HS comments that "everything in English studies—and in most other university disciplines in North America—is taught from an unquestioned feminist point of view" and she notes that this affects male students. I had similar thoughts in my last years in the English Department. I started teaching courses on masculinity and violence, centered on war fiction. I taught this as a general education (non-major) course and enjoyed seeing men and women majoring in other subjects digging into this great literature. The novels involved male relationships (such as those David S. mentions above) or family relationships rather than romantic relationships. There was plenty about war written by women, Vera Brittain, Susan Hill, others. None of it, no matter who wrote it, fit with what students expected to hear or had heard in other classes. They pretty much thought that novels were about bad men and good women and about sexual power struggles (that is, novels were about feminism). Reading war fiction, they saw something else. They learned that war creates as well as destroys. They could see that what men bring back from war, the good and the bad, is something only men understand (a form of combat Gnosticism). We think that men returning from war don't talk about it because it was so terrible--often true. But sometimes they don't talk about it because it was wonderful, too good, perhaps, to be put into words, to be given to others who would normalize it, reduce it to banalities. I see just now Paul's comment below, to which I would add: men sometimes don't use words because words can't capture the pain or the glory that men prize.