In a recent debate on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), Lionel Tiger calmly and rationally explained why male studies is needed, outlining the problems boys and men are having in school and society. Amanda Hess, sounding like a 12-year-old girl, piped in to denounce the idea. According to Amanda, Dr. Tiger’s interpretation of “what it means to be a man” is “narrow.” Amanda further says that it is feminism that will solve boys’ problems, and that the current “men’s studies,” which she admits is a feminist construct, is adequate.
Amanda was clearly outclassed. She sounded like a clueless, sophomoric twit, and when, late in the interview, she tried to use some of the worn out old feminist tropes, such as “you want to take us back to the past” and “you’re against birth control,” Dr. Tiger shut her down immediately with a properly executed verbal spanking, saying she hadn’t read his work and had no idea what she was talking about. Knowing she had been soundly beaten, Amanda conceded that male studies was a legitimate discipline, but said that the professors ought to to talk things over with women’s studies professors. To conclude the interview, Dr. Tiger responded, saying that wasn’t on the table.
Despite all of Amanda’s braggadocio and her flippant, sarcastic dismissal of male studies on her blog, she sounded very small and meek in the presence of a greater mind. I’ve never seen Ms. Hess in person, and I know this shouldn’t matter, but her high-pitched voice and Valley Girl intonation (like, umm…) gave me the impression that she is five feet even at best.
Listening to the interview should give men the proper perspective on feminism: when it isn’t backed up by money and men with guns, it falls flat on its face.
Let’s wish the best to Dr. Tiger, and feel free to add your comments to CBC’s blog; if you wish, offer your condolences to Amanda for losing so badly.
