We need more male support groups on college campuses > Men face hardships too, and they should not be ignored Jessica Berget Opinions Editor Wweeens centres exist on almost every Canadian college and university campus, but men’s centres are practically non-existent. While there have been talks of establishing men’s support groups and centres at some institutions, most are met with immediate opposition and hostility. People justify their resistance by claiming that establishing a men’s centre would be sexist, since there are already so many male-centred spaces, and that such a centre would further perpetuate notions of hegemonic masculinity. While I do agree there are a lot of male- centred spaces, I would argue that denying a men’s centre simply because you think it is sexist further contributes to sexism, rather than equality. Take Simon Fraser University for example; in 2012, the SFU student union planned to finance a Men’s Centre on campus, maintaining that men are also entitled to a safe space on campus. Unsurprisingly, this decision did not sit well with students. Even the SFU Women’s Centre opposed the idea, with their assertion that “the men’s centre is everywhere else.” If you don’t provide a safe space for men to challenge notions of masculinity, homophobia, sexism, racism, classism, and ability issues, where are they going to do it? I believe there should be a place for men to facilitate these kinds of discussions to educate and inform all people, and all genders about the society we live in, and there is no better place to start these discussions than on college and university campuses. We don’t think about it much, but men are negatively affected by sexism, in different ways than women. They are shamed for acting in any way that is perceived as feminine, they are socialized to suppress their emotions, which ultimately leads to higher rates of suicide, and are often not taken seriously in cases of rape or abuse. Implementing more male support groups and centres would benefit both men and women because it would create the kind of atmosphere that allows for discussion and education about the issues that men face because of sexism and what can be done to rectify them. Men of colour, LGBTQ+ men, and men with disabilities experience racism, homophobia, transphobia, or ableism in different ways than women, but that should not mean they’re not important. Men should be allowed to have a space to discuss these issues and to challenge them so that our society can become better equipped to combat these injustices and move further towards equality. According to the DSU Women’s Collective Facebook page, their mission is to “create a safe and inclusive space for all self-identified women to support, grow, and learn from each other,” as well as to “focus on social justice, awareness, and community building through workshops, speakers and biweekly meetings.” Ifa men’s collective is established with the same Image by Frank Plant via Flickr i i morals and guidelines, I don’t see how it could negatively affect anyone in any way. The Women’s Collective meetings I have attended have always benefitted and educated me to be a better person and ally, and I think men would also benefit from the same kind of discussions and support. Men may hold much of the power in society, but that doesn’t mean they don’t face hardships of their own, or that their problems are not important. The sooner safe spaces for men to openly discuss their issues are established in post-secondary institutions, the sooner we can end this battle of the sexes and move together toward equality. YouTube is killing content creation > Innovation is stifled under poor management and an unbreakable monopoly Greg Waldock Staff Writer t’s no secret that YouTube is terrible. Their comment section has been the cesspit of the internet for more than a decade, every redesign brings more bugs, and ads have become increasingly invasive. Despite all this, it has managed to be a cultural powerhouse. Now it’s impossible to say it even has that. In fact, I'd happily argue that YouTube is more than simply unwelcoming for its own new content creators—it’s actively stifling innovation across the internet, and it’s only going to get worse in the coming years. YouTube, and Google at large, is a case study in why monopolies are terrible. The complete lack of competition (despite brave efforts from Vimeo and Vine, God rest their souls) means that they have absolutely no reason to improve anything for the benefit of the users or content creators, and can focus entirely on pleasing advertising companies and Google suits. Because the audience is established and their video player—which is somehow the best video player on the internet despite everything else on the website— works so well, the public is simply not motivated to start the kind of mass migration that has killed so many websites throughout the history of the internet. In most cases, a better site would come along and snatch away the audience, and Google would be forced to compete and improve—or risk losing money. The invisible hand of the market and all that nonsense. Here’s where it falls apart: YouTube has been colossally unprofitable for years. Like Twitter, it loses money like there's a hole in it. Google doesn't use it to generate advertising money; Google uses it to generate advertising data. YouTube won't— maybe even can’t—collapse any time soon, no matter how terrible and bankrupt it gets, because Google has control over advertising and can simply choose not to support any smaller site that could be a competitor. This means that not only will YouTube never significantly improve, but that other, better video websites will never find a large audience. Those websites are left to try to fill a niche that YouTube misses. cy 2 SB fa 8 oa ao > v lo] cs] c= Vine and VidMe were direct YouTube competitors, were responsible for a ton of creative content, and collapsed within a few years because Google has both the advertisers and the audience. Vimeo must restrict itself solely to artistic non-profit videos, and has been running basically as a charity for years. The monopoly YouTube has on video entertainment has created a situation where they can’t lose, no matter how badly their site runs or how poorly they treat creators. Over the coming years, we're going to see a lot more stories like the Logan Paul incident, or controversies where advertisers refuse to monetize pro- LGBTQ+ videos. Content on YouTube will become exactly like what cable television turned into: Sterile, protecting the status quo, and a safe place for terrible people to make a profit on being terrible. I’m not sure what a solution could possibly be, but it’s a sad path for what should be an outlet for bold, collective self-expression.