Laurie A. Couture’s unedited article published on A Voice for Men

I wrote two days ago about Laurie A. Couture and her article she submitted to the Good Men Project. According to Couture, the editors at GMP made her edit the article three times in order to remove criticisms about feminism. Once the article received approval, it was posted only to be edited yet again to remove all references to feminism. That version is still on GMP. A Voice for Men published the original version of the article today.

Now that I can read both versions, I find the editing odder. These are the portions that GMP edited out:

The blockage has come repeatedly from feminists who run most social justice and human service programs as well as from media that is feminist-influenced.

and this:

Increasing numbers of young adults are questioning feminist theory. They are taking notice and are challenging limiting, divisive and sexist beliefs, actions and statements. Social media platforms are exploding with hashtag wars and sign campaigns between feminists and those who are rejecting feminism. Sadly, these campaigns seem to be generating more hostility than mutual understanding.

and this:

It is time to allow a fearless and honest critique of any aspect of feminist theory that minimizes sexual and domestic violence against males, minimizes violence by women and advocates for anything other than compassion and equality in healing these tragedies.

Continue reading

Good Men Project, Bad Feminist Politics

The editors at the Good Men Project continue to demonstrate a profound level of hypocrisy and dishonesty. They want people to think GMP stands for discussing men’s issues. However, time and time again the editors reveal their incessant need to defend feminism, even to the detriment of their claims about open discussion.

Many people experienced this bizarre double-think over the years. Yet, few documented it as well as Laurie A. Couture. Couture wrote a piece titled An Autistic Critique of Feminism: A Humanitarian on the Autism Spectrum Refuses to be Silenced about the Overlooked Side of Social Justice. She submitted the article to GMP, and the editors accepted it. What followed shows the precise problem with GMP and the magazine’s claims about its concern for men’s issues. Couture explains in her video: Continue reading

When hate isn’t hate

Vice columnist Kane Daniel wrote a piece about his infiltration of a men’s rights group. It appears Daniel’s intention was to show men’s rights activists as raving lunatic misogynists. Instead, Daniel demonstrated what bad journalism looks like. He wrote in his piece:

I, like most people I know, am indignant at the very idea of men’s rights activists. A semi-organised group of men who believe the sinister spectre of feminism has inveigled itself into the fabric of culture, society and media. A shadowy illuminati who have succeeded in making men an oppressed majority. If you’ve ever had a friend with some, ah, unusual ideas about Jews, then just imagine them talking about women rather than the chosen people and you get the tone.

(Quick note: according to current population numbers, women outnumber men, so men are not “an oppressed majority.)

This is a common refrain from feminists and progressives. They see no validity in men’s complaints about feminism, so in an effort to justify their dismissal, feminists and progressives equate them to racists. This was Daniel’s first step in telling the reader that they need not take these men seriously. The next was to challenge men’s rights activists’ manhood:

The idea of a bunch of little man babies screaming about the evil militant feminists stealing their rights feels galling. Acting as if the Ghosts Of Radical Feminists Past swoop into their homes while they sleep soundly under The Matrix Reloaded bedsheets and magically castrate them while they dream of a Doc Marten stamping on a man’s face – forever.

Note how Daniel shifts the focus off of feminists in general and blames “radical feminists”. This too is a common tract among the left. It allows them to claim that only a tiny set of feminists harbor the hostile views men’s rights activists detest. This is done just in case someone can present evidence of feminists engaging in such behavior.

Yet despite considering men’s rights activists “little man babies” whining about nothing, Daniel wanted to “try and understand something about them outside of their din of blog posts and YouTube videos”.

His decision: infiltrate a Sydney-based men’s group. Continue reading

Being a Boy: The Monster Inside

Originally posted on March 8, 2014

Here is a suggestion: if you want to change a person’s behavior, it would be best not to trash them while doing it.

There seems to be a problem with feminists and their efforts to change male behavior. Feminists seem to view men and boys as walking predators hellbent on oppressing, demeaning, and hurting women and girls every waking moment of their lives. They also seem to believe that until the advent of second-wave feminism males experienced no other emotion but rage. Feminists marry the two ideas together to come up with the theory that only with feminism can men and boys ever express true emotions and lose their violent tendencies.

Yet this desire to get men and boys to feel has nothing to do with helping them. Rather, it is only about keeping them from hurting women. So volatile is male behavior that only by “softening” boys can they be changed. Or as Jeff Bogle puts it:

Raising strong girls is not enough because a strong girl, even the strongest of mind, body, will, and spirit, can too easily be fractured into a thousand unrecognizable pieces, a glass bottle of glitter shattered on a venetian tile floor, by a physically stronger, drunker, misogynistic boy. We can cobble together and restore some of the sparkle, but it’s doomed to be mixed with crumbs, dust, and dirt, no matter how studious we are. A dulling of the shine. A repeal of the magic.

That reads like something written by someone who has never spent much time around actual, living boys. Continue reading

You’re Not Helping v.25

Feminists have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Ray Rice NFL scandal. To be certain, the NFL’s attempted cover-up is embarrassing. Rice’s assault on his now wife was horrible. However, none of that justifies the baffling response several feminists had when other journalists mention Hope Solo.

For those unaware, Hope Solo is a United States soccer star who assaulted her 17-year-old nephew and her sister. Solo faces fourth-degree misdemeanor charges, yet continues to play while the case is pending. In contrast, Rice was fired by the Ravens and indefinitely suspended from the NFL. Several sports journalists noted the imbalance, which appears to annoy some feminist journalists.

Katie McDonough offered the most recent complaint:

[...] A conversation about whether or not Solo should be on the field right now does not require smug finger wagging about inconsistently applied standards of outrage, it requires a grappling with how sports leagues handle violent offenses. (That’s a far more complicated conversation to have than many of us are willing to concede.) Condemning what Solo is alleged to have done does not require erasing a history in which men have systematically used manipulation and physical violence to dominate, humiliate and kill women. And scrutinizing the top brass within women’s national soccer for their calculus around Solo does not require us to insincerely argue that women’s soccer and men’s football are sports that receive equal attention in the media — that somehow it’s just this one time that the public has fallen silent in an otherwise robust conversation about the women’s national soccer team.

Let us look at the two journalists, Juliet Macur and Cindy Boren, to see what they wrote. Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v101

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Attention #GamerGaters: Gaming is not YOUR hobby

I tend to ignore feminist critiques about the gaming community because they are so nonsensical that rings popping out of robots seems more logical. However, I quite enjoyed David Futrelle’s “rebuttal” to #GamerGate. Instead of actually addressing any of the complaints gamers made in the past weeks, Futrelle seeks to prove that gamers have no claim on the community they built.

He begins with a wonderfully moronic statement:

Thing is, guys, it’s not your hobby. At least it’s not only yours.

I don’t call myself a “gamer” – largely because so many of those who do embrace the label are such immature assholes – but, guess what, I play games too.

Indeed, as you can see from the picture above, I own more than 100 console games, some of which I’ve devoted hundreds of hours to. Over the years I’ve owned five different consoles – seven, if you count replacement consoles bought because I wore out the originals.

Two points. One, it is usually a bad idea to begin a persuasive argument by insulting the intended audience. One typically ingratiates oneself with the intended audience, not make them hate you. It is also a bad idea to play semantics in way that makes it appear you do not understand basic English. The word to describe a person who plays video games is “gamer”.

Two, what in the world was Futrelle doing to his consoles that he “wore out the originals” to the point that he had to buy new ones? I know many people who played games for decades on their systems and never had to replace them. Most of my gamer friends still have their original NES, Genesis, Neo Geo, and Atari systems. Short of having a fan burn out or getting one of the lights of death, you should get plenty of mileage out of your consoles, especially the older ones. Continue reading