Good Men Project, Bad Feminist Politics

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

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

I do not believe the editor Couture emailed. I do not think this occurred as a result of miscommunication. It does not sound plausible. I think what occurred happened intentionally. I think those involved disliked Couture’s article from the beginning, yet saw a means to exploit it. I think they accepted the article under the pretense of publishing it, attempted to force Couture to edit out any criticism of feminism, and when she did not, the editors mangled her article to suit their purposes.

I doubt they did this out of malice. I think they did it simply because the article would bring traffic. Yet I still find it bizarre to heavily edit someone’s article. Plenty of feminists write the kind of articles GMP prefers. Why accept Couture’s only to edit it down to something unrecognizable to the author? Such an act defines the very ideas of unethical and exploitative.

I checked GMP’s Twitter feed and Facebook page and found no reference to the article. On GMP’s site, the article appears buried and features only one comment. A skeptical person might claim cover-up.

Some people who read this blog follow and occasionally contribute to GMP. I think you should reconsider. Do not give them traffic, do not post comments, and do not submit articles to their site. Do not give them any support. I say that not as an attack against GMP but as a male survivor, an advocate for male survivors, and someone who prefers honest, civil, and ethical discussions.

People like those who run GMP do not appear to actually care about men’s issues or the men and boys affected by them. Even if they do, these people’s need to defend feminism trumps their concern. That results in the way they treated Couture. We cannot accept that. We cannot allow people more invested in an ideology than real people to control the discussion about men’s issues.

Do not give GMP your time or support. The editors running the site continue to prove themselves dishonest, and there is no reason to further encourage that behavior.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Good Men Project, Bad Feminist Politics

  1. “I think what occurred happened intentionally.”

    I agree. It’s a pattern I’ve noticed too, that, if feminists cannot silence you, they will do something like this, purposefully wearing you down. The run around. In this case, endless edits and finally burying the article, intended to waste your time and energy until you give up.

  2. Last I checked my comment in moderation wasn’t posted and the one that was, with a link to this video has been taken down. Anytime anyone mentions “GMP” call it “The Good Sham Project.” Any reference to the site should reflect this. Like abbreviating it “DSP” in any correspondence. Make the redefinition stick by never mentioning “men” being involved with the site. Only feminist sycophants.

  3. They really are a lost cause at this point.

    I was going to comment and support the article submitted but have since learned to take it in moderation: Comment only every now and then because it’s not worth the headache of getting pounced on in an environment that fosters (intentionally or not) that mob mentality. I chose not to comment in this case. Not because I don’t support the article. I don’t support the people who accepted the article due to their shady handling of it.

    The Good Men Project are mainstream fast food, serving rapidly prepared confections that ultimately will go in one end then out the other in a microsecond. They are indistinguishable from the other mainstream magazines out there on the market.

    Plus, they prefer to target people with feminist leanings. Not the average Joe or Jane.

  4. Allan:

    I agree. It’s a pattern I’ve noticed too, that, if feminists cannot silence you, they will do something like this, purposefully wearing you down. The run around.

    Yet in this case it makes little sense. The editors knew what Couture wrote. If they were so opposed to it, they did not have to publish it. More so, there is nothing stopping Couture from publishing the article elsewhere. She could post it on her own blog, or read it aloud as she did on Youtube. So the editors have no actual means of silencing her.

  5. Revspinnaker:

    Last I checked my comment in moderation wasn’t posted and the one that was, with a link to this video has been taken down.

    While that is not surprising, it does speak to the editors’ level of dishonesty. The author of the article posted a video complaining about her treatment, and the response from GMP is to remove the link to the video. The only reason one would do that is so no one knows about the complaint.

    That reminds me of the email I sent to Schroeder several weeks ago. I asked her whether GMP intended to issue an apology for running the article victim-blaming abused men. Schroeder stated that GMP did apologize… on Facebook. She provided no link, so I have no idea what the apology entailed. I suggested that it might have been better to post the apologize on the source site where the post originally appeared. Her response implied that neither she or Lisa Hickey ever considered doing that. Her tone was as if the thought never occurred to her.

  6. Eagle35:

    The Good Men Project are mainstream fast food, serving rapidly prepared confections that ultimately will go in one end then out the other in a microsecond. They are indistinguishable from the other mainstream magazines out there on the market.

    That much is true. Far too many of the articles GMP runs are of the “X number of ways to” variety. That provides no incite for men or men’s issues. That sort of thing appeals primarily to women.

  7. I don’t think “silence” is the right word. More like dilute. By censoring all references to feminism the ladies at The Good Sham Project (GSP) felt confident they could exploit a “pro-male” female and Ms. Couture would be happy just to be published. The plan backfired big time since everyone knows “pro-male feminist” is a laughable oxymoron.

  8. I’m wondering how the men who originally approved the article feel. After all, they approved the article, despite obvious indications it went against the ‘ethos’ of the site. I can’t imagine they didn’t have to screw up their courage to do so, and put their careers and reputations on the line. Unless they were totally clueless, I suppose, but it doesn’t sound like this is the case. Was this their own little ‘shot across the bow’ to test the boundaries, or perhaps even their line in the sand? I find it hard to believe they’d make a mistake of that gravity. What their boss did to the author was not only a faux pas in journalism, what she did to her employees is what George Simon calls a ‘status slap’. I wonder if her actions might even be actionable civilly. After all, the site has publicly misrepresented the author in print without her knowledge or approval.

  9. PW, when I emailed Schroeder about the article GMP ran that bashed male victims, she claimed that some of the editors are not aware of the overall ethos. I fail to see why anyone would bring on people who would run articles that counter to the professed view of the magazine, yet that was Schroeder’s claim.

  10. @PW…

    “After all, the site has publicly misrepresented the author in print without her knowledge or approval.”

    Which is why I posited in a previous thread that they, or at least Schroeder, have engaged in fraud.

  11. PW, when I emailed Schroeder about the article GMP ran that bashed male victims, she claimed that some of the editors are not aware of the overall ethos. I fail to see why anyone would bring on people who would run articles that counter to the professed view of the magazine, yet that was Schroeder’s claim.

    Right, and isn’t she the executive editor? As you’ve described it, that sounds like buck-passing. And ok, if they screwed up, that’s one thing – but deleting articles instead of putting up a public retraction on the main site? Come on.

  12. I have a question I am hoping you could help me find the answer to. What percentage of boys under 18 does studies normally find to have been raped in western countries?

  13. Agreed rev…

    Wilowby, that is a complex question to ask. 1 in 6 is a basic answer with a lot of support. You can read a scientific and balanced account of the details at jimhopper.com, http://www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/#pref I think an understanding of the complexities is important.

  14. Lynne MacDonell of MaleSurvivor.org gave a talk at the U of T and, like many others, have the feeling 1 in 6 is too low. However she also failed to mention, in fact pointed out erroneously, men are primary abusers. We still have a long way to go but at least we’re headed in the right direction. People are finally recognizing the complexity of abuse and reject the one sided chiding of feminist harangue-bangers, like the Schwyzerettes at The Good Sham Project.

  15. revspinnaker:

    However she also failed to mention, in fact pointed out erroneously, men are primary abusers.

    I have some trouble parsing this, could you clarify for me whether MacDonell stated that men are the primary abuser (and that this is erroneously – women make up nearly half of abusers of boys) or whether MacDonnell failed to mention that men are the primary abusers and that this omissions is erroneously. I suspect it’s the former you meant, but as said I was unable to unambiguously parse the sentence.

  16. Thanks for the answers. I am actually looking for the number of boys under 18 that have been raped, not the number that are victims of all categories of sexual abuse. I am also actually looking for the number that has been raped according to conventional definitions (excluding envelopment etc.). This is because I am not looking for the real number, whatever that may be, but the conventionally understood rate. My overall impression is that for boys under 18 that is at less than 1-2% normally but I wanted to check what studies generally have found. I am in total agreement that the real rate is probably far higher because of bad definitions that exclude envelopment, unwillingness to report and various methodological flaws. But for my purposed now I need the conventionally understood rate. If the CDC says that for men over18 it is 1 out of 72 the rate for boys under 18 should be much lower.

  17. Tamen, sometimes I’m my own worst editor. Yes, I meant she said definitively that men are primary abusers. She was wrong in that within the home it has been widely known that women are perpetrators in at least 30% of cases. That excludes the passive aggressive female caregiver who allows or encourages the behavior by proxy.

    I’m disappointed with such flat out misinformation being foisted as fact by a so-called expert.

    Wilowby, the CDC statistic of 1 in 72 was debunked as soon as it was made public, It goes to show how deeply entrenched the femnocratic political powerhouse is and how much big VAWA tax dollars have corrupted a fine American institution, the CDC. The 1 in 72 statistic was culled from telephone interviews which were skewed to find the results they did. Their stringent line of questioning eliminated most men from the so-called study. It’s a feminist sham.

    And unfortunately so is the CDC and formerly trustworthy experts in the field like David Finkelhor. I hate to say it but the older statistics are likely more accurate than the new ones from the CDC. You really have to look into peer reviewed studies in psychiatric journals.

  18. Wilowby, the 1 in 71 statistic covers lifetime experiences, not just acts committed against adults. The researchers did not break down the age groups for males. They claimed in the study that they had insufficient data to do so.

    Unfortunately, there are no studies that specifically quantify the rape of boys. We honestly have no idea how frequently men or boys are raped. One of the reasons is because of the way researchers define rape. For example, according to the CDC, a woman forcing a boy to vaginally or anally penetrate her is not rape. That would be counted as “forced to penetrate”. That logically and legally does not parse. Both acts are rape. Conversely, the CDC counts any penetration of the vagina, no matter how slight, as rape. This means anyone who performs oral sex on a female without her consent committed rape. Yet if the same person performed oral sex on a male without his consent, that person has not committed rape. This results in more acts against females counting as rape while fewer acts against males count as rape. That makes it difficult to know how frequently males are victimized.

    It is illogical to assume that less than 1% to 2% of boys are raped. According to current census data, there are approximately 32 million boys under the age of 15 in the United States. That means 16% of them, or 5 million, were sexually abused. That seems somewhat low. I suspect the number is likely 7 to 8 million. However, let us go with just rape victims. If we assumed that only 1% of boys under 15 are raped, that would mean only 320,000 boys have been raped. Not in a year, but in their lifetime (up to the age of 15). If that number were accurate, you would never meet any of these people. They would be so rare you would likely never hear of them.

    It also requires us to believe that people who would fondle and grope boys, perform oral sex on them, and make boys penetrate them would never think of penetrating the boys. That makes no logical sense. The rate is likely much higher than that. If we included any type of forced intercourse, whether the boy is penetrated or forced to penetrate (and that would include oral sex), I suspect two thirds of the 16% of boys who are abused are technically raped.

  19. Thank you for this perspective of the censorship my article faced on TGMP. As of today, 10/17/14, I have still heard nothing from them, and my article did not appear to be listed on their email daily digest that ironically began coming into my email inbox.

  20. Hello, Laurie. I appreciate the article you wrote. It is insightful and gives an inside understanding of what some advocates experience. I find the whole situation with the Good Men Project is quite bizarre. Have you contacted Lisa Hickey? Perhaps talking to her directly would resolve the problem.

  21. Dear Laurie,

    Glad to have you visit Toy Soldiers’ site. He is a soft spoken gentleman and a scholar, and one of the first to bring the issue of sexual abuse of boys and men to the internet. He’s a first class act.

    Regarding your so-called “censorship” at The Good Men’s Project, it’s nothing new to us as we’ve seen our comments disappear in “moderation” for years. Consider it more like business as usual. To quote John Lennon, sometimes, “life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” As a result of the editorial tyranny you experienced at GMP I think your article has had more impact on the people who need to hear your message the most.

    I personally wouldn’t have seen it if not for AVFM because I haven’t bothered with GMP in a long time.

    Thank you. I’m sure your (uncensored) comments will be welcome here anytime.

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