Great to read this stuff. I've been concerned over the last 10 + years about all of the focus on helping girls and women, and knowing that a significant percentage of boys and men were not finding education, work, and life itself so great. I'm concerned particularly about the image of boys and men in the media: TV, movies, etc. So much is focused on boys and men with special concerns about gender identity and sexual orientation but almost nothing about the majority of boys and men, so many, many of whom are dealing with little or no success unless they are athletic stars or more rarely academic stars.
Winning hearts and minds is always the way to go. But I'm conflicted because institutions have little incentive to change unless people like Professor Perry challenge them to do so. The legal approach has worked in other instances as well, see Woods v Horton (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1365760.html), a California supreme court ruling that essentially said social service programs can not discriminate against any victims of domestic abuse based on gender.
An entire special interest industry has been built around promoting girls and women. And it's great to support and promote them. Those industries, however, turn a blind eye to the challenges of boys and men because it's not "their mandate" and not in their financial incentive to do so.
Money is a big motivator at a time when moral and ethical tenets are necessary. It really isn't that hard. How do we help a boy or a girl achieve their dreams? We nurture, support, and provide them with the opportunities. Not based on the color of their skin or their sex, but on the content of their character. That Martin Luther King guy had it right.
This is very much an aside to this topic but when you mentioned support for men’s mental health I immediately thought of the current resurgence in Stoicism. Have you thought about how Stoicism could be brought to larger numbers of men (and women!) especially as students? I’m especially impressed with the work of Donald J. Robertson for anyone who wants to know what I’m talking about.
I see the point of your arguments in this piece. But the problem with adding special programs for men, rather than challenging those for women, is that it goes against the straightforward liberal principle of treating people equally. Instead it carves out yet more special exemptions, just with an unusual bias.
The simple liberal principle is a good one. It remains widely popular. It promises fairness when it is implemented right. And arguments of concealed discrimination are often based on weak evidence. A society where we strive to hire based on merit, and men and women each have equal outcomes, is better than a society which achieves equal outcomes via many countervailing special programs.
"My instinct is nonetheless that attacking programs that help women is not going to be generally helpful to the cause of men. I think it is better to argue constructively to build up similar programs to help men in fields where they are underrepresented or seem to be struggling the most."
And how do "we" build up similar programs for men? Therein is the problem - schools are not (and likely will not) build similar programs for men. Only when a university is in danger of losing federal funding by violating Title IX, will they take action.
"If I was a college President facing these claims, I’d want to say: “But look at these programs we have for men. Overall we are not discriminating either way, just helping most where needed”."
If you were a college president you'd find out that there are no programs (or scarcely any) for the fields where men are underrepresented. Furthermore if you tried to set one up, you wouldn't have your job for very long. Even being a woman yourself wouldn't protect you from the wrath of campus feminists.
"For a start, I’d set up a Men’s Resource Center to help male students with mental health problems, study skills and career advice."
While that's a good idea – unless there is a Women's Resource Center, a center for men would also violate Title IX.
Generally, ALL colleges that are not binary (sorry not getting into trans since it's another whole layer), should be recruiting the minority sex and encouraging new enrollments. The feminist lie that "all voices should be heard in an inclusive society" doesn't apply to make voices. Possibly POC male voices, but not white make voices. Any effort that would get more men to enroll, is not happening.
I've been conflicted on this issue as well, for, as you so eloquently stated, “Even if the cases are won, hearts and minds may not be.” But I also see the other side. As a woman, I know well the adage that says "well-behaved women rarely make history." I know that many gains for women (and other groups) came about because of legal challenges, and that hearts and minds changed later.
I doubt any college is ideologically fit to provide financial incentives for men to enter fields where they are underrepresented, like education. I don’t believe for one second colleges with their fleets of Title IX administrators, do not know single sex scholarships given out unequally are illegal. They are awash in men are oppressors ideologies. Single sex scholarships and other discrimination against male students will end when colleges are forced to.
Great to read this stuff. I've been concerned over the last 10 + years about all of the focus on helping girls and women, and knowing that a significant percentage of boys and men were not finding education, work, and life itself so great. I'm concerned particularly about the image of boys and men in the media: TV, movies, etc. So much is focused on boys and men with special concerns about gender identity and sexual orientation but almost nothing about the majority of boys and men, so many, many of whom are dealing with little or no success unless they are athletic stars or more rarely academic stars.
Winning hearts and minds is always the way to go. But I'm conflicted because institutions have little incentive to change unless people like Professor Perry challenge them to do so. The legal approach has worked in other instances as well, see Woods v Horton (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1365760.html), a California supreme court ruling that essentially said social service programs can not discriminate against any victims of domestic abuse based on gender.
An entire special interest industry has been built around promoting girls and women. And it's great to support and promote them. Those industries, however, turn a blind eye to the challenges of boys and men because it's not "their mandate" and not in their financial incentive to do so.
Money is a big motivator at a time when moral and ethical tenets are necessary. It really isn't that hard. How do we help a boy or a girl achieve their dreams? We nurture, support, and provide them with the opportunities. Not based on the color of their skin or their sex, but on the content of their character. That Martin Luther King guy had it right.
This is very much an aside to this topic but when you mentioned support for men’s mental health I immediately thought of the current resurgence in Stoicism. Have you thought about how Stoicism could be brought to larger numbers of men (and women!) especially as students? I’m especially impressed with the work of Donald J. Robertson for anyone who wants to know what I’m talking about.
One college is still men only. Another has a Men's Studies course. That's what I call "scarcely". Anyway, I agree - it is a war.
I see the point of your arguments in this piece. But the problem with adding special programs for men, rather than challenging those for women, is that it goes against the straightforward liberal principle of treating people equally. Instead it carves out yet more special exemptions, just with an unusual bias.
The simple liberal principle is a good one. It remains widely popular. It promises fairness when it is implemented right. And arguments of concealed discrimination are often based on weak evidence. A society where we strive to hire based on merit, and men and women each have equal outcomes, is better than a society which achieves equal outcomes via many countervailing special programs.
I wrote about this here in a slightly different context: https://wyclif.substack.com/p/doubts-about-viewpoint-diversity.
"My instinct is nonetheless that attacking programs that help women is not going to be generally helpful to the cause of men. I think it is better to argue constructively to build up similar programs to help men in fields where they are underrepresented or seem to be struggling the most."
And how do "we" build up similar programs for men? Therein is the problem - schools are not (and likely will not) build similar programs for men. Only when a university is in danger of losing federal funding by violating Title IX, will they take action.
"If I was a college President facing these claims, I’d want to say: “But look at these programs we have for men. Overall we are not discriminating either way, just helping most where needed”."
If you were a college president you'd find out that there are no programs (or scarcely any) for the fields where men are underrepresented. Furthermore if you tried to set one up, you wouldn't have your job for very long. Even being a woman yourself wouldn't protect you from the wrath of campus feminists.
"For a start, I’d set up a Men’s Resource Center to help male students with mental health problems, study skills and career advice."
While that's a good idea – unless there is a Women's Resource Center, a center for men would also violate Title IX.
Generally, ALL colleges that are not binary (sorry not getting into trans since it's another whole layer), should be recruiting the minority sex and encouraging new enrollments. The feminist lie that "all voices should be heard in an inclusive society" doesn't apply to make voices. Possibly POC male voices, but not white make voices. Any effort that would get more men to enroll, is not happening.
I've been conflicted on this issue as well, for, as you so eloquently stated, “Even if the cases are won, hearts and minds may not be.” But I also see the other side. As a woman, I know well the adage that says "well-behaved women rarely make history." I know that many gains for women (and other groups) came about because of legal challenges, and that hearts and minds changed later.
I doubt any college is ideologically fit to provide financial incentives for men to enter fields where they are underrepresented, like education. I don’t believe for one second colleges with their fleets of Title IX administrators, do not know single sex scholarships given out unequally are illegal. They are awash in men are oppressors ideologies. Single sex scholarships and other discrimination against male students will end when colleges are forced to.
Have you read the case about the last secular men’s college in California forced to accept women? In some ways I agree with you that the zero sum game here is detrimental to both sexes, but until women stop forcing themselves into men only space what other options do men have? https://www.deepsprings.edu/ https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/essays-culture/deep-springs-college-california-women-coed/