How not to have a discussion (or how to have a feminist discussion)

I have not read anything on the Good Men Project since Joanna Schroeder informed me that I am banned because of my critiques the site’s treatment of male survivors and specifically because I am a non-feminist male survivor. That was of little consequence as I only read articles from the site when they appeared in a Google alert, and even then I kept my participation on the site to a limit.

The reason I rarely participated there was because, like many feminist spaces, the Good Men Project suffers from stilted discussions. While some people running the site may want to have open discussions, many of them do not. Rather than exchange ideas, these people prefer conformity to feminist ideas and theories. Any critique of feminism prompts an increasingly hostile response that typically ends with one or more feminists declaring the discussion “impossible” and the comments critical of feminism suddenly disappearing.

In my opinion, that is not how one fosters a discussion. Exchanging ideas can be difficult. People do not always agree, and some disagreements can become testy. However, as long as the anger remains directs at ideas and not people, one should allow those testy discussions because they are the nature of the debate. Blocking such comments only prevents an honest debate from happening.

Sometimes, as is typical at the Good Men Project and other feminist sites, that is the intention. Many ideologues cannot handle any criticism. The more personal their connection to the ideas, the more the ideology forms the core of their identity, and the more likely the ideologues will dislike the comments. Blocking the comments and banning certain people is a way of “controlling” the criticism. It does not actually work, of course. There is nothing stopping people from criticizing those ideas in other spaces. However, it does effectively prevent that kind of discussion from occurring in their spaces.

Such is the case with David Perry’s article The Straight Married White American Male Feminist Manifesto. According to the page, there are 243 comments on the tread, yet a number of them are missing. Perry explained this:

Just for the record, I’m deleting feminist bashing. If people want to deal with the contents of my essay, no matter how critically, I’m delighted to engage in discussion. If people want to take specific models of feminism and critique them, I’m delighted to engage in discussion.

Lots of places on the web to bash feminists. This thread is not one of them.

Here is the problem: Perry removed the comments, so how do we know the comments were bashing feminists? How do we know Perry did not remove comments he had no response for, as the Good Men Project’s moderators tend to do? How do we know that Perry did not take a critical comment the wrong way and assume it was an attack?

Perhaps the reason why Perry sought to silence critical voices is because he cannot answer basic questions about his positions. For instance, Tom Brechlin asked:

Patriarchy implies the institutions of male rule and privilege. So privilege that men commit suicide at almost epidemic level and is rising? . So privileged that men are least to be diagnosed with depression and other mental issues? So privileged that majority of addicts are men? So privileged that most father don’t have custody of their kids? So privileged are the men that they continue to build prisons to house them? So privileged that the enrollment of men in higher education is dropping? So privileged that most of the murders in this country of men? …. Wow, hell of a lot of men sure missed that boat.

To which Perry answered:

The world is full of many problems and many of them attack men directly. But to deny the existence of patriarchy is to mis-understand many of the circumstances that lead to male oppression as well.

Let’s just pick one, the clearest in your example: custody. The reason men lack custody of their children, at the core, is the assumption that women will be responsible for child-rearing. This is an aspect of patriarchy. Undermine patriarchy by promoting gender equality in parental responsibilities, and rights will follow.

I understand your frustration, though, and it can be hard to see.

Thank you for reading and commenting.

Note the circular logic in his initial comment: “the Patriarchy” exists because “The Patriarchy” exists.

Perry’s example of child custody demonstrates the inherent problem with this feminist theory. At the turn of the 19th century, men were typically awarded custody in divorces.This continued well into the 20th century until there was shift in thinking. At that time, many child psychologists argued that a mother and child should not be separated, and that led to more mothers getting custody. In recent years, bias against men has played a larger role. The present assumption is that fathers are inherently less capable of parenting than mothers and less necessary than mothers, so men tend not to get custody. Men are also more likely to work longer hours, so courts will give custody to the mother. Even if the father is the primary caregiver, the child or children are often thought to be better off with the mother.

Challenging those notions does not actually bring more rights. Instead, it brings the opposition to those rights — primarily from feminists. For example, the National Organization of Women opposes shared parenting laws and implies that fathers seeking custody of their children are abusers. That trend occurs in many, if not most, feminist responses to the father’s rights movement.

What Perry fails to acknowledge is that the examples Brechlin gave undermine the notion of “The Patriarchy.” If this oppressive system is as dominant over women and so beneficial for men as feminists claim, how is it that men cannot use their “male privilege” to prevent bad things from happening to them?

The fundamental principle of privilege is the ability exploit it at will. We see this with the wealthy. They often use their status to get their way. Yet it would appear that not only are men incapable of doing that, but they also face tremendous risks, many of which benefit women.

Logic would suggest that we look at the situation in totality. It would also suggest that we drop any ideological perspectives before we take that look lest we project our expectations onto the findings. Perry does not or cannot do that. He is so adamant in his feminism that even when presented with examples disproving his beliefs he hunkers down.

Indeed, such is the extent of his unwillingness to engage in open, honest, objective discussion that Perry requests an example of feminists misrepresenting abuse as largely male against female to perpetuate their theory of “The Patriarchy,” then proceeds to delete the citation, then claims he did not delete it, then admits to deleting it, and then states, “I can find plenty of feminists arguing that rape is rape and gender is irrelevant. It seriously took me 30 seconds, though I had to scroll past the MR sites to get to them. If you want to perpetuate conspiracy theories, you’ll have to do it somewhere else.”

This is kind of intellectually dishonest gamesmanship may wow many feminists, yet it also shows that feminists, particularly academic feminists, cannot engage in a basic discussion without trying to control the facts, and when the facts do not fit into their neat little theories, they bow out of the discussion or delete the critical comments.

What makes this particular exchange hilarious is Perry’s almost neurotic defense of feminism. For example, when Danny asked Perry to explain what male privilege justifies the high suicide rate among boys, Perry completely dodged the question, stating that he did not “know enough about suicide rates to weigh in intelligently on this complex subject”, but if the problem stemmed from gender roles “the solution is more feminism, not less feminism.” This is despite no feminist organization that I know of doing any outreach to help boys with any of their issues.

Yet the truly sad part was this comment:

I am fascinated in this thread how much attention is being paid to boys, though. I’m happy to talk about boys. But 90% of the comments to an essay about girls, with specific examples, has been, “Yeah, but what about me and my son!” It’s disturbing, but perhaps a result of the nature of GMP as a community.

Yes. It is disturbing that on a site supposedly dedicated to talking about men and boys’ lives that “90% of the comments” would talk about boys lives.

Again, it takes a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty to speak to people with reasonable opposition to your political beliefs in that way. Perry later states that he regards these critical voices as “MRA trolls,” and seems to take glee in dodging any meaningful criticism of his ideas.

This is useless in terms of discussion. All Perry seems to want is a pat on the back from other feminists, particularly female feminists, for saying how horrible women have it and how super-duper awesome men have it.

However, it is insightful in terms of the general gender discussion because it shows the ways feminists treat those they disagree with. Perry turns to passive aggressive condescension when the questions get too hard, and when that does not work follows it with victimhood. His failure to answer the most basic questions shows how little he actually thinks about what he believes.

There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. One can believe whatever one wishes to without any proof to support it. One cannot, however, then present those beliefs as fact and keep resorting to catchphrases like “you’re just afraid of losing privilege” when one cannot honestly defend against a simple critique.

I thought of nice ending, but I decided to leave readers with this exchange because it so telling. For frequent readers, Danny is the same man who writes about men’s and race issues, and he is nothing but polite:

Perry:

One definition of troll involves derailment of comment threads, but I have come to understand that in the MRA worldview, every thread about feminism MUST be derailed to how men have it so hard. It’s also important that anyone who expresses positive things about feminism be attacked. To me, that’s trolling. To them, it’s “debate.”

It’s fine, I get it, and I’ve learned a lot watching it.

But until I see some demonstration of empathy, and believe me, I feel lots of empathy for the real parts of the MRA complaint (which has been most of what they bring here, as Tom and Yohann and Danny are very practiced at making GMP threads about them and their needs) – but until I see some empathy, I feel their contributions to discussion are limited and very much fall into the trollish category.

Did you know that I have received multiple emails from people, mostly women, who want to say things about my essay but are afraid to come into the comment thread, because they don’t want to be stomped all over my Tom, Danny, and Yohann (and some people I’ve had banned based on non-published comments)? Does that seem like a safe environment for discussion to you?

Anyway, busy day today. Enjoy the thread.

Danny:

I’ve seen this one a few times. When things get ugly call for empathy, while showing none in return. I’ve been trying to talk to you with the utmost respect (for your views even if they different) and frankly in return you’ve mostly been repeating that I’m wrong because I’m not feminist.

I’ve tried the empathy path before with feminists and I learned the hard way that it doesn’t pay.

This is now just a stand off and we are getting nowhere.

 

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “How not to have a discussion (or how to have a feminist discussion)

  1. “Let’s just pick one, the clearest in your example: custody. The reason men lack custody of their children, at the core, is the assumption that women will be responsible for child-rearing. This is an aspect of patriarchy. ” this always makes me rage so hard given that to this day NOW opposes shared parents and support sole maternal parenting and Warren Farrell left NOW because of those positions 40 years ago. These people are so ignorant of their own movement it’s ridiculous. David Perry and Lindy West are two feminists who get published on fairly successful site who consider themselves ‘journalists’ but they assert that it’s patriarchy that give women custody not the decades of feminist activism with that goal in mind. I guess according to Perry and West The National Organization for Women is patriarchy.

  2. Yeah, this article was an absolute trainwreck, and Perry is one of the most obnoxious, stereotypical, smug hypocrites to ever darken GMP’s door. This is a real step backwards for them. For someone to come on a site like GMP – far from perfect but at least claimed to be broadly about men’s issues, and then make this comment:

    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-straight-married-white-american-male-feminist-manifesto/comment-page-1/#comment-567333

    Containing the gem:

    “But as soon as we see Texas start passing laws limited men’s reproductive freedom, you come right back here and we’ll chat, ok? When the people with wealth and power are equally likely to be female as male. When women, across the board, are paid equally. When girls toys come in shades that aren’t pink or purple and are passive. When women can win a championship without being dissected for their sexual attractiveness. Then maybe I’ll be persuaded to worry about boys rights.”

    It really is the Lindy West nonsense all over again – feminism has your back, now STFU and let’s talk about women some more. And to reiterate, the example he was responding to was the elevated rates of male suicide. But apparently pink toys trumps that.

    I suspect I was banned from GMP by Perry, as I called him a censorious hypocrite at the end of my exchange that followed on from the above comment. At the time, “censorious” was unjustified, but then the spate of deletion of comments and banning that followed would suggest I wasn’t that far off the mark. He doesn’t admit to it in the thread and I have no way of knowing it was him, but he does admit to banning users elsewhere in the thread without naming names.
    Forget his actual tone – for someone with no prior involvement at GMP to be able to go around banning long time users because they disagree strongly with him (and for all his complaints about tone, his constant whinging at people he deems unpersuadable is no worse, chalking up another point for him under hypocrisy) is just absolutely daft, and he is still threatening to ban other users.

    This was nothing short of an attempt to hijack a supposedly male space and make it all about women’s issues. The sort of thing that has feminists tweeting in fury if they think it’s been done to them.

  3. Forget his actual tone – for someone with no prior involvement at GMP to be able to go around banning long time users because they disagree strongly with him […] is just absolutely daft, and he is still threatening to ban other users.

    My understanding is that the moderators and editors give feminist writers invited to write for the site control over their articles. I have seen several feminist writers edit comments, delete them, or close down comments. I have not seen that level of control given to non-feminist writers. I assume this is done to “create a safe space” for feminists.

    I did find it curious that the editors allowed Perry to do this to people who regularly comment and occasionally write articles for the site.

    This was nothing short of an attempt to hijack a supposedly male space and make it all about women’s issues. The sort of thing that has feminists tweeting in fury if they think it’s been done to them.

    The Good Men Project has always been a feminist space, not a male space. While some writers do write about men’s issues, the majority of the articles are either heavily feminist or specifically about women. This article is just one of hundreds.

  4. It seems to me you’ve been engaging with GMP for long than I have, so I’ll take your word for it that this attitude has been present for far longer than I have realised. Perhaps it is simply that non-feminist writers have the same moderation privileges but are less concerned about using them?

    It just seems extremely short-sighted to give a complete newbie that level of moderation power, without knowing how they will (mis)use it. Then again, maybe he won’t be invited back, but that won’t undo the breach of trust that inviting him in in the first place has done. Unless GMP has absolutely no respect for its longstanding membership and wants to start becoming even more overtly feminist. Given that they went through that period where they deleted MRA content from their archives, I suppose it’s not impossible that this is their actual intention. *sigh*

  5. Let’s just pick one, the clearest in your example: custody. The reason men lack custody of their children, at the core, is the assumption that women will be responsible for child-rearing. This is an aspect of patriarchy.

    I find it amazing how neatly and invariably feminists seeking to rationalize this point as “femmephobia” ignore what the gender role is for men in the situation. Of course, given the massively unfair financial judgements and standards when it comes to child support, it’s clear that society expects men to do their part as well. When a convicted statutory rapist can compel child support from her 15-year old victim, and men pay child support even when the court knows the kid isn’t theirs, among other things, one could argue that Western society places more responsibility on men, but with less rights.

    And, of course, note the evasion of the question of how this privileges men.

    “I can find plenty of feminists arguing that rape is rape and gender is irrelevant. It seriously took me 30 seconds, though I had to scroll past the MR sites to get to them. If you want to perpetuate conspiracy theories, you’ll have to do it somewhere else.”

    You know, if you have to admit that MRAs, with a fraction of the power, numbers, and visibility of feminism, are still talking about male abuse erasure more than feminists, something’s wrong.

    Not to mention the fact that feminism manifestly genders abuse all the time. It frequently explicitly says abuse is gendered. I’ve even seen feminists trying to rationalize it by, hypocritically, claiming most abuse victims are M>F. There have been actual legal initiatives to erase male abuse. A few feminists talking about male abuse – usually in a reactive (to accusations that they don’t), not proactive manner – does not mean feminism itself isn’t generally misandric.

    This is kind of intellectually dishonest gamesmanship may wow many feminists, yet it also shows that feminists, particularly academic feminists, cannot engage in a basic discussion without trying to control the facts, and when the facts do not fit into their neat little theories, they bow out of the discussion or delete the critical comments.

    And, on more than one occasion in real life, suppress free speech and break the law. In fact, one feminist group was specifically invited to debate at that third U of Toronto talk, but declined because they claimed their safety couldn’t be guaranteed. Feminists (not sure if the same ones) promised a “militant” response and tried to physically intimidate people going to the talk. There’s an upcoming talk by Men’s Rights Edmonton where they seem to be doing something similar.

    What makes this particular exchange hilarious is Perry’s almost neurotic defense of feminism. For example, when Danny asked Perry to explain what male privilege justifies the high suicide rate among boys, Perry completely dodged the question, stating that he did not “know enough about suicide rates to weigh in intelligently on this complex subject”, but if the problem stemmed from gender roles “the solution is more feminism, not less feminism.”

    “I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion, but I will throw out a boilerplate response.”

    This is despite no feminist organization that I know of doing any outreach to help boys with any of their issues.

    There’s that “The Mask You Live In” documentary, but I suspect it’ll be a thinly disguised “Toxic Masculinity” pitch, especially with Michael Kimmel and Jackson Katz attached to it, mostly focusing on boys’ poor academic performance, which is, of course, blamed on the Patriarchy, not programs like Title IX that feminists pushed for and had Obama claiming girls whupping boys was a “great accomplishment”. In Newsweek. Not to mention those posts you have about the teacher bias.

    Ironically, a lot of feminists on tumblr who reblogged a post about it spent more effort going “see! See! We do care about men’s issues!” than actually discussing masculinity. One even claimed that only feminists talk about these sorts of things, which is so ludicrously false I wonder what reality she lives in. There were over 30,000 Notes on the post at the time, and I doubt she had checked every one. Also ironic is the fact that the most popular reblog chain started when a feminist expected other feminists to tell them that caring about men’s issues wasn’t feminist.

  6. “But as soon as we see Texas start passing laws limited men’s reproductive freedom, you come right back here and we’ll chat, ok?

    I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware men actually had reproductive freedom. Certainly not anything like the options women do.

    When the people with wealth and power are equally likely to be female as male.

    Did…did he literally just argue that because women don’t have as much stuff as men do, they’re oppressed?

    When women, across the board, are paid equally. When girls toys come in shades that aren’t pink or purple and are passive.

    You mean like Merida from Brave? Or Tiana from the Princess and the Frog? Or, heck, Ariel? Or Mulan? Pocahontas? None of which are passive characters?

    When women can win a championship without being dissected for their sexual attractiveness.

    Because people never drool over male athletes or celebrities, and there’s totally not an article on Jezebel explicitly saying it’s okay to objectify male athletes.

    Then maybe I’ll be persuaded to worry about boys rights.”

    So you’ll only worry about men’s rights once you consider women equal with men. Hey, wait a minute!

  7. PS: There have been studies that find that when women run, they’re just as likely to be elected as men. And when women make the same choices as men in the workplace, they get almost the same results. Not to mention that women control more wealth and spend more money than men.

    It sure is interesting how many feminists define “MRA troll” as “anyone who contradicts mainstream feminist dogma”. I was accused of being one twice recently. Neither asked for any actual proof. The second person even explicitly said they weren’t going to “bite”. The funny thing is that the term “troll” basically means “someone who deliberately upsets people”. Our boy is, in effect, admitting that people not talking about what he wants to talk about upsets him. And when other feminists increasingly use the term just for disagreement, and he explicitly describes women being afraid to comment (“The Lurkers Support him in Email”) because they’re afraid people will disagree with them, that it’s not “safe” to express their opinions, that doesn’t speak well of him or feminists.

    It’s also interesting that he describes Patriarchy as a system of male domination, but elsewhere uses deliberately gender-neutral terms to describe it and feminism, despite the terms themselves being clearly gendered. And by his own admission, he doesn’t currently give a toss about men’s issues, yet, IIRC, claims feminism is helping them. What is it with people like Perry and Lindy West and their Schrodinger’s Advocacy?

  8. You know, if you have to admit that MRAs, with a fraction of the power, numbers, and visibility of feminism, are still talking about male abuse erasure more than feminists, something’s wrong.

    I find it more curious that Perry did not link to any of the feminist sites he claimed he found in 30 seconds. I am also curious what he actually searched for because my searches pull up a variety of sites, including feminist sites, on the first page.

    There’s that “The Mask You Live In” documentary, but I suspect it’ll be a thinly disguised “Toxic Masculinity” pitch

    If you watch the promo video, it is clear that it is just another typical “masculinity is bad” feminist exploitation piece. There does not appear to be any genuine concern about the issues boys face.

    It sure is interesting how many feminists define “MRA troll” as “anyone who contradicts mainstream feminist dogma”.

    That is just the feminist version of the boilerplate response that many ideologues throw out when they cannot answer a question. What makes it ironic is that Perry is saying that to people who regularly post and contribute to the Good Men Project.

  9. “Forget his actual tone – for someone with no prior involvement at GMP to be able to go around banning long time users because they disagree strongly with him […] is just absolutely daft, and he is still threatening to ban other users. ”

    This is wonderful news, isn’t it? The place continues to destroy itself and become a laughingstock. Its failure is the tombstone for the claim that feminism is the cure for men’s ills.

  10. And when other feminists increasingly use the term just for disagreement, and he explicitly describes women being afraid to comment (“The Lurkers Support him in Email”) because they’re afraid people will disagree with them, that it’s not “safe” to express their opinions, that doesn’t speak well of him or feminists.(SYABM)

    The funny part about that thought process is this. If a woman came in for a job as, lets say, a firefighter and I assumed she was too weak for the job I would be called a sexist. Yet in this instance we are supposed to be concerned for them because they are “afraid” or don’t feel “safe”. If I believed that wouldn’t that mean I think they are weaker than men and less able to hold their own in discussions. Which obviously is sexist. Go figure.

  11. Yet in this instance we are supposed to be concerned for them because they are “afraid” or don’t feel “safe”.

    It is not just that you are to be concerned, but that you are also supposed to protect those fearful women. You must stop doing anything that makes them feel afraid, even if that means questioning their ideas.

    If I believed that wouldn’t that mean I think they are weaker than men and less able to hold their own in discussions. Which obviously is sexist. Go figure.

    Or it could mean that you think men are inherently bullies when it comes to discussions and seek to make everything about them, which is also obviously sexist, and yet is actually Perry’s position.

  12. “It is not just that you are to be concerned, but that you are also supposed to protect those fearful women. You must stop doing anything that makes them feel afraid, even if that means questioning their ideas”

    Tip-toeing around the fears of white women. Didn’t we just see how much grief that can lead to?

  13. “When the people with wealth and power are equally likely to be female as male.”

    53% of voters in the last US election were women, so if you don’t like who was elected don’t blame men (entirely).

    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main

    Feminists clearly don’t want a real discussion. The group that put up the “Don’t Be That Girl” posters saved a portion of a recent talk show just for feminists to call up and debate the issues, but no one did. Then, almost immediately after, some feminists announced plans to crash the men’s groups next meeting.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/feminist-no-show-during-avfm-news-and-activism-show-scheduled-just-for-them/

  14. Tip-toeing around the fears of white women. Didn’t we just see how much grief that can lead to?

    I find that no matter how progressive many male feminists are, their chivalry inevitably kicks in.

  15. Peterman, this reminds me of Glenn Sacks’ old radio show. He would accept callers, and most often the callers were men and women who agreed with him. Sacks would go out of his way to allow feminist callers to speak and continue to give them lots of time, yet he rarely had many feminist callers. I think part of that is some feminists avoiding the situation because they cannot control. I think the other part is that many feminists simply do not know how to respond.

  16. David Perry is a very arrogant individual. I’d love to get him in a meeting room or similar setting where he can’t simply turn his back and ignore others. The GMP scenario is too enabling of the fingers in ears, la-la-la stuff I’m afraid.

  17. Greg, I am not sure things would play out any differently in person. Perry’s responses remind of Bill O’Reilly. It does not matter to him whether there is counter evidence. He has already made up his mind.

  18. A conversation that is restricted to following feminist-approved guidelines can never be a conversation at all–only a lecture. And men have heard enough of those.

  19. To be fair, Perry does a lot of o-waiy-waly about his own delicate sensibilities. He and other feminists will not be safe until there’s some way to create an internet comments section with a fainting couch.

  20. “I find that no matter how progressive many male feminists are, their chivalry inevitably kicks in.”

    Feminism is built on traditionalist assumptions about gender and feminist advocacy depends on chivalry. Why should feminist men be any different?

  21. Feminism is built on traditionalist assumptions about gender and feminist advocacy depends on chivalry. Why should feminist men be any different?

    It is just wishful thinking on my part that they would realize the irony of their actions.

  22. Well, The Good Men Project has now officially crossed the line into being just another division of those mainstream feminist magazines like Jezebel. Only difference is they lure men in with the promise that it’ll be a safe space for free discussion on their fears and hopes while slipping in a small print of provisions that include “Only use language inclusive of feminists and feminism” and “Be nice to feminists no matter what.” and “Feminism is good for you and good for men.”

    I was going to write a letter of disappointment to Lisa but decided against it. In fact, I’ve decided to reduce my comment level there because I find it a waste of psychological energy to read garbage like the article linked. I also can’t afford to climb my way out of the pit of despair thanks to the triggers articles like this bring.

    Look, I have no problem when they claim to welcome new ideas. However, I take umbrage with giving authors like that ignorant David Perry free reign to moderate supposed “Dissenters” and “MRA Trolls” into oblivion. That’s not inviting discussion, that’s pushing propaganda. Part and parcel for fascist dictatorships but not for a publication purporting to be about Men and their issues. Though, at this point, that illusion is constantly shattered into pieces so much as to make both indistinguishable.

    Sadder still is they’re using my work as well to lure men with such false pretenses. All those articles I wrote for male and boy survivors, the safe haven they helped me start up for survivors of abuse, the attempts I made to engage feminists there, all of it rendered meaningless the more they make such missteps. My work is looking more and more of an ode to a more tolerant time than a reflection of current standards they’ve employed (doubly so now that Tom Matlack is gone).

    That’s enough of my rant. Thank you for doing an article on this, Toysoldier. You also read my mind as I was about to request you look into it. God bless you, ten-fold! 🙂

  23. Sadder still is they’re using my work as well to lure men with such false pretenses.

    That is why I asked them to remove my articles from their site. I do not think it is fair to use my experiences to garner attention for their site while they refuse to publish any of my comments. That sort of exploitation is unfair and dishonest. I am waiting to see if they will actually remove the articles or if I will have to ask them to remove them for the sixth time in two months.

  24. Well, this is interesting – hope it stays up:. And I may be wrong, but the comments on this article appear to be shut again.

    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-straight-married-white-american-male-feminist-manifesto/comment-page-3/#comment-572113

    Transcript as follows, from user Yohan, July 30, 2013 at 1.37pm

    Just for information, I wrote to the GMP to ask about its moderation policy, and I receive the following reply

    Hi Johann,
    It is absolutely our goal to have an open dialogue and to continue to talk about men’s issues from a wide variety of viewpoints.
    However, commenters who continually try to disprove what an author is saying are considered attacking that author.
    It is an attack on the author’s beliefs, an attack on their intelligence and it is an attack on their thinking.
    We do not have the resources to devote a full time moderator to the posts, so we are letting authors who want moderate their own.
    But we will always stand by the author if we are forced to make a choice.
    Lisa

    It’s a somewhat new moderation policy, I am sure it was not always like that.
    Up to the GMP, it’s their website, they can do whatever they like.

    As far as I understand this email from Lisa, authors can do with their threads whatever they want.
    However it is possible to submit your own articles and become an author yourself – regardless if you are feminist or MRA.

  25. OirishM, while it is possible for anyone to submit articles, GMP ultimately chooses what articles to publish. They also choose who gets to control the articles. I was unable to moderate any of my articles on GMP. To the contrary, every comment I made on my own pieces when into moderation. It would appear that GMP only allows feminists some element of control over their articles.

  26. I also want to add that I suspected this was the unspoken moderation policy for some time. I noticed over the years that any criticism of men and men’s rights activists is allowed while any criticism of feminism is taken as an ad hominem. I have also noticed that Lisa and others who control GMP are more candid in their emails than in public.

  27. “However, commenters(sic) who continually try to disprove what an author is saying are considered (to be) attacking that author.”

    How bizarre. My inclination is to correct things that are wrong. In essence GMP want the right to create their own truth. They will not only permit a lie to go unchallenged but will go so far as to prevent any challenge to that lie.

    I have questioned their integrity previously. I take this as proof that they have none.

  28. How bizarre. My inclination is to correct things that are wrong. In essence GMP want the right to create their own truth. They will not only permit a lie to go unchallenged but will go so far as to prevent any challenge to that lie.

    I think it is more basic than that. GMP has struggled to maintain its feminist credibility since it first launched. Every thing they have done seems to revolve around pleasing the feminist community, from running attack pieces on men’s rights activists to barring any criticism of feminism or feminists. When I read Lisa’s comment, I try to imagine what would happen if someone wrote something about feminism the audience did not like. If people questioned the author’s point, would Lisa consider that an attack? I cannot think of a single instance in which feminists openly attacked men, male survivors, and men’s rights activist on GMP where any of the editors or moderators stepped in to stop the attack.

  29. I actually was initially searching for tips for my web site and stumbled upon your post,
    “How not to have a discussion (or how to have a feminist
    discussion) | Toy Soldiers”, will you mind if perhaps I actually use a handful
    of of ur concepts? Many thanks ,Mel

  30. I hope you’ll find this a relevant link:

    From lean in, Sheryl Sanderg’s organization

    The Secret to an Equal Marriage? Ask for What You Need.
    Sharon Meers, the author of ‘Getting to 50/50,’ wasn’t so sure her future husband was ready to lean in to an equal relationship. So she wrote him a list of exactly what she needed.

    http://leanin.org/news-inspiration/the-secret-to-an-equal-marriage-ask-for-what-you-need/

    Read the article, then read all of the comments, …

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