When the Good Men Project Magazine launched last summer, I was skeptical about the purpose of the magazine. It seemed less like a magazine devoted to addressing men’s perspective and more like a magazine trying to “trick” men into feminism under the guise of actually caring about men’s issues. However, as months passed it became clear that while the magazine’s columnists do all appear to be feminists, the angle of the magazine is more progressive liberal than specifically feminist. The feminist leanings are there, but they are not the focus, nor does the magazine refuse contributions from non-feminists or advocates for men’s issues. That eased my skepticism until this week’s topic for discussion.
When it comes to discussing men, manhood, and masculinity, the elephant in the room in is the men’s rights movement. While the movement is not strong or well-known offline, on the internet its presence is felt. It is difficult to talk about men’s issues without mentioning “MRAs.”
The Good Men Project Magazine has featured articles by men and women involved who address men’s issues, but has never specifically focused on the men’s rights movement. What raised my red flags about the magazine’s decision to address the men’s rights movement was the manner the magazine chose to do it. While it is not unusual for people to give a movement’s critics a voice in the discussion, it is unusual to give people who attack a movement a place at the table. When the commentary goes beyond criticism and devolves into outright mockery, it seems unwise to give such people a place to peddle that nonsense. Yet the magazine reached out to feminist bloggers like Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer (who is also columnist for the magazine), and David Futrelle, all of whom virulently oppose and openly mock men’s issues and advocates for men.
This follows the focus on some of the hostile comments made on popular men’s rights blogs. Negative comments about feminists, pro-feminist men, and women are not difficult to find on men’s rights blogs. Many of those comments receive praise while more measured comments get ignored. However, the same is true for most feminist blogs. Negative comments about conservatives, Christians, Muslims, the wealthy, heterosexuals, non-transgender people, Caucasians and men are not difficult to find on feminist blogs. All three of the feminists invited to comment on the men’s movement are well-known for their unsympathetic portrayal of men and boys.
Yet the focus on the negative comments from bloggers and posters rather than focusing on men’s rights activists like Glenn Sacks gives the appearance that the intent is to make the men’s rights movement as bad as possible. That may not be the case. The focus may result from negative experiences with men’s rights activists. Some of the comments posted on the magazine’s site lack civility to say the least. Then again, it may be a concerted attempt to discredit the movement.
That remains unclear, although that has not stopped either side from going back to their perspective corners and shouting victory (the feminists more so than the men’s rights activists). The final article is due to be published sometime today or Friday. Ironically, I was contacted by the writer of that article for information about the men’s rights activist position on domestic violence against men, despite that I am not a men’s rights activist, nor do I specifically affiliate with them.
Toy Soldiers 
LOL – yeah TS, you have a penis and you discuss gender and abuse issues. How could you not be an MRA? By the way, like racist, MRA has been turned into a convenient label/discussion ender reserved now for any man who disagrees with any woman on any blog at anytime discussing gender or supposedly gender-related issues.
Yet the magazine reached out to feminist bloggers like Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer (who is also columnist for the magazine), and David Futrelle, all of whom virulently oppose and openly mock men’s issues and advocates for men.
Yeah its been a hell of a time over there this week. Frankly out of those three the only one I would trust to act with any degree of civility is Hugo. Okay David is civil for the most part too but asking Marcotte to write about MRAs would be like asking Angry Harry to write about feminism.
One thing thats pretty glaring to me this week is that the feminist friendly people over there have had no problem ignoring the civil MRAs for the sake of highlighting the negative ones.
In short I think I just learned what GoodMenProject is really all about about.
Marcotte’s mastery of feminist clichés is nothing short of breathtaking. Referring to all the “free labor” that women do is one that I’ve found to be particularly odd.
If I invite friends for dinner every Sunday so that they can sample my cooking, I suppose I could gripe of all the “free labor” I do for them, but I’d also sound like a dumb-ass. And if my friends were the ones who were paying for my groceries and everything else in my house, I’d probably sound like a shamelessly nasty piece of work.
So, what, is a man to be given some kind of compensation every time he cracks-open a pickle jar for the wife? It seems to me that human relationships and cohabitation requires a lot of altruistic, non-market behavior from both people. If you’re not going to work full-time but live with someone who does (for free)… then not doing “free labor” sounds… shamelessly lazy, to be blunt.
In fairness, the guy was very polite and sincere. I think it is more of an issue of associating anyone who talks about men’s issues with the men’s right movement than it is an attack, at least from that particular person.
The posters certainly ignore the more reasoned comments in favor of the flippant ones. However, none of the columnists from GMPM seem to respond, to comments made on their articles.
I noticed that as well. What I find interesting is the number of responses on the articles. The articles written by MRAs have far fewer comments than those written by feminists, particularly Pelle’s measured and reasoned article.
Pingback: Can We Degenderize Domestic Violence? — Joseph Caputo — The Good Men Project Magazine
“Yet the focus on the negative comments from bloggers and posters rather than focusing on men’s rights activists like Glenn Sacks gives the appearance that the intent is to make the men’s rights movement as bad as possible. ”
Yes, that is their intent.
However, I’d honestly be a lot more interested to see them take on radical, yet intellectual and rational bloggers and posters rather than moderates like Sacks or yourself. Of course, they’d never dare, as that is the group they wish to keep most hidden from view.
Just as important as portraying MRAs as misogynistic/hateful is portraying MRAs as unintelligent.
I am not sure that is the case. Paul Elam and Dan Moore could be considered radical, yet intellectual and rational bloggers, and they were chosen to write articles for the magazine. I think there was more of a focus on the radical members of the men’s rights movement over men like Glenn Sacks.
I think you may have a point TS.
I think this might be in an effort to paint them all up as outrageous radicals of varying degrees, something they would never put up with being done to feminists (just look at how feminists will defend the likes of Daly, Marcotte, and Dworkin but then write off folks like Sacks).
Well, if it’s any consolation guys, Paul and I spoke at length about it before we submitted, we both agreed it was a “hidden” attempt by feminists to smear the MRM, and that the publicity was far too good of an opportunity to pass up. So, I swallowed the bile, and wrote an article, and frequented the thread to reply to any questions or adds.
What I can tell you is that VERY few of the feminist responses were anything but of the “can you believe the crap this guy believes!?!?” variety. If you read the thread, you will find only one or two occasions where any of the contentions made in the article were intelligently debated…and I challenge you to find an argument made to me, in which I responded belligerently…(just sayin’).
We knew it was coming (although I at least sort of secretly hoped we could put an end to this crap – or at least start to), we knew how it would play, and TGMP didn’t disappoint, at all. We got our viewpoint out there a bit more, got a little more exposure, and picked up a few new regular readers to boot.
All in all, a success.
As for the other crap…well, that’s sort of like complaining about downvotes on Reddit isn’t it? Largely useless to waste your time on?
I do not know that it was. It is demonstrate how unfair feminists are towards the men’s movement and how one-sided the presentation can be. However, the comments from some of the men’s rights activists did not engender much support for the men’s movement. In that way, you took one step forward and one step back, ending up in the same place you begin. Most people who see the feminist reaction to the men’s movement call foul on feminists, yet they do not necessarily support men’s activists.
“Most people who see the feminist reaction to the men’s movement call foul on feminists, yet they do not necessarily support men’s activists.”
But formal support is not the goal.
Encouraging men to stand up for themselves, to call feminist bullshit what it is…loudly, and to refuse to take anti-male laws and customs lying down. I have no ideology to spread, and all of that would accomplish what goals I do have quite nicely.
It’s not important that our movement grow, so much as it is that real change is effected.
A few years ago, no one even considered these things. Now, they are being debated (albeit not by those who can do much about it…yet).
That, my friend, is success. There is no such thing as bad PR.
“the good men project” while advertising itself as a group devoted to men’s issue’s, doesn’t really speak to men’s issues at all.
You could find the same content on daytime talk shows like “The View” or “The Talk”, whose demographic is most certainly not interested in men’s issues.
It’s took me a while to figure it out but, the answer is in the comments section below each article. If the majority of positive feedback comes from women and the negative comments from men, it’s a good indicator that the article is not speaking to men at all, and you’ll see this trend in many of the articles on the site.
They seem to hold the opinion that the way to being a better man is to become a better woman.
I still cannot figure out GMP’s actual purpose. They have far more feminists than non-feminists as their regular columnist, and write more about feminist issues and perspectives than non-feminist issues and perspectives. As you noted, they do not cover many men’s issues at all. Very few articles about depression, suicide, unemployment, violence against men, and general health issues. They do write about fathers, but usually about the day-to-day stuff. Issues like divorce, step children, broken families, and child custody rarely get discussed. On the surface it looks like GMP is a feminist magazine trying to masquerade as a men’s magazine, but it is not working all that well.
GMP, as it turns out, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is, in reality, funded and marketed by Ms Magazine. (From what I’ve read, they are spending $15K a month in an attempt to dominate social media sites and create a massive online presence).
This would explain why Venomous anti MRA contributors (such as Marcotte, Schwyzer and Futrelle) are so prominently featured and touted as sympathetic to men’s issues.
From standyourground.com
“The Good Men Project has substantial resources, top notch marketing, $$s being poured into it. Why? The truth is the Men’s Movement is derailing Feminism. This link tells the real story. The Good Men Project is a Ms. Magazine project to derail the Men’s movement. So Robin Steele and the first shots taken at us. was testing our resolve to see how and where where we were Vulnerable. SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats) is an analysis done by Marketing pros to determine if Defensive Marketing is called for to derail and weaken a competitor or to prevent entry into a Market. We are making headway for this analysis to be done. Defensive Marketing is now underway to try to slow our progress and growth.”
From Ms Magazine:
“The Good Men Project has taken on the daunting task of introducing, unlocking and dismantling the so-called Men’s Rights Movement in a special series of posts this week. My top pick, naturally, was Amanda Marcotte’s, in which she debunks the feminist-scapegoating delusions held by so many misogynist trolls men’s rights activists (MRAs)”
Interesting that they would say that after their comments on the launch of GMP: “”The Good Men Project Magazine will make you rethink the idea of a men’s magazine. Recommend it…to anyone who wants to read stories about people coming to terms with what enlightened masculinity might look like in the 21st century.”
I hope this whole endeavor backfires and exposes them for the haters they are.
Ron, from the information I found it does not appear that Ms. Magazine funds GMP. The magazine gave GMP a good review, but outside of that there does not appear to be any connection between the two companies.
I did get my information online and, as such, it needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. (there are plenty of angry and bitter commentators and bloggers out there who love to spread disinformation).
However; before the creation of GMP, I can’t think of any examples where a woman’s magazine, advocacy group or lobby has recognized that men have a legitimate claim to issues of rights and equality (in fact the opposite is true and, more often than not, people are ridiculed and dismissed (even threatened – see Erin Pizzy) for bringing the topic up). This makes me think that there is an agenda, that Ms Magazine has a vested interest in seeing the GMP succeed.
So…what we need to ask ourselves is why the drastic change of opinion towards mens rights? and if they favor open dialogue (as they say they do) why a fledgling site like GMP? why not an established site (even a more moderate site like fathers & families)? and why do they write articles in their magazine that sound like a proud owner bragging about what their puppy can do (ie: Rewriting Masculinity with “The Good Men Project”)
Also… can you think of an instance where a forum such as Glenn Sacks or Fathers & families would ask someone like Amanda Marcotte ( who is vilified by almost all other MRA sites) to be a regular contributor and make reference to her ideas and politics as something we should share? Even if it was to create an open debate, surely it shouldn’t be that hard to find a feminist that is knowledgeable and articulate, who can cite sources rather than just rhetoric.
I realize I’m preaching to the choir, but I can’t wait for the day the day that the GMP is exposed for what it is – a wolf in sheep’s clothing.