1997 |
|
Families and Divorce |
||
|
Abraham, Jed |
From Courtship to Courtroom |
Bloch 1999 |
|
Braver, Sanford |
Divorced Dads q |
Putnam 1998 |
|
La Rosa, Ralph |
The Modernization of Fatherhood |
U. Chicago 1997 |
|
Leving, Jeffrey |
Father’s Rights |
Basic 1997 |
|
Parke R, Brott A |
Throwaway Dads |
Houghton 1998 |
|
Stevenson J, Black A |
How Divorce Affects Offspring |
Westview 1996 |
|
Wallerstein JS, Blakeslee E |
Second Chances |
Houghton 1996 |
|
Whitehead, Barbara |
The Divorce Culture |
Knopf 1996 |
|
Gallaway R, Pearson L |
For the Sake of the Children |
Senate & Parliament of Canada 1998 |
* later paperback
edition; @out of print, available in reprint
by permission; Boldface = highly recommended text
q = Question sheets available for student assignments and examinations on
these books
Course Proposal for Men’s
Lives
[A
tenured teacher in a junior (community) college wrote this proposal. Professors elsewhere might offer a rationale
characterized by more documentary and cautious language. The matriarchy will attempt to suffocate any
proposal for a course on men, especially if proposed by a non-feminist. Therefore, a proposal should include evidence
of feminist hegemony as shown in course descriptions across the
curriculum. If such a course proposal
is refused, such evidence of feminist domination of the curriculum might not
play well in the media. Professors
should bear in mind that simply proposing such a course will draw the rage and
revenge of the Matriarchy.]
Men's experiences through life will be examined from birth to old age; at home, in education, work, in the family, and at play. We will investigate the cultural meaning for men of career, success, sexuality, family protection, patriotism, duty, fidelity, courage, and love.
The intellectual, political, scientific and cultural achievements of men will be surveyed over the ages. We will investigate the excessive male rates of illnesses, crime, assault, disability and death.
Reasoned and compassionate analysis will be used to dissect sex-biased laws, quotas, feminist dogma and anti-sex, and anti-male hysteria in academia, the law and the mass media.
Throughout this course, we will search for routes for reconciliation away from political-sexual confrontation, so that men and women may live together in families and society, in harmony.
Many of [this institution’s] courses in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and the career programs apparently offer variations on one dominant ideology: feminism.(1) From the attached partial list of English and Humanities courses offered in the current calendar, one might suspect that previous totalitarian and religious régimes rarely enjoyed such enthusiastic doctrinal hegemony. Too many courses in the so-called social sciences apparently misrepresent feminist politics as objective and rational rather than politics. Books in almost all college and university libraries contain outright incitements to anti-male hatred, and in some cases, violence.(2) Some teachers who claim pedagogical impartiality evidently know no other credo, and define its propagation as necessary, correct and virtuous.
Currently, [insert dates and data] the Women's Studies Program (2) accredits 32 courses, and the College calendar lists 43 courses containing pro-feminist course descriptions, in Humanities and English alone. (See attached photocopies) Since teachers of those courses are unlikely to offer objective interpretations of relations between the sexes in their other courses, the true number of feminist-doctrinal courses certainly exceeds multiples of the above numbers; including courses in other departments.
Rejoice! With the implementation of this proposal, our department will
offer one course which offers a balanced and objective view of sexual
politics. Students and scholars will
abandon other colleges and universities to study here. Our department will be universally revered
as a Beacon of Truth.
… footnotes …
(1) This situation is endemic in education, at all levels. (2)Three other scholars and I have begun a
research study of feminist textbooks for apparent violations of Canadian and
USA hate laws. (3)Imagine for a
moment how silly a 'Men's Studies Program' would appear. Men's studies remain as: commerce, sciences,
technologies, etc. Some women seem
eager to excel in these non-ideological routes to success. Regardless of submissive or opportunistic
inclinations, males have not taught nor graduated in feminist studies. Might an equity quota for males in ‘women’s
studies courses be appropriate?
…… * ……
First Lecture
The following convocation
address may offer a teacher of a course on men some protection against
harassment. Prof. Doreen Kimura, is a
Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a renowned researcher into brain and
hormonal differences between the sexes; and first President of The Society for
Academic Freedom and Scholarship (Canada).
In this address she offered a powerful defense of academic freedom.
In all my courses, the first
assignment students were required to complete was a 100-word summary of this
address, for the second class. That
assignment should be marked and returned in the following class, and students
should be encouraged to examine her principles. Samples of superior answers are available from J. Asher on
request, to encourage students to deliver their best work, throughout the
semester.
by Doreen Kimura
Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario (retired)
Convocation address presented at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver
on 3 June 1993 [edited by J. Asher]
Many years ago, I went to McGill University as an undergraduate. McGill was at that time an intellectually active and stimulating place. I warmed to the fire of new ideas, lively discussions with fellow students and professors, and the sense of striving for excellence. Within the limits of common courtesy, no bar existed to what anyone might say in the heat of discussion. Even the beginning courses in Philosophy, English, Political Science were rich in argument and controversy.
I don't recall anything sexist about that era. No demeaning concern was made about a 'woman - friendly' atmosphere, no one patronized me or other women in my classes, or made special concessions to us as women. I was never insulted by an avoidance of topics which nowadays might be considered as 'sensitive'. The university offered no womens' studies program, and saw no need for any, since the Senate and students assumed that women, like men, and interest in studying human beings of both sexes. I had the same opportunity and means for gaining respect from my colleagues as men, and nothing less was expected of me, or of any other woman. I was in other words, an equal.
I am frankly concerned that the quality of university education is now seriously threatened by threats to academic freedom. Most universities offer in their mission statements, a defense of the right to academic freedom, usually from the Handbook of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. "Academic members to the community are entitled, regardless of prescribed doctrine - meaning prevailing or popular opinions - to freedom in carrying out research and publication of the results, freedom of teaching and of discussion, freedom to criticize the university and the faculty association, and freedom from institutional censorship."
Why is it felt necessary to explicitly ensure academic freedom in a university? Note that students are included in this academic community. "Academic freedom and tenure exist ... in order that society will have the benefit of honest judgment and independent criticism which might otherwise by withheld because of fear of offending a dominant social group or transient social attitude."
An increasing concern has developed with members of certain social groups, who might be 'offended.' I mean offended by ideas, or even by the airing of indisputable facts. Policies and tribunals aimed, at eliminating sexual or racial discrimination have been established and enforced. They have gone beyond questions of discrimination or harassment and have extended their mandate to the content of courses, the content of professors' lectures and research. They have even attempted to dictate how adults in the academic community should converse with each other. Clearly, they impinge on areas where academic freedom is absolutely essential if we are to maintain the ability to search for the truth, untrammeled by prevailing social conventions.
I have taught at a university for over 25 years, and I hope that in the time I have offended many students; in the sense that I have suggested ideas to them that they had not entertained before, and which they therefore found disturbing. All great truths begin as blasphemies. As a biological scientist, I teach ideas founded in evolutionary biology, but which might be disturbing to certain religious fundamentalists. My research operates under the assumption that behaviour is a function of the brain and not an immaterial soul. Some people might find that disturbing. I also research how individuals differ from each other in their special intellectual talents, and in the way their brains are organized. One of the contributing factors to both of those qualities is the sex of the person , that is whether male or female. Feminists find that disturbing.
Professors of any discipline will, in the course of their legitimate research and teaching functions, offend. Philosophers may question the very nature of our basis of knowledge and belief. For example, a professor in Political Science might dispute assumptions we make about the advantages of democracy. Students may certainly argue with these ideas, and they are generally encouraged to do so. But arguments must be based on reason and evidence.
I see the offending of students in an intellectual sense as a positive sign that coming to a university has made a difference to their intellectual growth. I consider that I am doing my job best as a professor when I have opened the door to a point of view which has not been considered before. In the process, students may suffer some confusion and distress, but I hope also excitement about ideas which are controversial. This is the only way to fulfill the mission of the university, which is to pursue and create knowledge, as well as to disseminate old wisdoms.
It would surely be a tragedy and a
paradox if controversial or unpopular ideas could be censored. In fact if I were not a woman, and a senior
professor, I might myself in these politically correct times have suffered from
the institutional harassment. I know of colleagues both within and outside
my own university, who have had their courses invaded by spies from special
interest tribunals, merely because they were socially controversial. A professor at York University has had
'observers' stationed in his class on a day on which he discussed the evolution
of behavioural differences between men and women. A watchdog committee has been set up at University of Toronto to
ensure that no reference is made in textbooks which could be construed as unfavourable
to a minority, no matter how factual or well established These are not isolated events, but are
commonplace. [John Fekete's book: Moral
Panic 1994, (on Reserve) contains worse examples of persecutions of
professors.]
The invasion of university classes by facist agents provocateurs in the 1930s attempted similar intimidation. Totalitarian regimes typically begin with the suppression of free speech. Can we honestly claim that there is any fundamental difference between the Communist or Nazi control of academia in the past, and the suppression of ideas which is spreading throughout our campuses today? Intimidation against speaking freely is reprehensible. Thought police have no place in a free society, much less in a university.
Infringements of free speech of
which academic freedom is a special case, generally operate out of fear. But the basic assumption of a rational
society is that we can hear and discuss opposing points of view, and ultimately
make intelligent choices. To ensure
that the truth can be told, we have to allow a wide margin of error, sometimes
suffering the expression of ridiculous or even repugnant ideas. Freedom of speech means freedom not only to
speak the ideas we agree with, but "freedom for the thoughts we hate." It is always for the right to utter unpopular
ideas that we must be on guard.
Remember that we are never called upon to defend the freedom of
expression for popular ideas. We must be certain that if thoroughly discussed,
bad ideas will fall by the wayside, and good ones will remain.
1160 words