All About (Wo)Men

Tom Matlack wrote in a piece for the Good Men Project:

The most disappointing, and in fact dangerous, aspects of the Good Men Project’s success, in my view, has been the extent to which we have been sucked into a debate over gender theory in general and feminism in particular. Whether or not you agree with any of the wide variety of definitions of feminism, the Good Men Project is not about gender theory and it certainly isn’t about feminism. Or at the very least that was never my goal in founding it.

Unfortunately, that is what the site became. The Good Men Project is more the Good Feminist Men Project. Spend any time on the site and one will find an abundance of left-leaning, feminist-focused articles. As Jack Donovan notes in an article about the site:

Any discussion about men which involves females or feminist males will eventually become a discussion about what women want from men.

Alex Bove’s recent piece provides an excellent example of that. Bove questions the nature of “real” masculinity in his article:

While we might be inclined applaud the “positive” message that “real” men don’t look like soccer stars and models, I think we ought to question whether any group of men ought to claim the mantle of the real. I endorse a maximally-inclusive version of masculinity that embraces cisgender men, transmen, men of color, gay, straight, and omnisexual men (and asexual men too), vegans and hunters, atheists and Baptists, young and old men, men of all physical and mental abilities, and yes (gasp!), even masculine-identified women. I will not accept an unexamined conception of gender.

This is a laughably stupid position for two reasons.

One: if all “conceptions” of masculinity are accepted, including “masculine-identified women”, the very idea of masculinity is rendered moot as it would describe whatever one wanted it describe. That defeats the purpose of a definition. One must define what masculinity means on a basic level in order to be able to apply it anything.

Two: endorsing “a maximally-inclusive version of masculinity” means that Bove will accept an unexamined conception of gender as long as it fits within his ironically narrow feminist definition of masculinity, i.e if it is “maximally inclusive.” That definition does not include all “conceptions” of masculinity. It only includes the ones feminists find acceptable.

He goes on to state:

Conversations about “real” men abound in the men’s rights blogosphere and are usually couched as battles between authentic men and limp-wristed, so-called “beta” males. A term has been coined for these men: “manginas.” […] On one level, ridiculing men by calling them women is classic misogyny. The insult only works if observers believe that being a woman is a bad thing

No, the observer need only believe that being woman is a bad thing for a man. Furthermore, it is not clear that such a view is misogyny. Women are subject to the same type of insult, yet no one claims that accusing a woman of being “mannish” is misandry.

or that displaying womanly traits is unmanly.

And it makes sense given that masculinity and femininity are not the same thing. Men value their separate identity from women. They do not want to be women, so they will reject anything that would make them appear womanly.

This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with how identity works. A great analogy is how some black people will avoid “acting white” in an effort to assert their black identity. It is not that they fear or hate white people; it is only that they want a separate identity.

Of course, none of those traits are limited to white people, so the correct response is not to claim that a person must get in touch with their inner whiteness or redefine the black identity to make it “maximally inclusive”, but to simply accept that those traits are a part of everyone and therefore when a black person engages in them he is asserting his black identity, not “acting white.”

Likewise, when a man cries or empathizes with someone, he is not getting in touch with his feminine side, but expressing an aspect of his masculinity he usually does not express.

However, Bove makes a broader mistake. The term “mangina” has nothing to do with questioning a man’s masculinity. The term refers to a man who is essentially a self-made sock-puppet for feminists. He acts as a white knight for feminists, agreeing with whatever positions they hold and disagreeing with anything men say. He adopts the common feminist tact of “woman good, man bad” and sticks to it no matter what.

Bove continues:

But I don’t think the primary purpose of the “mangina” epithet is to place non-gender-conforming men in the same category as women: rather, the goal is to circumscribe the category of “real” men. This strategy still reinforces a binary, but the binary is not so much man/woman as it is man/not-man.

While one can understand Bove’s dislike of the binary, he appears to forget that the binary is the very nature of an identity. People create identities to differentiate one group from another. So there is American and not-American, Jewish and not-Jewish, gay and not-gay, male and not-male. There is no conspiracy there. It is simply the way identities work. People must define what traits make up the identity and which do not. This is not an issue unless a group of people who do not fit in that identity for some reason want in.

Yet it appears Bove’s actual problem is the criticism of feminist ideas. As he writes:

The worst thing about being a mangina, according to men’s rights advocates, is that it requires a man to mask his true identity, all because of feminism’s nefarious influence. As MRA Jack Donovan says in his critique of the Good Men Project:

if you let women dictate what kinds of male feelings are acceptable, you’re going to get a site that’s about what men think women want to hear — not a site about who men really are.

The proposition that “who men really are” is unacceptable to women is only true if we assume an essential (real) masculinity, from which all other masculinities (along with the entirety of female experience, of course) must be excluded.

True to feminist form, Bove misses Donovan’s point. Here is Donovan’s full remark:

Tom, if you want to hear men’s stories, you have to make it OK for them to say what they actually feel, without worrying what women want to hear.  That’s the only way you’re going to make the website feel as “real” as your book felt. That’s how you’re going to involve average guys, and not just the gender studies crowd. If you let the Noah Brands and Jesse Kornbluths and Hugo Schwyzers run things, if you let women dictate what kinds of male feelings are acceptable, you’re going to get a site that’s about what men think women want to hear — not a site about who men really are.

Donovan objects to the idea that women, feminists in particular, should get to define masculinity and men’s experiences for men rather than allowing men to define those things themselves. His point holds true. Most feminist commentary about men and masculinity does not sound anything like what men express on their own. Rather than encouraging discussion, feminists shut it down by forcing everything through their ideology and opposing anyone who rejects that practice, as Bove illustrates:

It requires us to accept that all men are one specific thing. Since feminism embraces the theory that gender is constructed, and therefore provisional, it allows for the existence of more than one masculinity. A flexible notion of gender can be threatening, especially to those who believe that authenticity is the sine qua non of masculinity.

The notion does not require people to accept that all men are one specific thing. It simply requires us to accept that masculinity is specifically tied to being male, and therefore only men can define it.

Feminists reject what they term “traditional” masculinity. If masculinity is tied to being male, then it is inherent and biological in nature. This contradicts feminists’ politically motivated view that gender is a social construct, and as a result they object to the idea of men defining masculinity and manhood.

Bove tries to counter this argument:

Anti-feminists sometimes frame this threat as an existential one, but challenges to traditional masculinity only threaten masculine privilege. No one is suggesting that “manly” men ought not to be allowed in the club. What we are saying, however, is that we want to diversify the membership (to torture the metaphor).

There are no feminists who accept “manly” men in the club. Even Bove treats “manly” masculinity as little more than “privilege”. This is a clear code that behaving in a “traditional” masculine way is bad. If feminists took no issue with “manly” men there would be no need to constantly remind the reader of this “privilege.” If feminists took no issue with “traditional” masculinity there would be no problem with the majority of men choosing “manly” masculinity over other “forms.”

Yet we see that feminists do take issue with “traditional” masculinity, and do have a problem when men practice it or prefer it. This statement:

One way to view the “threat” of diversity is to see it as an incursion, and to imagine that the small, exclusive club of masculinity will become overcrowded (and we all know how much men like to stretch their legs and relax).

is an excellent example of that. It is nothing but a dig at the men who prefer “traditional” masculinity.

But another way to see it is as an opportunity for expansion, allowing everyone to have the same amount of space in a much bigger building.

Except that is not what it does. The “opportunity for expansion” seeks to define for men what masculinity and manhood is, most notably by allowing people who reject or oppose masculinity and manhood to define it in a way that best suits them. It favors the opinions of women, feminists, effeminate gay men, and trans men, arguing that this minority of people should be the purveyors of masculinity. This would be akin to allowing agnostics to define religion.

Bove goes on to state:

We must criticize elements of masculinity that may be harmful to both women and men, but doing so should not dehumanize men who identify with those traits. It’s possible (preferable, even) to discuss what has historically been “wrong” with masculinity without  throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.

Yet that is what he does:

I’m not suggesting that we take away hypermasculine men’s right to call themselves masculine. I also don’t think, as Jack Donovan does, that openly criticizing traditional masculinity is a form of “explaining to men what they are doing wrong, and what feminists think those men should be doing instead, so that women can be happier or feel safer in some way.”

Calling them “hypermasculine men” implies that there is something wrong with what they are doing (without ever specifying what that is). Criticism of a person’s identify will inevitably lead to dehumanizing and demonizing them because the foundation of the criticism is that people are doing something “wrong” by adopting that identity.

The mistake that feminists make is in ironically conforming to the very gender binary they claim they want to remove:

Ultimately, it would be wonderful to remove the gender binary altogether and to see gender expression as falling somewhere along a continuum (and as fluid, open to change throughout a person’s lifetime). Why should my vulnerability, compassion, and empathy be in conflict with my self-sufficiency, stoicism, and toughness? These things don’t feel contradictory to me.

They are not, and anyone who bothers to actually study historical expressions of masculinity throughout the world would know that plenty of cultures include vulnerability, compassion, and empathy as important parts of masculinity. Men are actually expected to do this because one cannot be a good protector if one does not care about those one protects.

Only feminists seem ignorant of this basic element of masculinity, and that appears to result from their assumption that they know all there is to know about masculinity. Instead of listening to men and gathering as much information as they can (as Tom Matlack attempted), feminists only want to hear from men who reject conforming to masculinity. They only want to hear from trans men or effeminate gay men. They only want to hear from the man mocked for crying or the boy who is not athletic.

They do not want to hear from men in general. They do not want to hear war stories. They do not want to hear prison stories. They do not want to hear the stories of male bonding or friendships, the stories of fathers and sons, or the stories of brotherhood.

They only want to hear the stories that support their narrow worldview.

As a result, they not only fail to understand why men behave as they do, but also fail to understand why having a separate identity is so important for men and boys.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “All About (Wo)Men

  1. “Men value their separate identity from women. They do not want to be women, so they will reject anything that would make them appear womanly. This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with how identity works.”

    And this is exactly why I don’t consider myself a woman. My identity is not feminine, I dislike things that bring attention to my physical womanhood, and often can’t understand why “other” women think as they do. When I am forced to wear makeup/dresses, it feels as though I’m crossdressing. When I’m told to sit as a woman does, I’m very uncomfortable. Unfortunately, I was born a high testosterone female…and have a male identity.

    However, I understand that there are biological men who would say that’s too bad for me…I’m still physically (if not mentally) a woman. Others would say that because I don’t have a penis, I’m not a man…but if I have an operation to get one, I would be. Yet others would say that if I truly reject femininity in all it’s forms…then they consider me a male. It’s a tricky subject, and if I could wave a magic wand to permanently change me into a man, I’d do it in a heartbeat. No hesitation whatsoever.

    But I can’t. And as much as it may hurt to never be the sex I should have been, it is not *my* place to tell biological men what masculinity means. Instead, I sit on the sidelines, listen to bio men discuss this, and do my damnedest to live up to the traits they deem masculine. To try anything else is to force a minority belief on a majority, without even the question of morality to back it up.

    Though doing so would certainly help me, I cannot condone it and still think of myself as a free thinking man.

  2. However, I understand that there are biological men who would say that’s too bad for me…I’m still physically (if not mentally) a woman.

    I would not say it is too bad for you, only that your situation is not the same as men’s. I do not think that masculinity is based on how someone feels. Masculinity is an extension of maleness in the same way that femininity is an extension of femaleness. No matter what behavior one engages in, that behavior would by default be an extension of one’s sex unless one is consciously attempting to gender bend.

    In other words, if a gay man is particularly expressive, that behavior is masculine, not feminine unless he is attempting to mimic what people perceive to be feminine characteristics. What makes it masculine is that he is male, not the behavior its. The same applies in the reverse. When a woman is assertive, she is being feminine, not masculine, precisely because she is a woman.

  3. Archy, I would suspect that the editors ran a couple of male-focused articles that did not mention feminism. The editors usually follow up those articles with feminist-heavy pieces.

  4. That’s an odd way of putting it, at least to me. So even though my thoughts, my reactions, my perceptions, my sexuality, and my personality is far more typical of all men I’ve known (and no women I’ve met yet) the fact I was accidentally born female means those traits are all female ones? That seems counterintuitive, as that would mean there are NO masculine/feminine behaviors or traits.

  5. Please note that I’m not trying to say your beliefs are without merit. I think they make sense in a general way, or at least would be a great way to think of men/women who were secure and happy in their bodies (aka people who believe themselves to fully be what their bodies are).
    I really don’t expect anyone who *hasn’t* lived with gender dysphoria to understand. I just think that if naturally having a certain sex’s traits, thought patterns, and behaviors means nothing to that sex…then aren’t we just arguing that a male/female body is all that is necessary to be a male/female?

    Again, just seems strange…

  6. So even though my thoughts, my reactions, my perceptions, my sexuality, and my personality is far more typical of all men I’ve known (and no women I’ve met yet) the fact I was accidentally born female means those traits are all female ones?

    Yes, because all humans have the capacity to express any trait. No trait is unique to one group of people. When we used terms like masculinity and femininity, we are simply describing the behaviors done by males and females respectively.

    That seems counterintuitive, as that would mean there are NO masculine/feminine behaviors or traits.

    It depends on what traits you are speaking of. Physical traits are inherent to each sex. On average, men have a larger, muscular build, so one could argue that a woman with a similar frame appears masculine. Yet I do not think that emotions are inherent to a given sex. In other words, I do not think that men are inherently assertive, therein making assertiveness a masculine trait. I would agree, however, that men may have a way of expressing assertiveness that differs from women, so one might consider that expression masculine.

    In general, I think that masculinity is simply the behavior males engage in without any attempt to adopt feminine characteristics. It is essentially just what males do.

    I just think that if naturally having a certain sex’s traits, thought patterns, and behaviors means nothing to that sex…then aren’t we just arguing that a male/female body is all that is necessary to be a male/female?

    The problem is that all members of a sex do not share the same behavior and thought patterns. More so, we do not define one’s sex by one’s thought pattern; we define it by one’s biological status, specifically one’s chromosomes. In that sense, yes, one simply needs a male body to be male and a female body to be female.

  7. @Soldier

    Hmm. Yours is quite the different viewpoint from mine, but then I’ve thought about sexual differences for the majority of my life. I get where you are coming from, but still respectfully disagree due to my personal experiences and research. I do appreciate our conversation though. It’s good to hear opposite views from others…keeps the mind active! 🙂

  8. The thing with Tom Matlack and his original aim:

    I’m of two minds here. One is that he genuinely wanted a place where men can tell their stories as is without conforming to mainstream standards or gynocentric scrutiny. So it’s painful for him to have his magazine’s original goals hijacked.

    But here’s where my sympathies end: He should’ve realized what he was getting himself into when he collaborated with people of a feminist background. Now I will preface that not all feminists are like this but many of them have a strict bias about what makes a man in accordance to women’s issues alone. Anyone who questions that bias is likely to get thrown to the wolves. Tom learned this, the hard way, after that article he wrote that was criticized heavily (I think it was about being a dude) and the personal squabble Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwartz, et all, goaded him into for going against their bigotry.

    Tom did this to himself and he’s paid the price.

  9. Eagle, I doubt Matlack thought about the potential fallout when dealing with feminists. I doubt he even knew that so many of them would turn on him the moment he did something they did not like.

    What continues to confuse me is why he only worked with feminists. Most men are not feminists and most feminists are not men. Feminists rarely talk about men’s issue, let alone tell men’s stories. Involving feminists in a site dedicated to sharing men’s stories makes as much sense as involving Christian Evangelicals in a site dedicated to sharing gay people’s stories.

    Worse, he allowed the most antagonistic feminists to control his site. Marcotte and Schwyzer had a known history of opposing any discussion about men’s issues and stories. Why bring them in? When he saw how most of the articles discussed feminist concerns, Matlack should have said something about it. Instead, he allowed feminists to take control of the content.

    Now most of the content is written by women, and little that is written by men is written for a liberal, feminist audience. Few men submit their stories, and even fewer are published. That is the opposite of Matlack’s goal.

  10. Then where does that leave us, stonerwithaboner?

    If we can’t turn to feminism or Mens Rights, what then? Getting things done on your own and then everything will start to pay off is a myth. Nobody can get things done strictly on their own. It’s one solitary individual (or a collection) against a majority.

    TS: “Eagle, I doubt Matlack thought about the potential fallout when dealing with feminists. I doubt he even knew that so many of them would turn on him the moment he did something they did not like.”

    I was about to add being naive as another fault: Sheltered from how things really work in the gender debate when it comes to feminists. He has this view that every feminist that exists has the best interests of men in mind when that is FAR from the truth.

    TS: “What continues to confuse me is why he only worked with feminists. Most men are not feminists and most feminists are not men. Feminists rarely talk about men’s issue, let alone tell men’s stories. Involving feminists in a site dedicated to sharing men’s stories makes as much sense as involving Christian Evangelicals in a site dedicated to sharing gay people’s stories.”

    Again, he sees feminism as “Equality for both sexes”. It’s unfortunate.

    TS: “Worse, he allowed the most antagonistic feminists to control his site. Marcotte and Schwyzer had a known history of opposing any discussion about men’s issues and stories. Why bring them in? When he saw how most of the articles discussed feminist concerns, Matlack should have said something about it. Instead, he allowed feminists to take control of the content.”

    Yeah, he shoulders the blame for how The Good Men Project turned out as much as the people who are left running it. I’ve even had my share of vehement disagreements with him, especially over romanticizing the main character in the “Hornet’s Nest” trilogy of books and the movie adaptions.

    Like I said, he never understood (or maybe even cared about) the reality of gender politics regarding feminism and it only bit him in the rear. His root of the project was noble. How e went about it…a giant clusterbomb of a disaster.

  11. @stonerwithaboner

    I’ll echo Eagle35 and ask what you’d suggest people do? Perhaps the manosphere needs more real life activists rather than keyboard warriors to talk about male rights and equality…but it has to start *somewhere*. Unless you believe that if enough men GTOW and enough women speak out against Feminism that the situation will change itself, and the pendulum will swing back just enough for society to have true equality? Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening without more action…

  12. @Tarnished

    I’ve been attempting to “(re)define” masculinity for a couple of years. in that time I have explored a variety of definitions and taken a number of approaches, none successfully. But I have learned a lot about masculinity in that time. First I’ll agree with TS, with only a couple of exceptions there are no behaviors that are unique to either sex. The exceptions being reproductive. Men cannot get pregnant, bear children, or breastfeed, and sexual activity must be performed somewhat differently. However, each sex appears to have tendencies to perform more or less of certain behaviors. These tendencies may vary between cultures, but become codified into masculine and feminine behavior and are then associated with masculine or feminine identities. This is how gender is constructed.

    Where it all goes wrong is in the creation of firm gender roles wherein members of one gender are not permitted to transcend their role and cross over into the role of the other gender. That is what feminists rebel against (supposedly). But even they have been unable to redefine masculinity or femininity to any large degree. They have redefined what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior for each gender by expanding what is acceptable for women and restricting what is acceptable for men. while many women have embraced this expansion of the feminine, most men reject the restriction of the masculine. This is why allowing feminists to define masculinity doesn’t work. It leaves non-feminist male voices out of the discussion and because of that a workable defnition of masculinity is impossible.

    I also agree with TS in reference to your own behaviors. You are female. that isn’t going to change (even a sex change will not change anything but your outward appearance). Your behaviors, thoughts, ideas and feelings may lie more towards the masculine end of the continuum, but that does not make you a man. There is nothing wrong with that. But it does go against what society expects which is likely why you experience the cognitive dissonance and cannot accept that yours is just another way of expressing femininity.

    @swab

    “the MRM and man-0-sphere is a pretty big fail, and if anything a parody of hate movement feminism…”

    I see this stated a lot, but see very little basis for it. The so-called “man-o-sphere” is a conglomerate of blogs on a variety of subjects. There really is no unity. The only common factor is that these blogs are generally by men, for men, and about men. Otherwise, they are pretty much about anything. As for men’s rights, until recently there hasn’t been much of a movement. It is only been voices shouting into the wilderness. Those voices are only beginning to be heard by the MSM and discussion of men’s issues is beginning to take place.

  13. Eagle and Tarnished…

    My worldview isn’t the same as most, but…

    some things are best left to fail. The banksters should’ve been left to fail and not given a bailout. AVfM and TGMP are cesspools that are toxic to (low status) men and should be berated and ripped to shreds whenenver possible.

    One of many failings of AVfM was when Elam histrionically attacked a MGTOW named Stardusk. Those bigots will turn on you the second you question their dogma. And I won’t associate with Elam, Typhon Blue, Bernie Chapin or any of the other self-proclaimed voices for men. They ARE NOT my voice.

    I do believe that opting-out is the most effective method of resistance. What happens when the elites can’t get anyone to fight their worthless wars?

    No, Jack Don-0-van is no an ally of mine and I’ll be against him just as I am against, Futrelle, Elam, Schwyzer, Forney, Thorne and all the rest….

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/12/mighty-white/

  14. fancy that, I’m in moderation…

    That was because of the link. WordPress likes to ignore my settings from time to time, and will put any comment with a link in moderation, including my own if I comment without logging in.

  15. @TDOM

    Were it only gender roles that I went against, I’d wholeheartedly agree with you and Soldier. I believe that a woman who enjoys working on cars, playing football, and ruthlessly climbing the corporate ladder is expressing atypical behavior for a woman…but probably still thinks of herself as a woman. I believe that a man who enjoys practicing ballet, baking pastries, and being a househusband is expressing atypical behavior for a man…but probably still thinks of himself as a man. Lesbians are not lesser women, gays are not lesser men. Honestly, I’d like it if there was no “masculine behavior” or “feminine behavior”: They should just be expressions of behavior, without the stereotypes.

    And yes, I have female reproductive parts (though I may be infertile), and you are correct that a sex change would be unable (with current technology) to alter my DNA or chromosomes. I have no choice but to accept this reality.

    But that does not change the fact that I have a higher level of testosterone that a typical woman, or that the one MRI scan that I volunteered for showed that I processed information more like a man would than a woman would. Nor does it change the fact that I suffer from bodily dissonance as well as mental dissonance…it makes me extremely uncomfortable to know I have a female body, since it feels wrong. Like I said, if I could physically change into a male, I’d do it immediately.

    I’m quite happy to speak about this more, but I feel that Soldier’s blog is the wrong place to do so. If anyone would like to continue this discussion, I’d welcome you to visit me here:

    http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/tag/gender-identity-disorder/

  16. “I see this stated a lot, but see very little basis for it. The so-called “man-o-sphere” is a conglomerate of blogs on a variety of subjects. There really is no unity. The only common factor is that these blogs are generally by men, for men, and about men.”

    TDOM,

    maybe you will think this is funny…

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/teh-manosphere-is-devolving/

    I do think many of the ideologies within the man-0-sphere are incompatible…

    IE PUA and MGTOW.

    I used to think MGTOW and MRA’s could co-exist but after seeing Elam’s shabby treatment of Stardusk, I don’t think that way any more…

    (Ironically PE said “adios man-0-sphere after many of us ardently tried to tell him what a cesspool Inmalafide turned into.)

    …also, I am personally against most of what the so-called Alter-righties like GL Piggy, Matt Forney and Jack Don-0-van promote such as HBD. I am against them just as I am against misandrist feminist’s like Futrelle, Marcotte , Thorne and Schwyzer.

    I am sure I appear as an extremely disagreeable fellow here, so be it…

  17. @swab

    “I do think many of the ideologies within the man-0-sphere are incompatible…”

    I’m not sure that MGTOW and PUA are ideologies as much as lifestyles. I often don’t read the comments at AVfM unless they are made about something I wrote and I don’t recall what happened between Elam and Stardusk, but I know there are many MGTOW who still write for that site so I’m guessing it was over some other disagreement rather than a rejection of MGTOW.

    “I am sure I appear as an extremely disagreeable fellow here, so be it…”

    If we were all in agreement there would be no point to this or any other blog. Sort of like TGMP. and yes, I remember reading that article a while back. Your blog isn’t one of my regular stops, but I find my way there occasionally.

  18. TDOM,

    I do believe that the rift between MRA and MGTOW will grow…

    I don’t believe that MRA’s and MGTOW’s necessarily see the world differently but I do believe that they have different responses…

    IE an MRA believe in activism whereas a MGTOW believes in “opting out.”

    MGTOW can be practiced on an individual level whereas MRA looks to be practiced on a group level with people I have NO desire to interact with.

    I’ve also seen Bernie Chapin attack Barbarosaaa…

    strange, men who mostly want to be let alone to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness get attacked by feminist’s and MRA’s….

    Why are Elam and Futrelle so threatened???

  19. @swab

    “Why are Elam and Futrelle so threatened???”

    I missed the rift with Elam and couldn’t care less about Futrelle. but you are right about MRA being a group thing and MGTOW simply opting out. That is my one criticism of MGTOW. Activits actively try to make things better. the only way to do that is to band together. MGTOW is simply a withdrawal that doesn’t accomplish much except for the individual man.

  20. “MGTOW is simply a withdrawal that doesn’t accomplish much except for the individual man.”

    agree to disagree…

    in an increasingly atomized society, individual men “opting out” will do more that a thousand men protesting…

    people have wrongly compared MGTOW to lesbian separatist feminists…

    “Why are Elam and Futrelle so threatened???”

    …my take on it is because they can’t control these men…

    what can you say to men who might say they are

    a. done with women

    b. will only have sex with prostitutes

    c. will only have 1 night stands…

    these men cannot be controlled by shame or insults…

    “man up” will be met with why should I…

    let MGTOW have their video games, time to pursue artistic/musical goals, freedom, etc. etc…

    best part, it’s an ethical response to an unethical system. There’s no threats of violence or an imposition on others rights.

    maybe men will finally start living as long as women with less heart disease climbing the corporate ladder, impressing women and chasing the next promotion…

  21. maybe men will finally start living as long as women with less heart disease climbing the corporate ladder, impressing women and chasing the next promotion…(SWAB)

    Or……………thinking later on they missed out on something. I will check in on your writing over the next few years(if you continue). I have a sneaky suspicion it will have taken a different turn. 🙂

  22. Feminist policy is that all discussion of gender issues must proceed along feminist-approved lines, including an emphasis on women’s victimhood and men’s culpability for their suffering. So when you put feminists in charge of a site for men’s discussions, the outcome is predictable: only those men who agree with the agenda may participate.

    Men must agree to keep the focus on women and how to solve their problems. Since TGMP is a site ‘for men,’ the discussion must revolve around how men are failing to meet women’s expectations and what men can do to better serve women’s needs. Just like every other feminist-dominated discussion (which, according to feminism, is the ONLY type of gender-issues discussion that can ever occur).

    TGMP always reserved a special loathing for men’s rights activists and deployed a select set of shaming insults to throw at MGTOW… because the idea of men talking about what really matters to them, without regard for what’s best for women, terrified and infuriated them. That’s why the Good Men Project has become a joke.

  23. @Copyleft

    “…because the idea of men talking about what really matters to them, without regard for what’s best for women, terrified and infuriated them.”

    That’s ridiculous, even just on the face of it. It’s like having someone go to group therapy, but no one at the therapy is allowed to talk about their problems…and all they can discuss is how their problems affect everyone EXCEPT themselves. How is that supposed to be beneficial to the therapy goers, much less the people who actually want to help them?

  24. It’s like having someone go to group therapy, but no one at the therapy is allowed to talk about their problems…and all they can discuss is how their problems affect everyone EXCEPT themselves. How is that supposed to be beneficial to the therapy goers, much less the people who actually want to help them?

    Tarnished, is not meant to benefit men; it is mean to benefit women. The point is to get men to support the feminist position by admitting their privilege. It is no different than when some religions require new converts to admit their sins. This is not done to help the convert but to shore up the religious beliefs and make the existing followers feel superior.

  25. I realize that, which is why I wrote that it’s so ridiculous. If TGMP was meant to be for men, it should either be taken back for men and supporters of men OR a new site should be created that specifically disregards such blatant feminist writings.

  26. Tarnished, I doubt that any of the current team working for the magazine are at all concerned about men. The site is simply a platform for pushing a feminist agenda. The sad part is that the people running the magazine are good enough at faking concern that they have convinced legitimately concerned people that they support men and men’s issues.

  27. Yohaldy, English already has a way to do this: use the proper pronoun or use “they” for people and “it” for animals. The plural, contrary to what the author states, is grammatically correct. For example: The person was walking their dog down the street and then gave it a treat.

    I wish that the politically correct would actually research things before they try to “fix” them.

  28. Copyleft:
    TGMP always reserved a special loathing for men’s rights activists and deployed a select set of shaming insults to throw at MGTOW… because the idea of men talking about what really matters to them, without regard for what’s best for women, terrified and infuriated them.
    As much as I don’t want to believe that I’m almost starting to. I’m sure you’ve seen the letter that a frat brother from Georgia Tech wrote recently and at least some of the varying response to it right?

    Despite the letter starting off will imposing on pledges on how they are supposed to act (long story short if they are not constantly going after women they are doing masculinity wrong) every single response except the one I wrote (and seriously I challenge you to find any other response that mentions how that letter addresses guys) focuses entirely on the mistreatment of women. Now I’m not saying that those things should not be pointed out but I think it goes to so a certain attitude of “Masculinity needs to be worked on….by focusing only on women.”

    Until people realize that we can’t help men by only concentrating on male/female interactions we’re not going to get too far.

    Tarnished:
    That’s ridiculous, even just on the face of it. It’s like having someone go to group therapy, but no one at the therapy is allowed to talk about their problems…and all they can discuss is how their problems affect everyone EXCEPT themselves. How is that supposed to be beneficial to the therapy goers, much less the people who actually want to help them?
    That is the art of only caring about men on for the sake of women.

    Its the same reason that when men abuse women there are batterers programs lining around the block to get to him to face what he did but you’d have a hard time finding anyone that would put a woman that abuses men into a batterers program (and also why sometimes men who are abused by women are directed to batterers programs when looking for victim’s assistance).

    TS:
    The sad part is that the people running the magazine are good enough at faking concern that they have convinced legitimately concerned people that they support men and men’s issues.
    While I’m saddened its come to that I can’t blame people for feeling that way. I’ll keep trying to fight the good fight but I don’t know how much longer I can hold out.

  29. As much as I don’t want to believe that I’m almost starting to.

    I think it was apparent from GMP’s beginning that they were only concerned about the feminist perspective on masculinity. I find it hard to believe that none of the editors could find any non-feminist men to write about masculinity. They did occasionally run articles by such people, but those articles are few and far between. The vast majority of articles are written from the “what men need to do to help women” perspective, and most of those are written by women.

    Until people realize that we can’t help men by only concentrating on male/female interactions we’re not going to get too far.

    You are forgetting the group of people you are dealing with. Most feminists only look at the world through their ideological lens, and since that lens frames the would as men against women, most feminists will only look for solutions that benefit women. As much as this is an egregious comparison, I think it is the most apt: the people at GMP will not see this as a problem anymore than Jerry Sandusky will see his actions against the boys he mentored as a problem. In their eyes they are doing nothing wrong, and it does not matter how often the men subjected to their bad behavior tell them otherwise.

    While I’m saddened its come to that I can’t blame people for feeling that way. I’ll keep trying to fight the good fight but I don’t know how much longer I can hold out.

    Had I not been banned, I would continue as well. However, I do not play the “I’ll only post your comments if you write what I tell you to game.” I also do not play the passive aggressive, playing-the-victim game that Joanna Schroeder falls into whenever anyone calls her out. I do not like being manipulated, for obvious reasons, but I particularly dislike it when someone is as bad at it as she is. If you are going to try to play with my emotions, at least have the talent to do it right.

  30. Danny: “I’ll keep trying to fight the good fight but I don’t know how much longer I can hold out.”

    Take my advice, from someone who was told, by Lisa of all people, that I shouldn’t talk anymore about what happened to me at the hand of girls and women because “I won’t grow as an individual”:

    Don’t bother.

    While I’ve had my disagreements with him, Tom Matlack was the sole voice of polite dissent there. Now that he’s gone, it’s not worth trying to replace him, facing off against the gynocentric majority.

  31. Take my advice, from someone who was told, by Lisa of all people, that I shouldn’t talk anymore about what happened to me at the hand of girls and women because “I won’t grow as an individual”:

    I think the issue was less that you would not grow and more that you would not reframe your experiences from a feminist perspective. Had you written that what happened to you was not that bad, that women have it worse, or that the experiences led you to have a more positive, empathetic view of women, I doubt Lisa would have had a problem with it.

    My brother once suggested that if someone wrote a piece apologizing to women for having been abused by women the editors would run it to “thunderous applause.”

    While I’ve had my disagreements with him, Tom Matlack was the sole voice of polite dissent there. Now that he’s gone, it’s not worth trying to replace him, facing off against the gynocentric majority.

    The irony is that by making the space feminist and female-dominated, the editors keep men away.

  32. Pingback: Learning to be a man | Rethinking "Gender Identity"

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