Male Studies is something that is needed as a counter to Women's Studies, Gender Studies (the same thing as Women's studies, but just with a different name), and Men's Studies (Women's Studies for Men, or "How to learn to hate yourself and all other men").
Feminist created Men's Studies because they could see that opposition to their ideology was rising, and wanted to shut out any non-feminists from making an independent study of gender issues (free from feminist dogma and lies).
Male Studies is the first real attempt to study gender issues from a non-feminist perspective, and through the eyes of men instead of feminist women.
The first article from the journal is "Masculine Identity in a Toxic Cultural Environment". On the whole it seems to be a good piece of work. Hopefully the later articles and issues of the journal will be at least as good.
Some quotes from the article follow.
Masculine Identity in a Toxic Cultural Environment PAUL NATHANSON AND KATHERINE K. YOUNG
Masculine identity has become increasingly problematic due to technological and cultural changes over the past ten thousand years, beginning with the horticultural and agricultural revolutions but gaining momentum with the industrial, military and reproductive revolutions. Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem by equating sexual equality with sexual sameness, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men, which is distinctive, necessary and can therefore be publicly valued—that is, unable to establish a healthy collective identity specifically as men. The result of this emptiness is a growing tendency to give up either by dropping out of school and or by committing suicide. Ideological feminists have thrown down the gauntlet, on the other hand, by ascribing to men a highly negative collective identity. The result of this misandry is an increasing number of men who believe that even a negative collective identity is better than no collective identity at all. No solution will be possible without challenging pervasive assumptions about both boys and men.
Boys and young men now have, at least in theory, only two general ways of responding to the emptiness of their lives. Very few are intellectually and emotionally able to confront emptiness directly, of course, so many do so indirectly by (1) trying to ignore the misandry that underlies and exacerbates emptiness or (2) internalizing it. Some try deliberately to ignore misandry along with all other potential sources of pain by resorting to unbridled hedonism and therefore succumbing to raw narcissism. But hiding from pain by seeking personal pleasure as an end in itself has become characteristic of our society in general—not only in the licentious fantasies of popular entertainment but also in the sordid facts of daily life—and therefore says little about any segment of society in particular. Others, however, unwittingly internalize misandry. And this is something that very few social scientists, if any, have acknowledged so far. The one social problem that they inexplicably fail to see should be self-evident to everyone: the toxic fallout—the pervasive ridicule, contempt, punitive attitude and even hatred—of a society that has no room for its male population per se. One way of internalizing all this misandry is clearly destructive (but also, ultimately, self-destructive). In this category are those who act up, attacking a hostile society. Even a negative identity, after all, might be better than no identity at all. The other way of internalizing misandry is clearly self-destructive (but also destructive in other ways). In this category are those who give up, succumbing to the apparent emptiness of manhood and thus abandoning an indifferent society. This almost certainly provides at least a partial explanation for the high rates among male people of both dropping out of school and committing suicide. Sociologists and psychologists have long noted these pathological patterns in young men—Michael Kimmel, for instance, has popularized the idea that American “guys” are pathological almost by definition18—but have generally refrained from attributing them to the direct or indirect fallout from feminism and the resulting collapse of masculine identity.
Captain Stottlemeyer is provoked into violence by a man who claims to be having an affair with the captain's wife (the provocation is intended to contaminate a crime scene and allow him get away with murder). Captain Stottlemeyer is required to go to anger management classes as a result. He is told to say 'these things happen' when he gets angry to stop him doing anything else and that anger is only a feeling and as an adult he doesn't have to act on that feeling. This is only from a story, but is exactly the kind of advice you would get at an anger management session.
What about women who get mad at their husbands for having affairs, or just for wanting a divorce and respond by cutting up the husbands clothes, or vandalising his car, etc.....? "anger is only a feeling and as an adult she doesn't have to act on that feeling".
Or women who kill their sleeping husbands because they are afraid of them? "fear is only a feeling and as an adult she doesn't have to act on that feeling". If you are in fear of your husband you have options, you don't have to kill him. Particularly not when he is sleeping - a perfect time to leave. Men have very few options if they want to leave an abusive wife. There are approximately 478 shelters for battered wives in the UK (1). There are only 2 domestic violence shelters that will accept men. Only 1 is solely for men and their children.
The most extreme statistics regarding proportion of victims of domestic violence in the UK come from counts of reported crime. They indicate that men are victims in about 15% of reported domestic violence crimes(2). But shelters that accept men account for only 0.4% of the total. The yearly rate for domestic violence is 4.2% for men and 4.2% women (British Crime Survey 1996, reported in HORS 191).
Women's Aid run most of the domestic violence shelters in the UK. They do now admit that at least some men are victims of domestic violence, but none of their centres will admit men. Most will not even admit women with sons over the age of 14. The only shelters that do admit men are run by The Mankind Initiative (see my links) which is not mentioned at all on the Women's Aid website.
More statistics on domestic violence can be found HERE. The reality is more complicated than feminist organisations like Women's Aid would have you believe.
I have added a link to the counter feminists' new blog.
It is simply a collection of refernces to the horrible things some women will do.
You might think this is simply female bashing, but there is more to it than that. Many feminist campaigns and arguments are based on the idea that 'women do no wrong'. To counter those type of arguments you need examples of cases where women have done wrong, however distasteful such a blog might appear to be.
Feminists are still pushing for increased rape convictions by removing basic legal rights such as "presumed innocent until proven guilty". Feminists now want men to prove they are innocent, rather than be proved guilty. They have already managed to get anonymity for 'rape victims' - i.e. all accusers, giving much more scope for false accusations.
"Despite learning the truth a few years ago, Amy, an 18-year-old college student, still calls another man Dad - my ex-husband Tom. We were married by the time she was born and he has no idea he's not her real father.
It's a deceit I - and now Amy - have carried out to protect the people we love, and although I'm not proud of having lied, I have no regrets about conceiving a child with the married man I had an affair with. "
Of course that's not the only possible scenario. It could just as easily be a married woman having an affair after getting married, then not telling her husband that the baby is not (or might not be) his. We've all heard the jokes about the milkman.
Of course if there had been a male pill available, and Tom was using it he would not have been fooled by this woman's trickery and deceit. Even if he hadn't been taking the pill the knowledge of it's existence might have prevented the woman from trying to dupe him into 'fatherhood'.
Feminist's main objection to the male pill is that women might not trust their partners to remember to take it. A fairly pathetic argument given all the contraceptive methods already available to women. If a woman is really that worried about her partners memory, she has lots of other options she can choose unilaterally.
Could the feminist's real reason be more along the lines of protecting lying women like this one, so that they can extort money out of unsuspecting men?