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

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

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

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

and this:

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

and this:

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

Two points. One, the article was not as edited as I expected. To call mangled, as I did, is an overstatement. However, the edits do change the intent and tone of the article. Couture’s point is to criticize the reason behind the attitudes towards abused men and boys. Cutting out the criticism about feminism changes that focus.

In context, the above quotes show that Couture’s position is that feminists are part of the reason, if not the current leading cause, that male victims are not recognized. That is ripe for removal by GMP’s editors. The notion that feminists could at all be part of the problem is simply unacceptable.

Two, the edits show that my assumption about the intent of agreeing to publish the piece is correct: GMP’s editors do appear to have wanted to use the article for their own intentions. Why do I say this? Look at the quoted comments. They are harmless. They are no different than saying that the Tea Party’s language and actions cause divisive arguments rather than understanding.

Yes, the comments do put the focus on feminists. Yes, they do call feminists out. Yet they are hardly attacks. They express an opinion, which is all Couture’s article is in the first place. To edit them out is at best petulant. One would think GMP’s largely female feminist audience could handle something as tame as “It is time to allow a fearless and honest critique of any aspect of feminist theory that minimizes sexual and domestic violence against males, minimizes violence by women and advocates for anything other than compassion and equality in healing these tragedies.” If that is too much for feminists to handle, perhaps they should not be online.

Had Couture attacked feminists with ad hominems and invectives, I could see the reason for the edits. I see nothing to warrant any edits beyond splitting paragraphs. This is all rather silly at this point.

Advertisements

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

  1. @ TS: “If that is too much for feminists to handle, perhaps they should not be online.”

    Free speech rocks in cyberspace. When it doesn’t, as in this case, we have the right not to visit or comment on that site. I haven’t bothered with The Good Sham Project since even before the demise of their feminist poster-boy Schwyzer. Time to stop letting the Schwyzerettes yank our collective chain and group-ignore them.

    Obviously theirs is not a forum for true social change. AVFM and Toy Soldier are.

    And Mantitties is a joke not worth the time to mock…

  2. Those feminists are all a bunch of [EDITED]. They should [EDITED] because their [EDITED] is not [EDITED] anymore. Why should we [EDITED] when they [EDITED] every one of their [EDITED]?

    [EDITED]

  3. DNL, I’m told, doesn’t actually work. Use Archive.today.

    There’s something palpable of the irony of GMP censoring someone saying problematic aspects of feminism need to be openly criticized.

  4. I took a look at both articles. The one on GMP, and the one at AVFM and it’s interesting to see the difference. What’s more interesting is that even the readership at GMP considered the article “dangerous” despite the copius amounts of editing.

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