You’re Not Helping v.16

Here is a thought: if you present the concept of “Ask the Feminist” and someone asks said feminist a question, it would make more sense to actually post the person’s question than leave it sitting in moderation.

I do understand that The Good Men Project is a feminist space only interested in non-critical, positive discussions about feminism and feminist theories about masculinity. That will naturally preclude non-feminists from the discussion. However, most men are not feminists. If one wishes to have an open discussion about men and masculinity, one needs to include non-feminist voices.

I do not follow GMP enough to know exactly what goes on there, so I had no idea that GMP started an “Ask the Feminist” thread in which people could pose questions to HeatherN and she would answer them. I happened upon the second set of answers through a Google Alert. I skimmed the original post, but read the comments. There was an exchange between Mike L and Heather that caught my attention:

Mike L: Why isn’t it a problem that women, often acting in “women only” spaces are trying to define masculinity? [...] Even if it’s noble for feminists to try and create “new masculinities,” shouldn’t they be ceding leadership in such discussions to men, and taking on the “supporting role” that they advocate for male allies in discussions of women’s roles? It seems like feminism is awfully interested in getting men out of discussions on the status of women, but then also very interested in discussing the status of men without a lot of concern about the level of male input.

HeatherN: So first, the question of whether feminists should “cede leadership in such discussions to men” kind of misses the part where I mentioned how a lot of men are feminists. You ask about male input: my Twitter friend I mentioned is male, that TEDx video is done by a man, Justin Cacsio is a man…a bunch of people I mentioned in the first set of answers are men. Hugo Schwartz just wrote a little blurb here about male feminists [...]. So, feminism definitely isn’t ignore men’s input. Feminism and men aren’t separate…well, I mean, they’re as separate as feminism and women. Feminism and gender studies are about examining gender…and “man” is also a gender.

Mike L: I don’t feel like my questions got answered. The base question was: “Why are feminists comfortable defining masculinity in spaces that often don’t include male voices?” The answer to this is not “There are some spaces where men speak about masculinity.” That answer doesn’t address those spaces where there aren’t male voices, which was the source of the question. In Law School we call that “fighting the hypothetical.”

HeatherN: Unsurprisingly, a lot of the discourse about masculinity within feminism is written by feminist men. [...] Everyone else who is coming to mind right now are men (Michel Foucault and William Pollack are the academics that come to mind, and Jamie Utt, Hugo Schwartz [sic], Justin Cacsio, Jackson Katz, and Ill Doctrine are the bloggers and activists that come to mind). [...] Generally from what I’ve found, feminists are always trying to find new ways to get men MORE involved in talking about masculinity. That’s kind of the key to it all anyway…men rethinking their gender.

I agree with Mike that Heather did not answer his question. In light of that, I posed a question of my own: Then perhaps the proper question to ask is why are feminists comfortable defining masculinity in spaces that often do not include non-feminist male voices? After all, the vast majority of men are not feminists. Defining masculinity based on the opinion of feminist men makes as much sense as defining homosexuality based on the opinion of gay people [who] participated in conversion therapy.

Currently that question is sitting in moderation. I do not expect it to be answered, however, I think my question is closer to Mike’s point: feminists seem fine discussing and defining masculinity without men’s input. The only input they are willing to accept either comes from a female feminist interpreting men’s experiences through a feminist lens, as bell hooks did, or via male feminists who express an open antipathy towards men and masculinity, like Jamie Utt, Hugo Schwyzer, and Jackson Katz.

Feminists do not appear to welcome non-feminist male voices. Even HeatherN and other feminists’ responses on GMP to these questions skirt around the non-feminist male voice.

That is rather odd considering that most men are not feminists. As I noted in my comment, many feminist men’s attitudes towards masculinity are akin to so-called “ex-gay” people’s attitudes towards homosexuality. They are far from positive, and often rely on a caricature of masculinity. Why should those voices take precedence over non-feminist voices?That question reminds me of the book Knights Without Armor.

In the book, Aaron Kipnis offered a positive reflection on masculinity, something I have never seen from any feminist. Kipnis does not dodge the flaws of masculinity, however, he does put them in perspective in the way that men relate to them, not through an ideological lens.That is the missing aspect of feminist analysis of masculinity. Kipnis did not start with the view that masculinity is an inherently oppressive system specifically designed to deny women their rights. Yet that tends to be the feminist view, which is why feminist analysis of masculinity typically offers no real insights for non-feminist men. It is akin to explaining that violence happens because of Original Sin. Catholics and Catholic-leaning people will find that very enlightening, but it will be useless to everyone else, particularly non-Judeo-Christians.

What I would have like to have seen, and what I will not see, was Heather actually addressing Mike’s point. Even if feminist men discuss masculinity, they still operate under an ideology designed around and focused specifically on women’s needs and concerns. In other words, they still approach and define masculinity from a female perspective. As Mike asked, should they not cede leadership in such discussions to men, taking on the “supporting role” that they advocate for male allies in discussions of women’s roles?

About these ads

51 thoughts on “You’re Not Helping v.16

  1. I asked them the following very short question:

    Who holds virtually all the power in the gender equality discourse.
    1) Men or women?
    2) MRAs or feminists?

    We’ll see what comes of it. I should know better than to attempt to talk to those people but perhaps just reading the question might spark a little thought.

  2. Wow. That was quick. Already deleted.

    Anyone care to hypothesize as to why they censored it?

  3. It’s pretty clearly recognized by a lot of people that feminism is a closed ideology, and trying to rationally engage them is pointless except to demonstrate how the ideology works. There’s something else going on in humans that explains all this, a kind of unconscious in-group / out-group aspect of our brain. Explaining that is an interesting exercise.

  4. …I think my question is closer to Mike’s point: feminists seem fine discussing and defining masculinity without men’s input. The only input they are willing to accept either comes from a female feminist interpreting men’s experiences through a feminist lens, as bell hooks did, or via male feminists who express an open antipathy towards men and masculinity, like Jamie Utt, Hugo Schwyzer, and Jackson Katz.
    Honestly TS that is just what my experiences tell me. Thankfully all feminists don’t feel that way but a lot of them do.

    You can see this play out in the form of holding one’s non-feminist status against them as a reason why they are wrong, or why they don’t understand something, or why they have nothing relevant to say, etc….

    And then in extreme cases we get the “If you’re not a feminist you’re a bigot.” and the condescending “Is there any reason to not be a feminist?” with the dripping insinuation that the only reasons are that you are against equality.

  5. Speaking of Bell Hooks

    “It is obvious that many women have appropriated feminism to serve their own ends, especially those white women who have been at the forefront of the movement”

    ―Bell Hooks, “Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism”

    For an experiment such as this, I would rather see Heather do an AMA on Reddit, where it is not down to the GMP to moderate and choose what gets through.

  6. There really isn’t a difference between what a male feminist and a female feminist write on a topic. That’s like expecting a difference between male or female communists on the topic of private property.

  7. “Anyone care to hypothesize as to why they censored it?”

    Because you questioned what is perhaps the central tenet of feminism, that all women have less power than all men, everywhere, at all times.

  8. Adi, if you ask questions they do not have ready-made answers for or questions that easily dismantle their arguments, chances are they will remove the comment.

  9. There really isn’t a difference between what a male feminist and a female feminist write on a topic.

    Well, some male feminists are different … I can think of one, at least …

    :))

  10. The moderation thingy is very sensitive, my stuff always hits the moderation, yet it gets posted sometimes after usually. Possibly an entire day later.

  11. I found an illuminating rather scholarly article “Contrasting modern and post-modern discourse” on AVfM. Post-modern discourse describes feminism/feminists though I wonder where it sits in the origins of this on social issues.

    “Postmodern discourse

    Over the past half century, a competing mode of discourse, the one I call postmodern, has become steadily more entrenched in academe. Following are ten of its hallmarks, as Roberts and Sailer describe on their blogs:

    “persons and positions are ordinarily closely related,” with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;

    “sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values”;

    priority on “cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus”;

    “seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge,” in the eyes of proponents of modern discourse;

    tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as “vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus”;

    is oriented to ” the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum”;

    lacking “means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation,” it will “typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition”;

    “will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.”;

    has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of modern discourse;

    results in “stale monologues” and contexts that “seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers.”

    Creating “feminist spaces” where your kind of questions are just deleted is obviously silencing. I seen good posts rejected out of hand at GMP as “hateful rants”. It seems frankly immune to the kind of critical, rational exploration of arguments that is modern discourse and that you pursue TS….

  12. Schala, the moderation may be very sensitive, but it is also quite specific. Sometimes comments that were posted disappear. Other times, comments with no offensive language whatsoever end up in moderation, yet those comments are typically made by a particular group of people. For example, the trackback to this post was on GMP yesterday. Now it is gone. That is not a moderation sensitivity issue; someone intentionally removed it. And I think that happens more often than people think.

  13. Allan, my take on GMP is that, like most feminist spaces, they are only interested in commentary that supports specific liberal/feminist views. They rarely publish anything written by conservatives, moderates, or non-feminists. When they do, they typically follow up with a dozen posts stating the opposite opinion. When someone tries to write a critique of a feminist-leaning article, they typically do not get through.

    I am unsurprised by this behavior, although I do think it costs GMP the male audience they should try to garner.

  14. Adi,
    “Anyone care to hypothesize as to why they censored it?”

    The short answer is that place is circling the drain and you are watching the death throes.AVfM aready has higher readership numbers, with a tenth of the resources.

  15. A tenth? No way.
    From my experience in advertising networks and sites like GMP that they make a TON of money. And their starting budget was a 6, perhaps 7 digit number. There is absolutely no comparison with AVFM which is pretty much running entirely on donations as far as I know.

    What I don’t understand is, given how much anger GMP has generated on both sides, how the hell they haven’t had their Adsense account banned by some click bombing I don’t know. They even violated the TOS with their auto refresh (no idea if they still use that).

  16. I critiqued the Ask a feminist articles, both, with what some would say are anti-feminist posts, claiming female privilege is better than male privilege (at least for me), it got published the next day even if it got held in moderation for a day.

  17. Sherlock, what you’ve presented regarding the common misinterpretations of masculine traits was wonderful. It blew me away!

    You’ve got to try and post that on the Ask A Feminist forum just to see what reaction you’ll get from the resident pro-feminist readers and OP. I imagine it’ll make their insular head’s spin!

  18. Adi: “A tenth? No way.
    From my experience in advertising networks and sites like GMP that they make a TON of money. And their starting budget was a 6, perhaps 7 digit number. There is absolutely no comparison with AVFM which is pretty much running entirely on donations as far as I know.”

    They may not have similar budgets, but A Voice For Men is gaining way more momentum. Their readership numbers have eclipsed The Good Men Project and are currently rising each day,

  19. I critiqued the Ask a feminist articles, both, with what some would say are anti-feminist posts, claiming female privilege is better than male privilege (at least for me), it got published the next day even if it got held in moderation for a day.

    Yes, I saw that. I suspect that the issue may simply be me. My comments may be unwelcome. I sent an email asking for clarification on the matter.

    Edit: I received a response from Lisa Hickey informing me that my comments and trackbacks are to be automatically placed in moderation because I “have a history of personal attacks against other commenters and authors.” I asked for some example of said history, and I am waiting a response.

  20. I’d say TS that’s an example of “persons and positions are ordinarily closely related.” In other words, nothing you say can be taken seriously because you’re a known misogynist, or whatever the label.

    On the other hand, actually, that’s what I like about you. You criticize ideas, arguments and positions much more than getting personal about it.

    I wonder…. Does GMP generate more posts and comments about them, off their site, than on these days?

  21. Allan, the irony is that I previously asked Lisa about my comments going into moderation, both in emails and on GMP, and she stated that it was just the sensitivity of the moderation widget.

    I suspect this has nothing to do with me attacking anyone. As you stated, I criticize ideas, arguments, and positions, and many feminists do not like that kind of criticism.

    I doubt GMP generates more content off their site. They did at the beginning of the year due to the two infamous rape articles, however, there has not been much about them lately. Even Matlack’s resignation did not register. From what I have seen, I am sure GMP generates enough traffic with older posts and occasional reprints of other articles to maintain their existing audience, yet they do not seem to bring in new voices.

  22. Jacob: “Edit: I received a response from Lisa Hickey informing me that my comments and trackbacks are to be automatically placed in moderation because I “have a history of personal attacks against other commenters and authors.” I asked for some example of said history, and I am waiting a response.”

    Welcome to the club, Jacob.

    I received pretty much the same response in an e-mail from her about personal attacks. No I think her response to me was worse implying that I won’t grow if I keep talking about being bullied and hurt by girls and women in addition to the personal attacks claim.

    What’s so irritating is that there are feminist-leaning commentators who have said passive aggressive things to non-feminist leaning commentators and yet the former don’t get put into moderation or deleted. Or maybe they do but are approved. I don’t know anymore.

  23. Eagle, I have seen this game played many times, so I know precisely why my comments are in moderation. All I want is for Lisa or whoever it is who decided to do that years ago to have the decency to admit it.

    As for the double standard, that comes with the territory. GMP has run numerous articles with obvious passive aggressive and openly hostile attitudes towards men, male survivors, men’s rights activists, religious groups, and conservatives without batting an eye. I expect this to happen because happens quite often in political spaces. I just do not like the powers that be feigning ignorance when someone brings it up.

  24. I have been moderated at TGMP quite a while now and I am not buying the “sensitive moderation bot” anymore either – this was the last comment from me in it’s entirety which currently is in moderation:

    What would you accept as a representation of what Feminism is, broadly?

  25. Well, but don’t you know that according to one commenter in the most recent thread(The one on why the ‘backlash’ seems to be growing) on Manboobz, The Good Men Project is an “MRA hellhole”? I think it’s because they still have an article or two up by Paul Elam. It is to laugh.

  26. Pingback: Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-promotion | Clarissa's Blog

  27. From the Pingback:

    Clarissa: “” What a mystery! Feminists don’t want to hear jerkwads who don’t think women are human. How completely incomprehensible. Yes, freak, feminists don’t want to hear stupid crap coming from completely worthless insects. Why would a human being welcome the ugly and stupid voice of somebody who doesn’t deserve to be spat on, let alone listened to? If there are any questions about why African Americans do not “welcome the voices” of racists and why normal people do not “welcome the voices” of Nazis, feel free to ask.”

    Oh for the love of…

    I seriously hope she’s being sarcastic here. If she isn’t, then fuck her and the horse she rode in on.

    Not to mention calling you a parrot.

    She’s definitely gone off the deep end.

  28. I thank you as well, Sherlock. I just haven’t had a chance to look at all that yet.

  29. Well, I posted a comment in reply to a paragraph Archy said in one of his responses. Unfortunatly, I should’ve clicked on “Reply” below it. Now the comment is way below the line.
    Oh well, it’s in moderation and will likely be deleted anyway. Here it is:

    Archy: “Finally would you want to talk to people whom your previous experience showed them dismissing your opinion because they were male and had “privilege” if you were a male? Where shaming n silencing goes on because HeatherN this actually happens quite a lot online to many men, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of males commenting right now have had the tactics used against them.”

    Me: “It’s been awhile but I just had to jump in here.

    Archy, I can’t help but find major common ground with this opinion because that’s what happened to me as well when talking about my past. The same dismissals and minimization from that strand of feminism who supposedly cares, tearing me down with “You’re still privileged”, “It’s nothing compared to what women go through”, “You’re an anomaly”.

    But I’d go one step further than that.

    If Feminism, according to HeatherN and co is full of varying philosophies and opinions, why would I want to be in the same space where this strand of feminism that dismissed and minimized my experiences is free to roam? Sure, there are reasonable feminists, but they share the same space as the same people who dismissed me. They’re right there, in the corner, ready to mock me again.

    Let me give you analogy: Say a bully beat me up, causing grievous injury. His cohorts in crime are right there, egging him on, throwing insults on my person. Others just stand there and watch, don’t even come up to me until after the damage is done. One even goes to say “I support you.” then gives me a social group I could be a part of to raise self-esteem.

    I join that group in progress when lo and behold, the bully and his gang are there mixing amongst the people who supposedly cared. Having experienced their wrath, I get visibly uncomfortable while the bully and his lackeys continue their reign of terror rained down upon me.

    Even when this group says they support me, and care, is it really worth putting up with their crap in order to experience the hyped benefits of said social group? When the group refuses to eject them or sees no problem in entertaining their presence when every bone in my body was nearly ground to dust by the bully?

    I don’t think so. Though I have been getting better, if there’s one thing I will never do is become a part of something that, thanks to their monolithic status, allows the very strain that dismissed and minimized me a place in their tent.”

  30. And surprise, surprise, my comment is no longer there.

    Thank you very much, Good Men Project…FOR NOTHING!

  31. Tamen, that was one of the things that made me think the moderation was specific. Short, benign posts can occasionally fall into moderation. That happens here. However, it happens way to frequently on GMP to be random. The other was that all my comments on my own articles on GMP went into moderation.

  32. Clarissa:

    “What a mystery! Feminists don’t want to hear jerkwads who don’t think women are human. How completely incomprehensible. Yes, freak, feminists don’t want to hear stupid crap coming from completely worthless insects.”

    tl;dr: “Acknowledge my humanity, you insect!”

    A clearer and more succinct example of Poe’s Law would be difficult to find!

    -Jut

  33. Eagle, your bully analogy is a great one, and for the feminist detractors, this is not limited to feminists and feminism. Most ideological groups play this game. They keep pretty bad company, and then act surprised when someone hurt by that bad company feels unsafe around them.

  34. Jacob: “Eagle, your bully analogy is a great one, and for the feminist detractors, this is not limited to feminists and feminism. Most ideological groups play this game. They keep pretty bad company, and then act surprised when someone hurt by that bad company feels unsafe around them.”

    Too bad those assholes at The Good Men Project deleted the comment. Just goes to show how hypocritical and exclusionary they are when preaching about inclusiveness.

  35. “However, most men are not feminists. If one wishes to have an open discussion about men and masculinity, one needs to include non-feminist voices.”

    Let’s formulate in another way: However, most Whites are racists. If one wishes to have an open discussion about Whites and whiterism, one needs to include racist voices. That’s marvelous!

  36. David Gendron, I don’t quite get your reply. I can’t tell if you agree, or if you are trying to mock the original comment.

    I presume there is an omitted word in “most Whites are racists.” As you appear to be trying to mimic the original comment, it should be “most Whites are NOT racists.” But, you did substitute “non-feminist” with racist, so maybe you did use the right word (or, at least the word you wanted).

    But, do you think most Whites are racist? (We’ll get back to that.)

    I think that your quote also leaves out an important context. We have feminists (a group made up of men and women), discussing men and masculinity. He was saying that most men are not in that group and that a discussion of men and masculinity should include men who are not feminists. (I think you get his meaning, but I am just making sure.)

    Your racism example would be difficult to fit into that context. First off, it is not clear if “racist” is made up a group of whites and non-whites; it would need to in order to track with the earlier comment. Some think non-whites can’t be racist, so your example is unclear, because there is an unstated assumption there one way or the other.

    So, if “racist” is a sub-set of “white,” your re-formulation is not parallel.

    To make it parallel, the discussion would be about “White Racism” (or “whiterism” if you prefer). The “non-racists” (a group made up of white and non-white people) are discussing “whiterism.” Now, it would make sense if you said, “most Whites are racist.” The structure is more parallel. But, you have another problem.

    Is it true that most whites are racist? I think it is easier to say most men are not feminists (even without defining that term) than it is to say most white people are racist (again, without defining that term).

    But, if it IS your position that most whites are racists, then YES! those white people should be included in a discussion of racism! because they disagree with the definition of “racist.”

    Feminism tries to lock them out there too! The best example I can think of is “Stuff White People Like.” Oh, the hand-wringing from feminists over privilege “blah, blah, blah.” And, feminism tries to eliminate any questioning about racism from the discussion. The perception of the offended minority must be respected. If the offended minority says you have been racist, you must not question it! You must not dictate the experience of the less privileged (especially while they dictate yours to you). If someone calls out your privilege, you must not question it, but acknowledge it with humble thanks and contrition.

    You may not say “that’s not racist.” The perception of the offended dictates reality; the perecption of the offender is irrelevant and must not be considered. You may not suggest that the offended person “misunderstood” you or your comment. You may not offer any justification or explanation because there is no justification and privilege is the only explanation.

    So, if that is what you are getting at, then I think it parallels perfectly with the original remark. Feminists don’t want non-feminist men critiquing their discussion of masculinity than they want non-feminist white people critiquing their discussion of racism.

    -Jut

  37. David, the analogy does not work because not being a feminist does not make one a misogynist. It only means one does not follow feminism. According to the logic of your analogy, not being Jewish makes one anti-Semitic.

    Likewise, if one wished to have a discussion about white people’s experiences, it would make more sense to include the broadest types of white voices, not just those associated with the civil right’s movement. That may mean including voices that disagree with the civil rights movement or oppose certain policies or legislation. However, if one wants to understand white people’s experiences, one must include voice one may disagree with. Only including those who say what you want to hear is rather childish and pathetic.

  38. David:
    “However, most men are not feminists. If one wishes to have an open discussion about men and masculinity, one needs to include non-feminist voices.”

    Let’s formulate in another way: However, most Whites are racists. If one wishes to have an open discussion about Whites and whiterism, one needs to include racist voices. That’s marvelous!

    That analogy just fails. And if fails for the usual reason. When trying to justify why women’s voices are more important than men’s the usual tactic is to liken men to whites. Basically saying that since men are like white people its okay to limit their voices.

    Wrong.

  39. I’ve tried posting a couple of comments today mainly relating to male survivors attempting to access services. As usual everything disappears.

    I’ll leave the last comment here as “evidence” that I did ask the question.

    @HeatherN…

    You have no comment or criticism relating to government funded, feminist run services ridiculing rape victims who are desperately seeking help? You go so far as to disallow mention of an experience many victims endure. Is your loyalty to your feminist ideology so strong that even that behaviour is something you won’t permit to be criticised or even brought to light? Can I assume that you are comfortable with rape victims being treated in that way?

    All it needed was for you to say two words – “That’s wrong”. You can’t even do that? There is a reason why virtually all male survivors learn to hate feminism. You have made yourself and GMP a part of that reason.

    I will be reproducing this post on Toy Soldiers blog because it will certainly be deleted here. That way there will be evidence that GMP would rather cover up disgusting and discriminatory behaviour by feminists than give a toss about the victims those feminists abuse.

  40. Gwallen, good comment though you won’t see it on GMP.

    Now, you know I generally totally agree with you and we’re on different continents, however when you say “There is a reason why virtually all male survivors learn to hate feminism.”… I’m puzzled. What do you mean? Generally, I would say there are millions of male survivors but the vast majority are “silent survivors”, never disclosed. Some have to one or two people, a wife, friend or gf, but that’s unknowable. The very, very few publicly openly male survivors I know are not a particularly united nor vocal group BECAUSE they fall for feminist politics and rhetoric. I was part of the Oprah 200 Men show for example. These men. But they are quick to say “women are the predominant victims, more men are perpetrators, rapes about power” and hence little attention is given to men. There are even fewer open activists (meaning calling for changes clearly helpful to men–i.e. money for male services, media events highlighting men not women). Extremely rare. 1 in a million rare. And I would say that’s because you’ll get harshly attacked for it. I’ve written about “my volunteer organization” declaring all male survivors were sex offenders… and just let that stand. Stigma, shaming, total lack of understand or compassion. Typical. Very harmful, and pretty hateful. Some thanks for some 500 volunteer hours. James Landreth gets attacked often enough but who comes to his rescue and support? Just about nobody. There should be thousands.

    Very unlike the thousands of women who loudly decry obvious victim blaming of women. Even malesurvivor.org doesn’t speak out. Too political. Too controversial. That silence is exactly how feminists respond to male victims. No comments on posts, change the subject to female victims, don’t fund research on males, redefine “male rape” as not rape, don’t help when they actually ask for help, etc.

    Rather, I say open male survivors fear feminist thuggery and frankly, they are frightening violent people to be feared! You quickly learn NOBODY has your back. I don’t see much hate of feminism though. And the people who DO hate feminism don’t find much use in male survivors fighting a very nasty political fight with feminists. It doesn’t draw the numbers of men to the cause like family court issues, false rape accusations and domestic violence abuses.

    I wish they DID hate feminism more. Or rather, I wish they cared more about men. Perhaps that’s the same thing, lol.

  41. Gwallan, I agree with Allan. I do not think most male survivors hate feminism so much as they fear feminists because of the responses and reactions they get from feminists. It is hard enough just speaking about what happened. Attacking the speaker, downplaying his experiences, and tacitly accusing him of marginalizing female survivors is not the best way to win someone’s trust. While all feminists do not act like that, enough of them do–many of them in the very groups that should help male survivors–that many male survivors simply back off and keep quiet.

    Allan, I think MaleSurvivor wants to stay a forum for men to talk about their experiences. Becoming political would bring too much unwanted traffic to their site. That is one of the reasons why I do not link to them often. I have seen feminists and other people go to the site and basically disrupt it. There have also been numerous people, virtually all of them women, who posed as male survivors, got everyone’s attention and sympathy, and then let the lie go too far and got caught. I think the added media attention could bring out more people like that to MS.

  42. “Allan, I think MaleSurvivor wants to stay a forum for men to talk about their experiences. …”

    That reflects their roots, you might say, a group of therapists interesting in learning to help this “population”. Initially little was known. Even fewer resources. And that is a VERY, VERY worthy thing to do, and protect. I understand how fragile a thing that can be. It’s like therapy. It needs a lot of very, very tender understanding, compassion and patience. Learning to trust after abuse is so, so hard.

    As survivors more fully heal, however, there is often a need for advocating change. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. That’s important to us! Which they recognize but these men tend to drift away, and it will quickly “become political” unfortunately. There is an advocacy committee “to provide advocacy for survivors facing a number of issues relative to their recovery, such as: dealing with legal processes, funding for and access to treatment, or changes in sex crime laws. This committee will either engage in or act as liaison for other groups taking a stand against various barriers to recovery for male survivors. For example, this committee would get involved in or work with other groups to stop prison rape, or lobby for a responsible action to be taken by churches re: abuse by clergy.”

    There is no discussion of any of this. Posts, questions get silently deleted. There little to no disclosure. Meeting minutes, etc.

    In short, I agree, they likely can’t get into much of this given just how crazy polarized it is. There a need for a different organization. Right now, more healed survivors have no place to go but silent again. The “feminist haters” at AVfM aren’t particularly a destination either for a number of reasons.

  43. Not sure if Gwallen is with us, maybe just busy…

    Rather than really hating feminism, or falling for it, or something, I think the idea of male disposability hits the mark better, though far more generally. And when men’s interest conflicts sharply with women’s, men almost always seem to defer to women’s concerns with contrition.

    I really don’t see much benefit of making sexual assault “a gendered crime” except to capitalize on this dynamic. (with great success). It certainly isn’t useful in equally helping ALL victims nor, I would argue, in ultimately reducing violence. But that isn’t what feminism is about.

    I’m reading “Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate”. He describes a recurrent pattern where fraternities cause some of the “least sympathetic cases for campus free speech advocates”.
    1. fraternities intentionally offend and sometimes overstep. i.e. new pledges are gathered in front of the Women’s Center to chant “No means Yes, Yes means Anal” at Yale’s Delta Kappa Epsilon.
    2. The fraternities and members apologize profusely.
    3. Occationally a member won’t apologize and stands up for himself. ***Time and again, fellow members will not support him*** and ends up being punished by both the university and fraternity.
    4. Rarely the fraternity chapter is united, the national organization does not have it’s back and pressures it to back down or punishes it outright.

    Offend, apologize and repeat.

    Ironically, when frats stand up for First Amendment rights they often win.

    So here, he argues, they often would win if they’d stand up for their rights. And fraternities rarely unite against the outcry. And men who are his friends never support the member (forced into it) who stands up alone.

    It’s male disposability enforced and promoted. But it’s still very unconsciously a part of males today still. Under feminism, men are disposed of with scorn, instead of previously, with honor. Either way it’s the same.

  44. But Allan it doesn’t have to be that way. Even if the political shark has more bite than people anticipated shouldn’t mean staying silent.

    Look, I have been reflecting on how I had been raising issues like Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Abuse. I did it on a radio show I host on Blogtalkradio.com. Naturally, it lead to ratings going into the dumpster for a bit.

    Before, I’d be just like the advocates who are afraid to muddy the waters.

    But now I say: Fuck that!

    I don’t care anymore about ratings. What I care about is that the issue gets a voice, a platform. Simple as that.

    I wrote a play about a male survivor of sexual abuse from both a man and a woman for goodness sake. That’s progress. The fact that I was allowed to broadcast it on the Radio is progress (then again, I’m with progressive people in the first place).
    It was also pretty successful.

    I have to go but here’s what I think now: The issues need a voice. Men need a voice. That’s all that matters to me.

  45. as a mixed race man, I’m about as comfortable having a feminist define manhood as a white nationalist. And on that topic, they had Jack Donovan post an article at TGMP. Glad I’m not a Real Good Man ™ ….

  46. Thanks for making me aware of Jack Donovan. I’ll have to look into his writing. When I came out 30 years ago, I had a real hard time because I didn’t at all fit into, didn’t want to, the culture of “disco balls, rainbow flags and celebrity gossip”. I like power tools, and building stuff, whitewater kayaking and rugged outdoor adventures. That makes me a lesbian… lol.

    Is the article worth degrading myself with a visit to the GMP? I’m afraid I won’t be able to wash the stink off me afterwards…

  47. yup Tamen you are right…

    Not a fan of him at all, he has said “weak men should kill themselves.”

    when TGMP is not promoting the bigotry of Marcotte/Schwyzer/Futrelle…

    ….they find an “alter-righty” whose just as awful….

    Ideologically they are just as much my enemy as feminists and I see a tremendous amount of crossover…

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/22/we-are-all-lara-logan/?cid=231376

    …what’s that word Hugo uses in his indoctrination camps, err courses…

    intersectionality…

  48. Someone should make a blog called censoredatthegoodmenproject or something and we can all published what gets censored there.

  49. While my comments are often held in moderation for a few hours on the GMP, they have never been censored. I have always found my voice welcomed, even though I often challenged the conventional line. Until a couple of days ago, I would have presumed that the site had a very generous and open attitude towards more critical voices, but then my girlfriend left a very hard-hitting, blisteringly perceptive, and ridiculously erudite comment which wasn’t accepted, even after a few separate attempts. Rather annoying: it was one of the most thorough annihilations of a piece I have ever read.

    I am not a fan of the MRA community, which can often be distastefully bitter and misogynistic, and can have a rather jaundiced and distorted perspective on gender politics. On the other hand, however, I find feminism no less lacking in many respects, functioning more as a self-serving religion than as a position open to criticism, challenge, and evidence. I left questions on the Ask A Feminist thread along this line and Heather was kind enough to answer them, even though not in a manner that I found persuasive.

    The GMP is a context that could provide an alternative to both. However, it really doesn’t. While it definitely speaks for some men, it is hardly representative. When I look at the persons who run the site, I don’t see many people who I believe are equipped to speak for me, even though I respect the thoughtfulness of many of their voices. While there are men in the conversation, the men who are in the conversation are seldom very representative of either the opinions or the masculinities out there. For instance, someone like Justin Cascio has a voice I respect and appreciate, but as he is speaking as a trans man, I think that many of us don’t feel that his perspective is necessarily representative of ours. A number of other key voices are associated with various gender or sexuality diversities. The dominant voices seem to arise more from more fringe masculinities than from the more conventional forms.

    While we need to be inclusive, a productive discourse about masculinity will also need to be truly representative of the range of opinions and experiences out there. The general reaction that I get from male friends who have visited the GMP is that what testosterone can be found there occurs only in homeopathic doses. These people are very reflective and thoughtful about their masculine identities and a number of them are even well-versed in feminist literature, but they do not believe that the GMP is a place where a meaningful and honest discourse about masculinity could occur. The ideological deck is already stacked in favour of a discourse that leaves feminist positions substantially unchallenged. Which is a real pity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s