LETTER: Author shouldn’t speak at USU

Would USU book David Duke, the former president of the United Klans of America, to speak in the TSC Ballroom? Of course not, David Duke is a racist. Would USU invite Fred Phelps, head minister of the Westboro Baptist Church, to speak here? Of course not, Fred Phelps is a homophobe. Would USU invite Dick Masterson, a self-proclaimed chauvinist and author of “Men are Better Than Women,” to speak here? Of course not; he is a misogynist. Then it begs the question: Why has USU invited Michael Kimmel, an anti-male ideologue, to speak here?
   
Kimmel makes his living under the pretense of helping boys, which is ludicrous since he has nothing but contempt for them. To see this contempt, we need look no further than the book he is here to promote: “Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.” In the very introduction to the book, Kimmel states that at his son’s Christening, he wished to say, “I wish that my son could have the courage of a woman.” Can we imagine the outrage if his son had instead been a girl, and Kimmel had said, “I wish that my daughter could have the nourishing capacity of a man?” Early in the book’s actual text, Kimmel states that penises should come with a warning saying, “Use of this device can cause violence and insanity.” What if Kimmel suggested a similar warning for vaginas, such as “Use of this device can cause emotional reasoning, materialism and irrationality?”
   
Males in Kimmel’s book are, with little exception, painted as violent, brutish and unthinking. On the rare occasion that he does assign a positive attribute to a male, he conveys it in such a manner as to suggest that even considering doing so should leave a bad taste in readers’ mouths. Kimmel also contradicts himself in his rushed urge to demonize males. One aspect of Guyland that he criticizes is the suppression of emotional expression. While ignoring that this particular trait is an aspect of the self-sacrificing mindset is required of males in our culture, he then goes on to mention the very valid grievances that males have and dismisses them as angry white men who are bitter over having their “privilege” challenged. Personally, I don’t think that not wanting to lose all your assets in a divorce, wanting to be judged based on your merits alone and wanting to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t come from a position of privilege. Those are all basic human rights, and for men in India and the West, they are rapidly disappearing.

Phil Henderson