Institute of Research on Male Supremacism Interview

Tell me about yourself

My name is Sarah-Nhi Nguyen, and I am a first-year at Yale University studying Global Affairs. I’m drawn to the major for its interdisciplinary approach, allowing me to take classes across disciplines like economics, political science, history, etc. Furthermore, I’m interested in concentrating in Gender and International Development to study how economic, educational, and political development are experienced differently by women and marginalized groups. Growing up in a low-income, single-parent household, I’ve seen how the women in my life are affected by overlapping systems of marginalization. This has inspired me to spearhead community projects to address some of these issues like equitable education, food insecurity, and even animal welfare. As a project lead, I have experience with community outreach, program coordination, and fundraising to initiate career fairs, donation drives, and professional development workshops.

What draws you to IRMS?

What draws me to IRMS is the institute’s unique recognition of male supremacism as a distinct, organized movement. My own background has fueled a drive to understand the patriarchal structures that perpetuate systems of oppression, and I admire how IRMS utilizes rigorous scholarship to identify long-term solutions. I am particularly eager to apply my experience in community leadership to spearhead a project of my own, where I can offer an intersectional lens to help expose and challenge these institutions.

What is your background in fundraising

My background in fundraising consists of a mix of grant management and grassroots community organizing. I secured and managed the Youth Opportunity Fund (YOF) grant for a project that addressed animal welfare. This required me to assess the specific needs of individual shelters and strategically allocate funding for essential resources like Kuranda dog beds and tailored care packages.

Beyond grant work, I have experience leading diverse funding initiatives. As President of Club Passport, I spearheaded a school-wide masquerade ball and partnered with national vendors like World’s Finest Chocolate and Van Wyk Confections to help low-income students fundraise for an international trip to Costa Rica. I’ve also organized events such as car washes, social events, and club merchandise sales.

What is your background in research?

My research background consists of quantitative data analysis, legal dissection, and sociological theory, which allows me to approach complex social issues from multiple angles. As an Analyst for the Global Strategy Consulting group, I conducted market research for the battery energy storage sector. This required me to aggregate large datasets, identify emerging trends, and translate that data into digestible visualizations for stakeholders.

In addition to data-driven work, my role as a brief writer for Moot Court focused on the systematic dissection of case law and legal precedents. I specifically researched sex-based preferential policies under the Equal Protection Clause, which allows me to explore female-preferential policies as a potential for historical restitution. These technical skills are grounded in my academic work at Yale, where engaging in texts like Hood Feminism has been foundational. I am experienced in analyzing peer-reviewed, scholarly sources to build evidence-based, emotionally resonant arguments that highlight how misogyny intersects with race and class. I am eager to bring this skillset to the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism to help translate high-level theory into narratives that challenge supremacist ideologies. I’m also happy to provide writing samples from my coursework, and I am currently working on a research paper that explores the societal constructs and specific vulnerabilities that entrap women in toxic relationships.

How do you distinguish male supremacism from general misogyny or patriarchy in your research?

I distinguish these terms by looking at the difference between a systemic environment and an active, organized movement. I view patriarchy as the overarching social structure that historically privileges men, and misogyny as the tool or “policing mechanism” used to maintain those boundaries through prejudice of individual behavior.

However, male supremacism is different–it’s an evolving political ideology. Unlike general misogyny, which can be found across various social strata, male supremacism is an organized worldview that seeks to subjugate women. In my current work on the societal constructs that entrap women in toxic relationships, I see this distinction clearly: while a toxic dynamic may be fueled by patriarchal norms, it becomes an expression of male supremacism when it is backed by an explicit belief system that justifies dominance as a natural or moral right. By treating male supremacism as its own movement, as IRMS does, we can more effectively map its recruitment patterns and identify the specific vulnerabilities it exploits.

This work involves engaging with violent and misogynistic rhetoric daily. How do you manage the emotional toll or maintain objectivity when analyzing 'dehumanizing' content?

I approach the emotional toll of this work with a perspective shaped by both lived experience and professional purpose. Growing up at the intersection of socioeconomics, racism, and misogyny, I have navigated these influences throughout my life; while seeing these ideologies codified in research is somber, the content itself is not a surprise to me. I have learned to maintain objectivity by humanizing the victims rather than the rhetoric. For instance, during a tour with my Christian A Capella group, I visited a women’s center that provided vital programming for survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence, and drug use. Witnessing the real-world impact of these systems firsthand solidified my resolve. Ultimately, the fulfillment I gain from my efforts to understand and dismantle marginalization far outweighs the emotional burden of the research. I view the analysis of dehumanizing content not just as an academic exercise, but as a necessary step toward the long-term, structural solutions that IRMS champions.

How would you translate the findings of your current paper on toxic relationships into a policy recommendation or a community education program?

While my research is ongoing, my preliminary findings point toward a clear need for community education programs that address the root rather than just the symptoms of toxic cycles. There are certain socioeconomic and psychological vulnerabilities that make women more susceptible to these entrapments, yet these women are often blamed or judged for their circumstances, which deters them from getting the help they need.

To translate this into a program, I would focus on a dual-pronged approach: first, a public awareness campaign designed to humanize the experiences of these women to reduce social stigma and encourage vocal advocacy. Second, I would advocate for an educational curriculum that deconstructs the societal scripts shaping women to be “fixers” and “emotional laborers” at the expense of their own well-being. By fostering an understanding of these constructs, we can help individuals identify signs of toxic dynamics early on and provide the structural support necessary to break the cycle.