You have to ask?

Finally: You have to ask????????????

That was how Richard Aubery ended his comment on a recent Good Men Project article titled Shame: Is GMP Part of the Problem?

The author, Scott Heydt, stated:

This is not a rhetorical question.

Neither is Richard’s question, so I will repeat it: you have to ask?

The Good Men Project runs dozens of articles a month. As the commenter who spawned Heydt’s response noted:

GMP publishes more articles that shame and blame men than most of the websites on the internet. Some are written by men, some by women. They purport to tell men, in one way or another, what they’re saying, doing and thinking that is wrong, and how they should think, talk and behave instead.

At this point, a lot of men, and a number of women, are hip to the game – and routinely take remedial action in the comments section.

But – really and truly – GMP is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

I advise young men, in particular, to read the material here with a great deal of skepticism, because a lot of it is toxic social engineering – attempting to shame and blame them into being something that someone else wants you to be, rather than being who you you want to be.

I noticed a trend among the published articles on GMP. For every pro-male article published, GMP will publish three or four articles deriding or criticizing it. If someone writes something positive about fathers, three or four articles about mothers being fathers, “non-traditional” fathers, or something tearing down fatherhood will pop up. If someone writes positively about male bonding, three or four articles about frat boys, bros, or whatever negative euphemism will pop up. If someone writes about male survivors of sexual or domestic violence, three or four or more articles about sexual violence against women, street harassment, and “rape culture” will pop up.

Should there be a crime that garners national or international attentions, things become more unbalanced. For example, GMP ran far more articles about the need to remove men from positions of power and replace them with women than articles about male survivors following the Jerry Sandusky case. GMP ran twice as many articles about the Steubenville case than the Sandusky trial, many of them letters to existing and future sons about how not to be rapists. The same thing occurred following the Santa Barbara killing spree and the Boko Haram kidnappings.

The commenter rightly points out that this imbalance is noticeable to readers, some of whom express that opinion in the comments. Heydt does not deny this:

Candidly, the editors and contributors DO consciously run some posts that are seen as shaming men. For example, we talk about racism, sexism, homophobia, domestic violence, and sexual assault/abuse.

But let me tell you why homophobic, racist, sexist, and abusive belief systems are misandric, or showing a hatred toward boys/men.

  1. Homophobia is misandric because it does not allow men to love as they choose.

  2. Racism is misandric because it marginalizes a group of men for financial gain.

  3. Sexism is misandric because it doesn’t allow the belief that men can be 100% great human beings while still allowing women to be so also.

  4. Abuse is misandric because a huge amount of violence is against other men — and the violence against other men is because they are policing other men to get them to stay in the man box.

  5. Issues of rape and consent are misandric because they imply that men can’t have open, consenting relationships where they can get as much sex as they want just by being true to themselves.

That is a dishonest portrayal of the articles. Few, if any, of the articles argue that these acts as misandrous. Most of the articles argue that the bias is actually misogyny stemming from “The Patriarchy,” male entitlement, and male privilege. To that point, Heydt cannot even maintain the subterfuge for long:

Here’s an example. Sex is healthy. Rape is unacceptable. So at some place in that spectrum we have to draw a line that says, “Even though sex is good, sex without consent is bad. Sex without consent is rape.” For some this makes sex “less fun” because of the added “chore” of asking for consent. Some interpret this as shaming men who don’t believe that the line drawn is where the line should be drawn. And that gets overly simplified into “you’re shaming men for wanting sex.”

No, the objection is to the notion that men do not already know this and do not already abide by this. If I told Heydt that as a man he needed to learn that it was not okay for men to have sex with children because a child cannot give consent, I doubt he would respond with, “I didn’t know that. Thank you for explaining where the line is drawn on the spectrum of human sexuality.” I highly doubt he would respond that way if I brought up the topic when he mentioned he wanted to volunteer at a youth camp.

Men already know it is wrong to have sex with someone without their consent. That is why the vast majority of men do not have sex with someone without the person’s consent. Telling someone not to do something they have no intention of doing is pointless. Telling it to a person solely because he is male is sexist. Copping an attitude when he complains about the obvious implication is pure idiocy.

Heydt ended with:

On the other hand, if we at GMP are shaming men for topics other than racism, sexism, homophobia, domestic violence, and sexual assault/abuse, provide specific examples. The editors at GMP are always open to better ways of talking about difficult and provocative topics. If we are not approaching these topics appropriately, point out the places where it’s problematic, and give us ways that you think it would be better to talk about those topics.

Why? That is not a rhetorical question. Why should anyone help GMP’s editors run their site? If their goal is to help men by encouraging men to their stories, why does anyone need to explain to GMP’s editors how to do that?

There is little point in feigning ignorance. The Good Men Project has been around for years. It began with a clear feminist slant that turned into a slope iced with the biting commentary of people who seem to hold men in contempt. If GMP’s editors had any interest in “a conversation [that] is never one-sided” and is “open to […] feedback” they would ask people from all political spectrums to contribute to their site. They would ask people to write articles responding to previous feminist and progressive-leaning articles. They would allow an open forum for discussion and stop playing to a particular political audience.

That is how one prevents a one-sided conversation. That is also what GMP’s editors appear least inclined to do.

The true shame comes when we stop having the conversation.

No, the true shame comes from never having the conversation to begin with.


17 thoughts on “You have to ask?

  1. Pingback: You have to ask? |

  2. GMP is a feminist shill organization, the same as Men Against Violence and Men Can Stop Rape. I actually called Men Against Violence and the woman who answered the phone, Judi Huck, told me they couldn’t help a boy who was a victim of any form of maternal abuse until he screwed up (my word not hers). Then they could help.

    That is to say they could profit from court mandated “therapy” for the boy once he was indoctrinated into the juvenile criminal “justice” system.

    I gave up on GMP a long time age.

  3. I once saw a blog comment stating GMP’s name is patronizing because it implies men are not good and it’s a project to make them good. Checking I see female visitors to GMP are over-represented while male visitors are under-represented by a significant margin. So women are GMP’s target audience.

  4. Eldrith, I think women have always been GMP’s target audience. Most of the content is clearly geared towards appealing to women, particularly feminist women. There is far less concern about the issues average men want to discuss and far more concern about reshaping men to feminist women’s liking. The irony is that GMP utterly fails in that attempt because it is too obvious to men and not feminist enough for their target audience.

  5. You know, I once considered contributing another article: A series of diary entries I wrote over the two weeks I had been called to help someone out, only I’d make the character a stay-at-home dad of a two year old daughter and his feelings having been plucked back into a job he left.

    But I looked back and thought “No. This is not The Good Men Project of 2012 when there was a semblance of balance and Tom Matlack had some control over it. They don’t deserve it.”

    Basically, these people have lost their way. Taken Tom Matlack’s original intent for the site and sold out. There’s NOTHING distinguishing this magazine from the myrid of other publications out there with similar content.

    Also, I refuse to dignify their blatant agenda pushing with my writing anymore.

    Besides, Randy in the comments section destroyed them in the comments section.

  6. Eagle, I read Randy’s comments earlier today. I am sure no one at GMP will take it seriously. I am also sure that many people, non-feminists and feminists, feel the same way Randy does. The angle at GMP is apparent, and rather than attempting to give the site some semblance of balance, the editors continue to pander to a group that largely has dismissed them.

  7. Tamen, GMP has posed this question several times since its inception. I think the first was following their week-long attack on the men’s rights movement years ago. The editors appear to ignore anything people state because most of the suggestions are about removing the feminist slant from the site. That is ultimately the main problem with GMP. It plays to a very left-wing audience, and that turns off men and women who do not adhere to those political views.

  8. That website is hopeless. Their goal is a complete mismatch with their politics and social posturing. The only sad part is that they sometimes have bouts of lucidity where they become aware of it.

  9. Beluga, it’s not so much lucidity as throwing the alienated segment of their readership a bone. Even if they were lucid, how would we know it was genuine and coming from a real place of empathy?

    That’s the problem with it: For every rare article about men as men alone in support, for every tale they accept from a man, there’s dozens of formulaic advice in the form of lists, and a general call to appease the concerns of women (whether it be domestic violence against women, being a “Good Man/Husband/Parent”, checking your “White Priveledge”). That’s when it becomes virtually indistinguishable from Cosmo or even Jezebel for that matter.

    I think Tom Matlack made a mistake in putting his entire faith in feminism and partnership with feminists. He’s probably realizing right now that feminism isn’t perfect and if you dare to even critique it or make a mistake in their eyes as a man, so long career and bye-bye reputation.

  10. Eagle, what about making a new site as an alternative to both GMP and AVFM? I think there is a need for such a site and there are many potential contributors. Several bloggers and regular commentators at various relevant blogs could go together to start a site with a high frequency of publishing and varied content. Something like the model used by Return of Kings. Lots of articles written by the people connected to Rooshs blog and forum. Instead there could be a site written by various MRA and egalitarian (and some feminist) bloggers and commentators.

  11. Sorry, Dan, but I’m burned out from blogging and fighting. The last time I argued with an idealogue, it nearly killed me.

    I’m retired from the gender debate. My writing and art is priority now.

    Speaking of which, I had an article published in A Voice For Men about my “Speak To Me Rundown” three episode special.

    Here’s the link.

  12. I’ve thought about a site like that too, Dan.

    I actually wouldn’t mind a place like GMP running the pieces it does if it was at least open to contrary opinion. It’s the one sidedness that ultimately bugs me.

  13. hahaha,

    why take seriously a site that features Jack Don-0-van a nazi sympathizer?

    what’s next full on race realist/HBD articles?

    that place makes Inmalafide look good…

  14. >Racism is misandric because it marginalizes a group of men for financial gain.

    That is a rather simplistic view of racism.

    >Sexism is misandric because it doesn’t allow the belief that men can be 100% great human beings while still allowing women to be so also.

    What? What does this have to do with…what?

    >Abuse is misandric because a huge amount of violence is against other men — and the violence against other men is because they are policing other men to get them to stay in the man box.

    Y’know, for someone trying to call out misandry, you’re still demonstrating bias in favor of women. Or did you not notice who does most of the raising of children? And, again, a simplistic view of violence against men. Heck, the common VAW rhetoric already assumes, based on nothing, that women are being abused and raped because of their gender. Don’t just change the sexes involved.

    > If GMP’s editors had any interest in “a conversation [that] is never one-sided” and is “open to […] feedback” they would ask people from all political spectrums to contribute to their site.

    Friendly reminder that they have articles written by David Futrelle and Amanda Marcotte.

  15. I think this approach is rather based in the concept of original sin. “Thou art a sinner (or misogynist) and thou must repent for thy sins (be shamed or something) before thy soul can be cleansed and enter the kingdom of God (or before you can be one of the ‘Good’ men)”.

    Actually, look up former call girl turned sex workers rights activist and blogger maggie mcneill at the honest courtesan:

    She has a very interesting point of view that will change one’s perspective on prostitution, and she is also rather scathing of the feminist community, but understands where their thinking comes from as in where it originated. (e.g. misandry taking prominence in feminism being a combination of marxism and a kneejerk reaction to the AIDS virus) Check her out!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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