MenAreGood
MenAreGood is a channel for men, boys, fathers, new fathers, grandfathers and women who want to learn about men and masculinity.  Are you tired of the false narrative of toxic masculinity?  Did you know there is a huge amount of research that shows the positive aspects of men, boys and fathers?  That is what we focus on here, being a source of good information and also a place to connect.   Join us!
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 02, 2023
Boy Crisis Excerpt – Boundary Enforcement

Warren will be joining us in July for our Spend and Hour With event. Here’s a link to purchase the Boy Crisis https://amzn.to/3HgVTbr


The Boy Crisis, pages 135-138

1. Boundary Enforcement (Versus Boundary Setting)

Moms often ask me, “Why is it that when I speak, nothing happens, but when their dad speaks, the kids drop everything and obey? Is it his deeper voice?” It makes moms feel disrespected and taken for granted. But it’s not dad’s deeper voice. Dads who don’t enforce boundaries are also ignored.

Studies of single dads and single moms find that moms report themselves as considerably more stressed than dads—even though single moms are much more likely to receive financial assistance.[i]

Perhaps the most important reason is because moms are more likely to set boundaries, whereas dads are more likely to enforce boundaries. For example, although a mom is more likely to set an early bedtime, single moms are more than three times as likely as single dads to let younger kids get away with late or irregular bedtimes.[ii] One boy half-joked, “My mom warns and warns; it’s like she ‘cries wolf.’ My dad gives us one warning, and then he becomes the wolf.”

Getting to bed late obviously contributes to health problems. That may be why frequent headaches and stomachaches are two to three times more common among younger children living with only their moms (versus with only their dads).[iii]

Boys with poorly enforced boundaries also become boys with poor impulse control. When the University of Chicago Crime Lab examined why 610 Chicago public school students were shot by fellow students during a recent one-and-a-half-year period, they found that lack of impulse control and a lack of conflict resolution and social skills were characteristic of the boys involved.[iv] However, what the study missed was that impulse control and social skills are some of the gifts of father involvement—and these boys’ fathers were mostly absent.

We have seen that the amount of time a father spends with a child is “one of the strongest predictors of empathy in adulthood.”[v] Teaching a child to treat boundaries seriously teaches him or her to respect the needs of others. Respecting another’s needs contributes to empathy. Empathy doesn’t trigger shooting.

Here are some of the outcomes of father involvement that are related to boundary enforcement and impulse control:

Children living with dads are less likely to have discipline problems.[vi] This is despite the fact that dads are less likely than moms to use physical discipline.[vii]
Five- to eleven-year-old children with moms are 259 percent more likely to go to the hospital.[viii]
How does this mom-dad gap between setting boundaries and enforcing boundaries work in everyday life? Let’s go back to bedtime in theory versus bedtime in practice . . .

When Harry was asked by a therapist why he thought he got to bed later with his mom than his dad, he explained, “With mom, I can get away with it.”

“How?”

“With mom, I say, like ‘I need water’ or ‘I have a tummy ache.’”

“So you manipulate her?”

Harry grinned.

“Don’t those excuses get a bit old?”

Harry’s grin expanded, as if delighting in his cleverness. “I have a whole bunch of excuses. Like, ‘I have to get my homework done’ or ‘Just one more story.’ Or I tell her ‘I love it when you read me Where the Wild Things Are.’”

Harry paused, and then boasted, “I have a real sense of what will work. Sooner or later mom gives in.”

“Do you use those ploys with dad?”

“No . . . They don’t work with him.”

“How’s that?”

“He doesn’t let me have any dessert or TV—or do anything fun—until I do my homework and chores.”

“So he’s more serious?”

“Well, sort of. He’ll announce that bedtime is 9:30. But I know that whatever time is left after I do my homework and get all ready for bed is wrestle time or I get a story, or pretty much whatever I want—except no sweets. So I rush to get everything done.”

“Doesn’t that tempt you to just do a rush job on your homework?”

“Yeah, it used to. But when I got a C once from Miss Ahearn—she’s real strict—then dad started checking it while I get ready for bed. If it’s OK, we get to wrestle or read. If it’s not, I gotta go back to homework. But when it’s 9:30, he gives me a big hug and kiss, and that’s it.”

Harry, like most kids, was like a prisoner vigilantly waiting for the guard to drop his guard, watching for a little crack in the prison door through which he could gain his freedom. Once Harry saw he could manipulate his mom for a better deal, it was just a matter of who had more energy. So Harry always won—and therefore lost: with a compromised immune system.

A weaker immune system also leads to a vicious cycle: Harry was absent from school, with a couple of trips to the emergency room, so his mom (and sometimes dad) became even more protective and guilty, allowing for more manipulation, and thus the cycle continued. But it all started with the more porous boundary.

What moms are more likely to bring to the family table is a deep-seated understanding that children need empathy (as does everyone). Dad’s contributions are more counterintuitive: first, that empathy is a virtue which, when it only goes from parent to child, and is not required of the child, becomes a vice. And second, that empathy for a child’s desires does not imply being controlled by the child’s desires.

That said, some dads give empathy too short shrift. When, then, do a child’s desires count? At all times before the setting of a boundary. In fact, before setting a boundary, treating a child’s input seriously and allowing him or her to have impact when appropriate, plus giving an empathetic explanation when it is not appropriate, are crucial to her or his development of empowering negotiating skills. Empowering negotiating skills are best understood in contrast with manipulative negotiating skills.

A child who learns that a boundary that’s been set is still negotiable develops manipulative negotiating skills. The child soon senses that if he or she doesn’t “win” right away, with enough persistence they can ultimately exhaust the parent and “win.” This second path is most frequently characterized by the exhausted mom finally yelling in frustration, “I said no!” The child then continues to press. The mom loses it and creates a punishment too big for the crime; then, feeling guilty, she fails to follow through on the anger-generated punishment, and in an effort to beg forgiveness, she bends over backward to please the child. The child soon detects exactly what worked to manipulate the mom into bending over backward and giving more than what was even asked for in the first place, and thus hones his or her art for the next iteration of the “cycle of the unenforced boundary.”

The outcome? A disrespect for both boundaries and the parent who sets them. When the cycle of the unenforced boundary becomes a pattern, the result is a coercive relationship with the parent, and the child’s disrespect becomes contempt. Just as important, the child “gets rid” of the parent who enforces boundaries—sticking with the parent he or she can manipulate. The child has won, and therefore lost. More on the cycle of the unenforced boundary in a chapter coming soon. But first . . .

How do dads enforce boundaries without their children wanting to “get rid” of them? It starts with his playing with the children. That play creates a bond. As we saw with Harry, the dad then often unconsciously uses that bond as leverage for boundary enforcement: “When you finish your homework and chores, and get ready for bed, we’ll do whatever you’d like before bedtime.”


[i] Mogens Nygaard Christoffersen, “An Investigation of Fathers with 3 – 5-Year-Old Children” (paper presented at the Social Research-Institute, Ministerratskonferenz, Stockholm, Sweden, April 27–28, 1995), chart 2, “Parents Living Alone with 3- to 5-Year-Old Children.”

[ii]Mary Jo Coiro, Nicholas Zill, and Barbara Bloom, “Health of Our Nation’s Children,” US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vital and Health Statistics, series 10, no. 191, December 1994. The National Health Interview Survey is based on a US Census Bureau sample of over 122,000 individuals, including over 17,000 children (table 16, p. 49). Nine percent of children with only biological fathers have late or irregular bedtimes; 33 percent of children with only biological mothers had late or irregular bedtimes.

[iii] Christoffersen, “ Investigation of Fathers,” chart 3.

[iv] University of Chicago “Becoming a Man,” Crime Lab, 2012, https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/page/becoming-man-bam-sports-edition-findings.

[v] Richard Koestner, C. Franz, and J. Weinberger, “The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six-Year Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, no. 4 (April 1990): 709–17.

[vi] D. A. Luepnitz, Child Custody (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1982); cited in Richard A. Warshak, “Father Custody and Child Development: A Review and Analysis of Psychological Research,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 4, no.2 (1986): 192.

[vii] Christoffersen, “Investigation of Fathers,” chart 2.

[viii] Coiro, Zill, and Bloom, “Health of Our Nation’s Children,” table 13, p. 43.

Warren Farrell
Dr. Warren Farrell has been chosen by the Financial Times as one of the world’s top 100 thought leaders. His books are published in over 50 countries, and in 19 languages. They include The New York Times best-seller, Why Men Are the Way They Are, plus the international best-seller, The Myth of Male Power. His most recent is The Boy Crisis, (audio version) (2018, co-authored with John Gray). The Boy Crisis was chosen as a finalist for the Foreword Indies award (the independent publishers’ award).

Dr. Farrell has been a pioneer in both the women’s movement (elected three times to the Board of N.O.W. in NYC) and the men’s movement (called by GQ Magazine “The Martin Luther King of the men’s movement”). He conducts couples’ communication workshops nationwide. He has appeared on over 1000 TV shows and been interviewed by Oprah, Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, Larry King, Tucker Carlson, Regis Philbin, Dr. Phil, Jordan Peterson, and Charlie Rose. He has frequently written for and been featured in The New York Times and publications worldwide. Dr. Farrell has two daughters, lives with his wife in Mill Valley, California, and virtually at www.warrenfarrell.com.

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face? Both men are leading experts in this area, and together they examine some fascinating angles. One insight is that the legal contract of marriage doesn’t just unite two people — it’s also the mechanism that legally creates fathers. Yet when that contract is dissolved through divorce, the law often strips fathers of their rights, reducing them to mere “visitors” in their children’s lives. This and much more is unpacked in our discussion.

We also point to Rick’s and Stephen’s books (linked below) and to AI tools that allow you to interact with their work directly. (also linked below)

If you’ve ever wondered why custody is such a defining issue — not just for fathers but for the future of men’s rights and well-being — this dialogue offers insights you won’t want to miss.

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
September 25, 2025
Dr. James Nuzzo Cancelled for Challenging Feminism and DEI

Join me as I talk with Janice Fiamengo and researcher Dr. James Nuzzo about the shocking story of his academic cancellation. What begins as one man’s ordeal soon reveals how woke ideology and radical feminism are undermining science, silencing dissent, and eroding academic freedom. Thoughtful, eye-opening, and at times heartbreaking, this video exposes what really happens when universities put politics before truth.

Dr. Nuzzo's GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch

Dr. Nuzzo's Donorbox
https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter

https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/

Previous Interviews with Dr. Nuzzo on MenAreGood
grip strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/childhood-sex-differences-in-grip

sex differences in strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-strength-and-exercise

bias against women in exercise research? https://menaregood.substack.com/p/bias-against-women-in-exercise-research

childhood sex differences in strength ...

01:01:31
September 10, 2025
Diary of a CEO's Debate on Feminism: Our Response

This video will be presented in two parts and is a joint venture between MenAreGood and Hannah Spier’s Psychobabble. Hannah’s standard approach is to make the first half free for everyone, with the second half reserved for paid subscribers. To align with her process, I’m setting aside my usual practice of making all new posts free and following the same format for this release.


Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, and Tom Golden respond to a YouTube video on The Diary of a CEO channel, which features three feminists debating the question: “Has modern feminism betrayed the very women it promised to empower?”In their response, Hannah, Janice, and Tom have a lively discussion, highlighting inconsistencies, omissions, and a variety of other notable observations.

Men Are Good

00:36:02
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play

New voice that did her PHD theses on female psychopaths. She has some good stuff

September 18, 2025
Jim Nuzzo Cancelled

I’m sure many of you are familiar with Jim Nuzzo’s work on exercise and strength training. A frequent guest on this channel, Jim offers valuable insights into exercise science. I often call him my favorite researcher—and he truly is!

Jim studies boys’ uniqueness and the differences between boys and girls in exercise approaches and physical traits. He has also exposed distortions in claims that past research was biased against women. In doing so, he broke two “rules” of the woke: celebrating boys’ strengths and challenging feminist disinformation. For this, he was effectively cancelled.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Jim obtained emails revealing the hate behind his cancellation. This post details that story, and Janice and I will do a video with him next week—so there’s more to come.


https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/my-academic-cancellation-story

post photo preview
The Animus of "Should Studies"

This is a brief note on Women’s Studies that came to me while recording the recent discussion with Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, Jim Nuzzo, and me. It was a great conversation, and I’m hoping it will be published on Friday—though we’ll see.

The Animus of “Should Studies”

Something struck me recently about Women’s Studies — or at least the version of it that dominates modern academia. It doesn’t just study women. It tells the rest of us how the world should be arranged around women. It’s less a discipline and more a moral instruction manual.

Carl Jung had a name for the part of the psyche that does this in women: the animus — the inner masculine in women. At its best, the animus offers clarity, strength, and the courage to speak truth. But when it becomes unconscious or inflated, it shifts into something harsher: judgmental, rigid, and convinced of its own righteousness.

Most men are familiar with this but have likely never had a label for the experience. It is when the woman you love goes into a state of mind where the word “should“ is featured and a marked incapacity to hear any feedback is present. in fact, if feedback is offered it is seen as proof that you are a moron. Most men learn to extricate themselves, but the experience is not forgotten. I think it was Jung who said that no man could stand in this for over a couple of minutes.

In Jung’s language, what we are describing is called animus possession — the moment when ideology replaces relationship, and the voice inside says:

“I’m right. You’re wrong.
Here’s what you must fix.”

Sound familiar? It struck me that this is exactly the posture taken by many feminists and by Women’s Studies as a field. They are right—no discussion needed. You should do this, you should do that, and I shouldn’t be treated so badly. Should, should, should.

I’m currently writing the final part of the gynocentrism series, which explores—among other things—best practices for addressing the kind of out-of-control relational aggression that often emerges from this mindset.

Modern Women’s Studies frequently embodies this shadow animus: it begins not with curiosity, but with commandments; not with questions, but with shoulds.

  • Men should act differently

  • Institutions should reorganize

  • Culture should obey

It’s freedom for one group, followed by compliance from another. Or, as I keep coming back to:

Rules for thee,
but empowerment for me.


Liberation for me,
obedience for you.

This is not dialogue. It’s dominance disguised as justice.

And here’s the psychological tragedy:
a worldview built on hostility leads to hostile ways of living.

When you’re taught the world is against you…

  • you become hypervigilant

  • disagreement feels like danger

  • control feels like self-protection

  • anger feels like moral duty

It stops being scholarship and becomes self-defense theater.

But that defense comes at a cost:

Fighting for empowerment every minute
leaves no time to feel empowered.

If the world is always out to get you, you don’t get to relax into love, trust, partnership — or peace. Contentment becomes unreachable, because vigilance never sleeps.

And so I find myself asking a question I didn’t expect:

Are we witnessing empowerment —
or animus possession?

Is this actually helping women flourish?
Or has fear replaced freedom?

If progress means constantly scanning the world for threats, enemies, and micro-offenses… then the victory is hollow. Because the person you must defend yourself from most aggressively… becomes everyone.

A worldview rooted in fear can demand power —
but it cannot deliver peace.

Read full Article
October 27, 2025
post photo preview
Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why


Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why

Something precious has been lost between men and women. You can feel it in the awkwardness of modern dating, the cold negotiations of marriage, and the way so many couples approach each other with suspicion instead of trust. What used to be a natural partnership—rooted in complementarity and mutual respect—has been reframed through a political lens that sees power, not love, as the central dynamic.

That shift didn’t happen by chance. Feminist ideology, as it evolved from the 1960s onward, carried a moral story about men and women: that men were the oppressors and women their victims. What began as a call for fairness hardened into a worldview that mistrusts men, glorifies grievance, and turns intimacy into an ideological battlefield.

So when you date a feminist, you’re not just meeting a person—you’re often meeting a worldview that sees you as suspect before you’ve even opened your mouth.


1. The Collapse of Trust

No relationship can thrive without trust, yet feminism has steadily eroded it. When men are portrayed as potential abusers and women as perpetual victims, how can either side relax into genuine affection?

Young women today are taught to approach men as hazards—to “believe all women” and “trust no man.” The presumption of male guilt seeps into dating itself. A man’s simple gestures—holding a door, offering a compliment, expressing interest—are filtered through suspicion. Men, in turn, retreat into silence and self-protection. Many simply stop trying.

Intimacy dies when both sides are afraid of each other.


2. The Pathologizing of Masculinity

For decades, men have been told that something essential about them is wrong. Assertiveness, stoicism, competitiveness, and strength—the very traits that once formed the foundation of male contribution—are now branded “toxic.”

The tragedy is that these traits, rightly directed, make men reliable partners and protectors. A man who masters his aggression and channels his drive is the kind of man a woman can count on. Yet feminism teaches women to distrust those qualities and teaches men to suppress them.

Date a feminist, and you’ll often find yourself apologizing for being masculine at all. She’s been told to want a “strong man,” but only if he never acts like one.


3. From Partnership to Power Struggle

Love used to mean two people combining strengths to face the world together. Feminism recast that partnership as oppression. Marriage became a “patriarchal trap,” commitment a limitation, and dependence a weakness.

In the feminist frame, dating is a negotiation over power. Who pays? Who leads? Who compromises? Every act becomes a political calculation instead of a moment of grace.

But love cannot flourish in an atmosphere of scorekeeping. The best relationships aren’t 50/50 trades but 100/100 offerings—each giving their best without fear of exploitation. Feminism trains women to guard their independence and men to apologize for their strength. No wonder so many couples today feel like opponents instead of allies.


4. The Loss of Gratitude

Healthy love thrives on gratitude—the simple act of appreciating what the other brings. But when one gender is cast as the historical oppressor, gratitude becomes taboo.

Feminist teaching encourages women to expect rather than appreciate. Men are told that whatever they give—income, loyalty, protection—is merely payment on a debt. When giving becomes obligation, affection turns transactional.

That loss of gratitude leaves both sexes empty. Women feel perpetually unsatisfied, and men feel invisible. The dance of masculine offering and feminine appreciation has been replaced by mutual resentment.


5. The Devaluation of Marriage and Family

Feminism’s contempt for traditional roles has devastated family life. Marriage was recast as control, motherhood as limitation, and fatherhood as irrelevant.

A generation of women were told happiness lies in career success and sexual freedom, not in building a life with another person. Many believed it—only to find themselves lonely, overworked, and wondering where all the “good men” went.

Meanwhile, men were told they weren’t needed. Popular culture mocked fathers as fools, and courts treated them as visitors to their own children. The result: rising fatherlessness, falling marriage rates, and a generation of children growing up without stability.

Feminism calls dependence weakness. But love—real love—depends on mutual reliance. It’s not submission; it’s unity.


6. Shame and Fear in Intimacy

Dating used to carry a spark—flirtation, pursuit, playfulness. Feminism replaced it with fear. Men now hesitate to show desire lest it be called predatory; women second-guess their femininity lest it be called weakness.

Sex itself has been politicized. Every gesture is scrutinized through the lens of consent workshops and power analysis. Feminism promised liberation but delivered anxiety. Both sexes now overthink what used to come naturally.

If you date a feminist, don’t be surprised if attraction turns to debate. Ideology kills chemistry faster than rejection ever could.


7. The Weaponization of Blame

In today’s relationship culture, when something goes wrong, the narrative already knows who’s to blame—the man.

Whether the problem is emotional distance, poor communication, or conflict, men are told they must “do the work.” The female perspective is validated automatically; the male one is pathologized. Even therapy has absorbed this bias, treating men as problems to fix rather than people to understand.

Feminism’s “emotional labor” myth—claiming women bear all the relational burden—adds insult to injury. The quiet, reliable men who serve, provide, and protect are invisible to a worldview that only sees female effort.


Final Thought

Dating a feminist often means dating someone who has been taught to see you not as a partner but as an opponent. You can love her, but you’ll be fighting ghosts—the patriarchy, “toxic masculinity,” and every man who ever hurt her.

If you want a relationship built on trust, respect, and admiration, find a woman who believes in men, who sees differences as gifts, not threats.

Never date a feminist—not because you fear her strength, but because you value love too much to let ideology poison it.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
October 23, 2025
post photo preview
W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

For decades, Women’s Studies has held a privileged place in academia. From its earliest days, it was never a neutral or exploratory field—it was born out of activism, not inquiry. The goal was not to ask open questions about gender, but to advance a political framework that saw women as oppressed and men as privileged. It promised to give women a collective voice and to expose the “hidden structures” of patriarchy, but from the beginning, its conclusions were already written into its premises.

From Activism to Orthodoxy

Women’s Studies emerged in the late 1960s as an explicitly ideological project, shaped by the political currents of second-wave feminism. Its founders were activists first and academics second. The programs they built were not designed to test ideas but to institutionalize a belief system—that society was organized around male domination and that liberation required dismantling it. Rather than studying whether patriarchy existed, Women’s Studies set out to document how it did, embedding the theory of oppression into every syllabus. What began as political conviction soon became academic dogma.

A Closed Loop of Certainty

Once the framework of oppression was installed as unquestionable truth, the field began to police its own boundaries. Dissent was not debated—it was pathologized. To question the narrative of systemic male power was to “uphold patriarchy.” To suggest that men face distinct forms of hardship was to be told you were shifting attention away from women — that you were “making it about men.”​ Even sympathetic scholars who urged more balance found themselves marginalized. In time, Women’s Studies became a self-reinforcing system—its theories generating its evidence, its evidence confirming its theories. The goal was no longer discovery but preservation of the ideology itself.

Theory Without Tether

Much of the writing in Women’s Studies rests on sweeping abstractions: “patriarchy,” “privilege,” “internalized oppression,” “toxic masculinity.” These terms are often treated not as hypotheses to be tested but as truths to be applied. Shulamith Firestone declared that “the goal of the feminist revolution must be… the elimination of the sex distinction itself.” bell hooks wrote that “patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit.” Such claims are not evidence-based conclusions; they are moral declarations — proclamations of belief.

When theory replaces evidence, conversation dies. Instead of exploring how men and women differ in complex, sometimes complementary ways, Women’s Studies tends to flatten the picture into one story: oppressors and oppressed.

The Disappearing Male

Ironically, as the field expanded into “Gender Studies,” men nearly vanished from the picture except as symbols of privilege or threat. Rarely do these programs explore male pain, fatherhood, or the male experience of relational loss, shame, or sacrifice. When male suffering is acknowledged, it’s often reframed as a symptom of “toxic masculinity” — as though men’s pain merely confirms the theory rather than complicates it.

If academia truly cared about gender, it would study men as carefully and compassionately as it studies women. But in the current climate, even suggesting that balance is considered suspect.

Power, Not Understanding

Modern Women’s and Gender Studies have largely shifted from studying what is to prescribing what should be. The core pursuit is no longer knowledge but power — the power to define social norms, influence policy, and shape language. As a result, universities now graduate students steeped in theory but poorly equipped to engage with those who don’t share their ideological framework. The field’s inward focus breeds division rather than understanding.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just an academic squabble. The ideas born in Women’s Studies now drive policies in media, law, education, and corporate culture. They shape how we talk about men and women, how we define fairness, and how we teach our children about themselves. When a discipline insists that one sex’s narrative of oppression defines the truth, it narrows empathy for the other half of humanity.

A truly balanced study of gender would ask harder questions — not how to dismantle men, but how men and women can understand each other more deeply. Until that shift happens, Women’s Studies will remain less a study of truth than a sermon about power.

Men Are Good


Note:
Next week, Janice Fiamengo, Jim Nuzzo, Hannah Spier, and I will be releasing a video discussion titled “The Evolution of Women’s Studies and Its Terms.” We’ll take a deeper look at how Women’s Studies developed, examine course materials and degree trends, and unpack the language it has generated—terms like microfeminism, antinatal feminism, compulsory heterosexuality, internalized misogyny, and kin-keeping. It should be a lively and revealing conversation.​

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals