How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong

Hugo Schwyzer explains how a handful of men are angry for all the wrong reasons.

When I was getting clean and sober in a Twelve Step program many years ago, there was one phrase from the literature that always resonated with me. We addicts have been, the book said, the “architects of our own adversity.” Yes, I thought the first time I read that. It’s time to stop blaming others for my own pain. It’s time to take responsibility.

That same phrase comes to mind when I think about Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). I’ve been crossing verbal swords with the MRAs for many years, particularly since 2004 when I began to develop a public presence as a male feminist writer and professor. I learned quickly that not all MRAs were the same; some offered thoughtful criticism while others offered only nasty invective. (Look up “Hugo Schwyzer Mangina” if you need evidence of the latter.)

As a professor who teaches courses on Men and Masculinity, as well as a mentor to many young men (and as a man myself, of course), I’m intensely interested in the ways in which men position themselves as victims. I’ve spent years reading the literature and talking points of MRAs and “fathers’ rights” groups. I’ve spent a lot of time in conversation with men who are going through divorce, something I’ve been through more than once. My male students range in age from 17 to 70, from bright high school students taking their first college courses to retired professionals curious about gender studies. I meet with so many of them—jocks, geeks, gamers, drifters, ambitious future politicians and wary-eyed Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

From so many of these men—online and in real life—I hear the same thing: the narrative of helplessness.

♦◊♦

The older, angrier MRAs describe a world in which women (and their male “collaborators”) have usurped traditional male privileges for themselves. Men, they claim, are at a disadvantage in the courts, in the business world, in academia. The MRAs see public space in the Western world as increasingly feminized, and they fancy “real men” (in whose ranks they invariably include themselves) to be under attack from a dark coalition of feminist activists, cowardly politicians cravenly surrendering to the cultural left, and a media that never misses an opportunity to demean and belittle traditional men. It all provides a satisfying sense of being “under attack,” which is why many—not all—men’s rights activists use, absurdly enough, the language of oppression and resistance to describe their movement.

When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others.

These men feel victimized, they feel exploited, they feel ignored, they feel impotent. And those feelings are powerful. I don’t think these boys and men who turn to the men’s rights movement are lying about their pain. The problem is that they’ve completely misunderstood two things.

The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.

Whether they got it from their fathers or their older brothers, whether they learned it from peers or pastors, coaches or drill instructors, almost all American boys grow up learning the “guy rules.” As Deborah David and Robert Brannon first showed in their landmark 1976 book on men, The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, the rules are crushingly simple: Big boys don’t cry. No sissy stuff. Be a “sturdy oak.” “Be a big wheel.” “Give ’em hell.”

Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others. This frantic effort to shut down a whole aspect of one’s potential isn’t caused by testosterone or Y chromosomes. It’s caused by the longing to live by the “man code.”

♦◊♦

Most MRAs agree that the “man code” exists and that it does great damage to young men. But they blame women for these cruel and limiting rules. According to many MRAs I’ve spoken to, it is women’s sexual desire for the alpha male that forces boys to compete ruthlessly with one another. “Women say they want one thing but choose another: they always go for assholes,” so many guys say. If women would broaden their sexual appetites to include “betas” and “omegas,” their reasoning goes, boys would feel less compelled to compete ruthlessly with one another. (The men’s rights activists tend to be wildly off-base about what women actually want, but that’s another topic.)

It’s a typical but tragic mistake: MRAs wildly overestimate women’s power, sexual or otherwise. Men, they insist, are helpless by comparison. But that claim ignores a long and unmistakable history of male domination in human history. And if there’s one undeniable truism about our species, it’s that the rules are made by the dominant group. The “man laws” or “guy rules” were created by and for men. Historically, winning validation from other men has mattered more than getting sex or love from women. (If you don’t believe that, think for a moment about how hard boys will work to please a demanding football coach.) Males are raised to be “homosocial,” which means they’re taught to get their primary affirmation from other men rather than from women. Working too hard for female approval just makes you a “mama’s boy” or “pussy-whipped,” and the frantic efforts young men make to ensure neither of those labels apply to them tells you all you need to know about who it is they are really trying to impress.

♦◊♦

So men are indeed architects of their own adversity. This doesn’t mean that each boy is individually responsible for his own suffering. But it does mean that the pain so many men feel from broken relationships, social isolation, and the gnawing sense of personal powerlessness is not women’s fault. It’s the fault of a rigid code that was set up eons ago, a code that many of us continue to perpetuate. Extricating ourselves from the emotional straitjacket the code forces us to wear requires taking responsibility for our own lives and choices. It requires letting go of blame. And it requires seeing that feminism—with its remarkable claim that biological sex has nothing to with our human potential—is the best avenue for our personal and collective liberation.

♦◊♦

About Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer has taught history and gender studies at Pasadena City College since 1993, where he developed the college's first courses on Men and Masculinity and Beauty and Body Image. He serves as co-director of the Perfectly Unperfected Project, a campaign to transform young people's attitudes around body image and fashion. Hugo lives with his wife, daughter, and six chinchillas in Los Angeles. Hugo blogs at his website

Comments

  1. Man am I glad to read this. The Elam article came up first & left a bad feeling in my mouth. I’m a straight white cis male but you know, I unpacked my backpack & realized that yeah– there is a patriarchy, & yeah, it hurts men, too. The solution isn’t inventing some nightmare world where feminists conspiracies are coming to castrate you & kidnap your children. It just isn’t so. I haven’t read Amanda Marcotte’s article yet, but her title adequately sums it up– the solution to the problems “Men’s Rights” organizations have IS feminism.

    • Can we just assume that if you say you are a male that you were born with a penis? Is ‘cis’ really necessary for you to throw in there? How many trans men are there in the world?

    • Evil Pundit says:

      Saying that feminism is the solution to men’s problems is equivalent to saying that the solution to black people’s problems is white supremacism. Feminism is the enemy of men and can never be our ally.

  2. You’d think, judging by the extent to which it has stiffed most of us, men would be angrier at the patriarchy. Then again, we are rarely ever reminded that male privilege exists, much less taught how not to be addicted to it.

    • Catullus says:

      Why focus one’s anger at patriarchy when one can focus it at capitalism? In doing so, we leqrn that what really exists is some-male privilege.

    • May I ask you not to employ feminist jargon and discourse? I mean, terms such as “patriarchy”, “male privilege”, and the like. Not all of us on this thread are feminists, you know. Some of us are non-feminists. And when you are attempting to build bridges to people who are Other than yourself, you need to make that extra effort to find a common language.

      So, for example, we are not arguing the pros and cons of “patriarchy” as such, because we find the idea inherently problematic. “Patriarchy” is a feminist idea, and to take up any position upon that idea is to acknowledge it as valid — which many of us don’t do.

      Same goes for “male privilege”. One should accept that idea as ‘a priori’ to the discussion. It is not.

      • Just out of curiosity Fid, did you submit your “Feminism is an Anti Male Hate Movement” article to these guys? It seems they have no problem with accusatory articles and dismissive attitudes against MRAs, I would imagine the same courtesy could be extended those who can actually back up what they say….

        I think it would do well for some of these people to read it…

        • No, Factory, I did not submit said article.

          But if anybody wants to read it now, here it is:

          http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=rottweiler

          I have a pretty strong hunch that Hugo has read it at one time or another. He’s one of my regular readers.

          Speaking of Hugo: he is making himself scare, eh?

          • All the feminist authors are scarce, except Futrelle. Like the old saying goes, Feminism cannot withstand open debate.

            Funny we would be at a site ‘dedicated to men’ and seeing all these feminists though, hey? And so much hostility to mens issues?

            I told Henry about our thing with feminist attempts at appropriation. I wonder if he knew I had my tongue in my cheek while I was telling him?

            • Feminist authors are anything but scarce.

            • Womens sites are for feminists, Mens site are also for feminists.

              They are controlling and if you make a website for men they come along and tell you what a good website for men should have, idiots.

    • Evil Pundit says:

      There is no male privilege in Western society – only female privilege.

      • This one guy says:

        That’s not much of a statement. I agree with it, but you provide no proof or examples. I would have described how male privilege allows them to support free and indipendent women with regular alimony checks.

        *passing the baton*

        • 1. A man can’t hit a women even in self defence, however when a women hits a man apparently its funny.

          2. Women get almost everything in divorces no matter who caused the family to fall apart.

          3. Women have to have less requirements to get into jobs such as being a soldier or firefighter, Men are passed up simply because the company has to give a place to a woman.

          To all you misandrists and manginas out there, I don’t hate women nor want to see harm come to them I simply want equality, which is a real problem for feminists.

          Also just for you Hugo a mangina is “a male feminist who is overly concerned with womens issues to the point of contempt for his fellow man”

  3. I don’t think Hugo can really judge another person unless he’s walked in their shoes and he hasn’t and just doesn’t understand the experiences of other men.

    My expertise in activism is mostly in Domestic Violence, where I have found an enormous amount of bias among feminist academics who fail to consider the implications of ignoring women’s use of violence. I don’t base my opinions on article writers, I focus on the research.

  4. “Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”

    I’ve never felt the need to live up to any masculine ideal and I’ve also never felt pressure from other men. I don’t like sports, guns, fancy cars, etc. and I’m quite happy cooking, working in my garden and playing with my children.

    • Your experience is the minority, not the norm; I applaud you for removing yourself from that masculine ideal, but I invite you to look at so many other men, men who aren’t in your primary circle. Look at the world, not immediately around you, but everywhere else.

      • Sara: By what authority do you speak, when you tell us that Denis’s experience is “the minority”. How do you know it is the minority?

        I happen to disagree, and I have traveled in wide enough circles, and lived long enough, to know what I am saying. Yes, I have seen quite a bit.

        You remind me of Hugo Schwyzer, who wishes to fabricate a “normative” state of cultural manhood for ideological reasons. (i.e. wishes to see the rest of the male world as an extension of his own experience.)

    • Sarah TX says:

      I’ve never been sexually harrassed… does that mean sexual harassment doesn’t exist?

      • “I’ve never been sexually harrassed… does that mean sexual harassment doesn’t exist?”

        Granted, that the world is full of unpleasant things that one has never personally experienced.

        So, what is the point of your present statement?

        • Sarah TX is replying to Denis, who said:

          I’ve never felt the need to live up to any masculine ideal and I’ve also never felt pressure from other men. I don’t like sports, guns, fancy cars, etc. and I’m quite happy cooking, working in my garden and playing with my children.

          She’s pointing out that ones personal experience cannot always be universalized.

          • But isn’t that EXACTLY what she suggested Denis do above? Widening his personal experience, she said, would show him what “real men” were “really” like.

            Her entire argument was based on the idea that personal experience means something when it comes to understanding “real men”.

            Then, when Fidbogen called “bullshit”, saying “look, I have a very wide personal experience and I can say, based on it, that men aren’t the way you describe them” – only then did personal experience somehow become invalid as a metric.

            If Sara wanted to make her point, she should have simply stuck to the idea that the personal is not necessarily what’s going on socially – no matter how wide one’s social circle. I’d buy that. Put instead, her point seems to be, “Unless you get personal experiences that match up with my preconceived notions of how things REALLY are, your personal experience can’t be used as a metric for men’s behaviors”.

    • I would say that my experiences are quite representative of many young men these day.

      The funny thing about the older “manly” men is that they are total pussy cats in private and do everything their wives tell them.

    • wavevector says:

      I personally try to live up to a traditional masculine ideal. I find it difficult but very rewarding. I don’t feel stunted at all in the emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual aspects of my life, in fact I am succeeding quite well in all those things.

      Part of the problem is we have a distorted idea of what traditional masculinity really is. One doesn’t have to look very far in literature, poetry, music and art to see that men were not stunted emotionally or psychologically in previous generations.

      I suspect that our ‘macho-man’ ideal is really an artifact of post- WWII / cold war culture, and doesn’t accurately represent how men have lived as individuals, husbands, and fathers for most of civilization.

    • Read ‘Guyland’ by Michael Kimmel for an idea of how boys/men are (largely) forced into following a detrimental, unhealthy idea of masculinity (backed up by innumerable statistics).

      • I have read that book (Guyland) and I despise it. Kimmel barely veils his contempt for “average” men who are of a different socioeconomic-cultural “flavor” than himself. And he commits the same “sin” that Schwyzer commits: he universalizes a narrow range of male experience within the broader social fabric — and assumes that every man out there must conform to that narrative. Thus, falsification creeps and wreaks havoc. I, for one, do not take it kindly when I am forced to be somebody other than myself.

    • The problem is feminism has made up what apparently masculine men have to be, I live up to most old values such as protect those weaker than you (not just women). Feminists need to stop spreading hate to men and start looking at their own problems.

  5. Female Feedback says:

    Great article, Hugo. Couldn’t agree more.

    Any programming in women to seek a violent or “alpha male” derives from the male domination of patriarchy. Those of us women lucky enough to develop political and economic autonomy don’t want this.

    Take care of your own baggage from your past, including being socialized into emotionally unavailable, uncommunicative, angry “masculinity” and support women’s equality; when this happens with more and more men, fewer women, if any, will desire an “alpha male.” Then these stereotypes can be relegated to history, unless perhaps people want to use them for fun in temporarily playing around in an otherwise equal relationship.

    • “ny programming in women to seek a violent or “alpha male” derives from the male domination of patriarchy. Those of us women lucky enough to develop political and economic autonomy don’t want this. ”

      Oook.

      Do you feminists really tell each other this crap? Really? Women’s sexual selections are MENS FAULT too? Hypergamy is a construct of The Patriarchy(tm)?

      Do you take responsibility for ANYTHING you do, or is everything mens fault?

      I was going to ask some of you smarmy feminists just how feminism addresses things like Hypergamy, since I haven’t seen anything feminist on it.

      Now I know.

      Hypergamy doesn’t exist. And if it does, it’s men’s fault.

      Just like everything else in the world, I suppose.

      • Female Feedback says:

        Hypergamy is patriarchy. It derives from male control of resources (excluding women by force, religion, government, etc), competition among men for those resources (often by force & violence – such as war) and selection of women (often by force – such as in rape) based upon fertility. Inability to prove paternity genetically also caused problems.

        If you worked harder to help with the work many women are doing to earn resources of their own, you might find yourself out of this bind quicker.

        Also, it is true that you will not be able to attract even a women with resources if you do not have emotional availability, ego strength, parenting skills, etc. So, getting rid of hypergamy is only part of what you need.

        • >Hypergamy is patriarchy

          Sigh. Ofcourse that’s the feminist take. Hypergamy isn’t flattering to women, and therefore either does not exist, or is the fault of men.

          And along comes a feminist to say exactly that.

          Utter hogwash, but it absolves women of any wrongdoing or undesireable traits, therefore it must be ‘correct’….

          Anyone still want to characterize our take on Feminists as ‘misguided’? Anyone still believe feminists are taking a serious look at ANY of this? No, this is merely an attempt to shut us down. Again. It’s becoming boringly repetitive actually.

          Feminism cannot withstand open debate.

          And people like you prove it every single day.

          • Hello, I am an Anthropologist, and it is well-established in my non-feminist field that hypergamy only exists in patriarchal societies. Read a goddamn book on the subject. I hate it when laypeople go spouting simplistic crackpot interpretations evolutionary biology and pretend that it is some sort of established truth. Hint: when the book says evolutionary psychology and not evolutionary biology, your are dealing with psuedoscience that is designed to be on the bestseller list, not actually hard data. Believe me, as someone who has studied it, you look like an idiot when you clutter message boards with your hypergamy conspiracies.

            • That’s very interesting, are there any examples of non-patriarchal societies where hypergamy doesn’t exist to prove your point?

            • Of course not. Concern troll is concerned, but ‘doesn’t have time’ to link to proof.

              Nope, just more “I know better than you, Feminism is correct you stupid man, now shut up.” nonsense. It’s what established ideologies do after all, try and shut down dissent by appealing to authority, peer pressure, fear of embarassment, etc.

              Not an honest argument in the bunch, but then, what did we expect?

              I can see how it goes already…

              “Hypergamy only exists in Patriarchies.”

              “Here’s a society in which women dominate in almost every sphere of life, yet Hypergamy exists there too.”

              “That’s a Patriarchy then.”

              Feminism is founded on such circular logic.

            • Iroquois and Innu in the pre-Columbian moment for two off the top of my head.

            • So, two very small ‘nations’ were Matriarchal hundreds of years ago…supposedly.

              That’s your strongest argument?

              Incidentally, Innu are STILL ‘Matriarchal’ in the historical, political sense. The political makeup of nearly every American Indian tribe is similar now to that of a hundred or two years ago. And the women are every bit as Hypergamous as any other woman. I know, my brother lives in the Arctic Circle, in Innu territory.

            • Oh, so your anecdotal evidence about your brother is somehow supposed to be weighted more heavily than anthropological and ethnographic accounts? Also, unless your brother lived with the Innu before 1492, than your contradiction is irrelevant to my example–I stated “pre-Columbian” quite clearly. Further, there is no need to make fun of aboriginal societies in this discourse–I am not sure why you need to put ‘nations’ in scare quotes unless you don’t take these people seriously. But yes, hypergamy did not exist in these societies as it does in patriarchal societies.

            • Gee, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were old enough to remember pre-Columbian days. Congratulations, when’s the next birthday, I’d like to send a card.

              My point was that those are still ‘matriarchal’ in nature and Hypergamy is just as evident there as anywhere else. And for that matter, why go to some society 500 years ago (and how accurate do YOU think their depictions of sexual habits are going to be?) when we can look at ‘matriarchal societies’ right in the heart of most of our cities. Some segments of society, and some areas of cities, have a VERY high single mother rate, and almost exclusively female-headed households.

              Lets leave aside the rampant crime, poverty and abuse in those communities, and instead focus on Hypergamy. Are you telling me that in this environment, with almost no male influence at all, still somehow forces women into hypergamy?

              My God you people can rationalize….

              Anyway, admit your nature or don’t, It doesn’t make a difference (in any sense). But do yourself a favour and come up with a better argument for that tripe…you’d do better to put on a tinfoil hat before you started in on it….

            • I can see that you don’t really want to engage on a rational level, and just want to level epithets at “you people.” So I will let you continue on believing in your psuedoscientific fantasies. I do suggest taking a course in anthropology, where the term “hypergamy” comes from, and learning the theoretical and historical underpinnings of such.

            • Minangkabau.

              Again, Factory, why do you treat hypergamy as if it exists in a vacuum?

              Here is a homework assignment for you. As your mother if she married “up” and the reasons why.

            • Treat Hypergamy as if it exists in a vacuum? What the hell are you talking about? I’m merely stating that, like men enjoy several concurrent partners, women look to ‘trade up’ all the time.

              Denying this is a silly waste of time…every woman alive cops to that attitude…hell, it’s even the basis for nearly all the advertisements aimed at women.

            • “Hello, I am an Anthropologist, and it is well-established in my non-feminist field that hypergamy only exists in patriarchal societies.”

              Anthropology isn’t tainted with the stink of feminist ideology?

              Better watch Indoctrinate U…you seem to be drinking too much Kool Aid.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg

            • Ubermensch says:

              Psudeo-science? You mean like anthropology?

            • Nice try. Trained in Archaeology, and work in biomedical/environmental/biological Anthropology.

            • typhonblue says:

              Anthropologist you say?

              Do you understand causation versus correlation?

              Perhaps patriarchies exist due to hypergamous sexual selection by women. After all female sexual selection has shaped the behavior and bodies of many other species of male. It is, in fact, the basis of evolutionary theory.

            • Devonian says:

              This. If female selection can result in, among other things, the bewildering array of gaudy plumage and showy displays seen among male birds, the brutal turf wars of bull pinnipeds, and God knows what else, the idea that it had no effect on humans is ridiculous.

            • Except they didn’t exist about 6000 years ago, so if that is to be accepted as the truth, then hypergamy would have to have been a recent adaptation. Further, they don’t exist all over the world, so some of us must be homo sapien sapiens and others not? Check out the culture of Bali, Melanesia, the American Indigenous peoples, or even Mead and Bateson’s work on gendered schismogenesis in the Trobriand Islands.

            • Hypergamy cannot be a recent adaptation when we are descended from twice as many women as men throughout human history, as DNA analysis proved about 5-6 years back. This is manifest today in rampant paternity fraud.

            • typhonblue says:

              Perhaps 6000 years ago women shifted from preferring an egalitarian model (And, incidentally, if you’re citing Bali, there still is a subtle hypergamy there in that men are seen to be more involved in the spiritual aspects of life) to a hypergamous model.

              I’m not arguing the model, I’m arguing the selection pressure. The selection pressure is female choice. And men then respond to it.

            • Selection pressure goes two ways. We are the same species you know. It would never just be women’s sexual object choice that influences evolution–that is contrary to both evolutionary and genetic theory.

            • typhonblue says:

              Recent genetic science puts the number of men who have reproduced at 40% compared to 80% of women.

              I think it’s women mostly doing the selecting.

            • or men doing the dying in wars with each other before reproductive age, or harems, or polygamy, or Jacob and his many wives, or estrogen being a regenerative chemical and thus making women’s bodies last longer…

              you know, more than a two variable system?

            • Apparently David in the bible had 400 wives and 600 concubines! :)
              Or Ghengis Khan–you have a few “super-producers” in history, and you also have a lot of children born of rape from invading groups–it is and has been a common tactic in warfare to “breed-out” the enemy by raping and pillaging. Since women’s consent to sex is a relatively new invention, you can’t assume that those statistics reflect sexual object “choice.”

            • Evil Pundit says:

              Oh, the old discredited “prehistoric matriarchy” theory spouted by some feminists.

              Such is the degeneration of academia, when political correctness contaminates every department and turns anthropology into a feminist pseudoscience.

            • Nope, all I said was patriarchies didn’t exist that far back–I never said it was some sort of feminist matriarchal utopia. If you paid attention to theory you would know that patriarchy as a political system is rather new.

            • Patriarchies don’t exist NOW…at least, not in the feminist parlance.

            • Anthropology is getting rather controversial. Perhaps too much ideology?

              http://anthropology.net/2010/11/30/the-aaa-does-away-with-science-seriously/

            • That’s the AAA, they have nothing to do with Anth in my country.

          • She didn’t say it was the fault of men, she said it is the fault of PATRIARCHY.

            Patriarchy =/= men.

            Why do you act as if hypergamy happens in a vacuum? When do you think history starts?

            • I’ve read a few feminist essays where familization (sp?) was considered to be a contributor to patriarchy. I got the very clear impression that these women were opposed to families.

              So why is it a big deal that men are now refusing to get married?

            • What?

            • seconded

            • It’s not a big deal. I’m not getting married. I like my name and my property. My partner feels the same way. If we have kids, we will sign a legal contract to be equally responsible for them (adjusted for my higher income). What is so abhorrent about that?

            • “Why do you act as if hypergamy happens in a vacuum? When do you think history starts?”

              You forget, I outright reject Patriarchy Theory on its face. Hypergamy has been in existence as long as there have been women who get gooey over dominant, tall, aggressive men….aka, forever.

              In any case, it is a dominant feature of modern North American society, and I am old enough to tell you it has gotten much WORSE, not better, in the last 20 years.

              Are you saying that our society is Patriarchal (of course you are). Are you saying this Patriarchy has INCREASED in influence over the last 4 decades?

              Maybe, but it stretches your credibility a bit too far.

              If anything, Hypergamy is the product of Feminism, it is the unleashing of base female desires, or even the outright promotion of the most destructive traits of female sexuality.

              It most definitely is NOT a product of male behaviour. You got that one backwards.

              Maybe that explains why you feminists are so out to lunch on men and masculinity…

            • Oooh, I want to hear more about these destructive traits of female sexuality. Please tell me more.

            • “Oooh, I want to hear more about these destructive traits of female sexuality. Please tell me more.”

              http://roissy.wordpress.com/

          • Dear Factory,

            If you are indeed an anthropologist, then you should be aware that the terms “matriarchy” and “patriarchy”, in classical anthropology, do not mean what MRAs and feminists think they mean. To with, they do not mean “a society controlled by wo/men”. They mean kinship structures.

            Those anthropologists who DO use the terms in their more modern sense are quick to point out that there are NO cleanly and absolutely unambiguously matriarchical or patriarchical societies. Most societies treat women as a polluting agent, as Sherry Ortner so insightfully pointed out. But even in the most male-dominated society, you can find spaces of female power.

        • rich women still marry up despite having the resources to support themselves.

        • “Also, it is true that you will not be able to attract even a women with resources if you do not have emotional availability, “

          Emotional availability.

          ‘Scuse me, but that wouldn’t be that crusty old crap about “men are out of touch with their feelings” now, would it? Some of us are getting VERY tired of hearing that, you know.

          In fact, some of us might even make it a non-negotiable demand to NEVER hear shit that again. Dig?

          So please explain what you mean by “emotional availability”.

          I despise psychobabble, so talk English when you are explaining that, okay?

    • Psychobabble’s getting a mite thick around here. Somebody open up a window…pleeease!

  6. I thought this was a very good piece, with a few exceptions.

    You don’t think family court favors mothers? I haven’t been through a divorce or custody battle, but I know many who have. Some men deserved what they got, but others got absolutely fleeced. Just look at how rare it is for a man to get custody of his kids compared to the near automatic placement of the kids with their mother. I think pretending this inequity doesn’t exist is disingenuous.

    And finally, the age old question of “do women prefer assholes.” The answer is yes. And no. I was the ultimate “nice guy” in high school. I was a sweetheart, didn’t drink or do drugs, was never aggressive with women and was always utterly respectful. Maybe that’s why I only had one girlfriend. In college, given a clean slate, I changed things up. I became, for all intents and purposes, a real asshole. I stopped the endless flattery, the verses of poems and the flowers for girls I wanted to woo. Instead I stopped paying them attention and acted distant and uncaring. Sometimes I’d throw in a mild put-down. And guess what? I got girls left and right. It was literally a night and day difference.

    As I matured so did the women around me. I eventually found someone I consider my equal in all regards and we’re happily married. But most—not all—women absolutely go for the asshole. But then their priorities change and they look for the nice guy.

    • Female Feedback says:

      Is about the “asshole” v. the “flowers and poetry”?

      Or is about these types of behavior v. respecting and knowing a woman personally and respecting and knowing yourself? It sounds like when you reached the latter, you met with success.

      Women don’t like false sentimentality any more than men do, I suspect.

      • The continuing effort to deny what literally every man knows is a fantastic example of why it is futile to try and convince a feminist woman of anything. Solipsism at it’s best.

        If women didn’t act this way to the point of becoming ubiquitous, then women wouldn’t have that ‘rep’, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that any criticism of women’s behaviour gets you labelled a misogynist extremist…

    • Ugh. Anecdotal stories like these are so stupid and self absorbed.

      Daddy Files, I’m female and your story mirrors my experience with men. Nicest girl in the whole world in high school and every guy I liked liked my friends instead. It wasn’t until I gained a shape that I got any sort of attention (which usually was just comments about my boobs or cat calls).
      In college I was a player and a bitch. I never went out of my way for any guy and the more sarcastic and rude I was, the more they called. If I straight up told a guy that I was unavailable, it was like I painted myself in honey.

      Are my experiences a referendum on men? No more than yours are of women. People like chase and excitement and are sometimes irrational and jerks. So it goes. People are people and want different things.

      • kryptogal says:

        Yup, I second this. It has nothing to do with gender.

        Large percentages of both men AND women go for hotties who treat them like shit. Men love nothing more than a hot woman who is a total dismissive bitch (and I used to be one so I know full well). They
        SAY they want a nice girl (just like girls say they want a nice guy), but they go for the mystery, the player, the person they can never quite nail down who drives them crazy. I found that the easiest way to make a man obsessed with you is to act totally indifferent to him.

        This is human nature and has nothing to do with gender. It’s because good-looking people who are aloof and hard-to-get convey status and people LOVE status…they all want to get into the club that doesn’t want them. Most people mature out of this by the time they hit their thirties.

        • Sad but true.

        • Ubermensch says:

          I am an MRA, and I approve of this message.

        • I’m 41 and just growing out of it.

        • Maybe this will finally stop the “women as a category only like alphas and bad boys?” A compromise?

          • kryptogal says:

            The saddest manifestation of this phenomenon is when a man and woman get into a competition to see who can be the most aloof in an effort to try to hook the other. So basically what you get is a nuclear arms race of bad behavior, where two people who actually like each other are trying harder and harder to pretend that they don’t!

            • That scenario is getting way too common. It’s actually sort of becoming the ‘dating background noise’ everyone has to deal with.

              What I find even scarier, is the people that bail as soon as they hear the other person may (gasp) like them.

          • Sadly, this is for the most part true. I am attracted to submissive men but only the confident submissives and the *best* submissives. We are hypergamous, sad but true.

            • “Sadly, this is for the most part true. I am attracted to submissive men but only the confident submissives and the *best* submissives”

              Doesn’t their latex bodysuit squeak all day, and annoy the hell out of you?

          • I’d just like to say this for what it’s worth. I have always been sexually aloof, I don’t like strangers, I have never had sex on a first date. Yada, Yada.

            I got allot of female attention and I never liked it. I have experienced ongoing sexual advances for most of my life, including being mounted by a lesbian while I was sleeping.
            It was not until I started reading the literature on “game” that I realized what was going on and was able to change my behavior enough to curb the attention.

            You can stop talking about it but in my opinion it’s real. But there is no franchise on the behavior. It is sad.

            • What that woman did to you was sexual assault.

            • “Maybe this will finally stop the “women as a category only like alphas and bad boys?” A compromise?”

              Sure. Both men and women often see each other as objects of sex.

              This is why I do not make comments on articles about infidelity (unless I can find a way to troll the discussion into a direction that matters to me). Unfaithful men and unfaithful women both face essentially no consequences for their actions. I don’t agree with this situation, but it is not an issue where men are seriously disadvantaged relative to women. It is already gender neutral, and so it is not my business.

    • Funny how every MRA claims to have been “The ultimate nice guy” in high school. Never, ever does one hear an MRA say “Hey, I was an asshole to women and I got more pussy than I knew what to do with”.

      Either the Mens Rights movement is exclusively made up of losers (according to the MRA’s own dominant ideology than men – like wolves – can be divided into alpha, beta and what-not classes), or there’s a serious lack of self-perception among many MRAs.

      • ‘every MRA claims to have been “The ultimate nice guy’?

        What a sprawling, idiotic and condescending generalization that is totally and utterly transparent as such.

        I’m an MRA, have I said that? I’m evil, always have been, at least that is what I have been led to believe.

  7. SallyStrange says:

    “You don’t think family court favors mothers? I haven’t been through a divorce or custody battle, but I know many who have. Some men deserved what they got, but others got absolutely fleeced.”

    All things being equal, yes, family court tends to favor mothers. Why? Because judges and other members of the judicial system are not immune to the sexist dogma that holds that women are “naturally” more nurturing than men, that women’s role is to parent and raise children, that men are not interested in child-rearing, since they are “naturally” less nurturing than men. This is a real problem. But it’s not caused by feminism, it’s caused by patriarchal, sexist stereotypes about men and women. Feminism tries to break down these stereotypes. I’m not sure what exactly the MRA solution to this problem would be. Quotas for men in custody cases? Educating people that men can be good parents, just like women are expected to, and that women shouldn’t automatically be considered superior parents? In the latter case, the MRA solution looks remarkably similar to the feminist solution.

    • Yes, there is some commonality, however the MRA objective is to address bias in the law (equal shared parenting), while the feminist objective is to change societal attitudes and the very nature of traditional masculinity, meanwhile actively opposing Equal Shared Parenting.

      • SallyStrange says:

        Provide evidence that feminists are “actively opposing Equal Shared Parenting” please.

        Why is Equal Shared Parenting capitalized? Is this the name of a bill in Congress or something?

        • Female Feedback says:

          Hi Sally- Your question is to Denis, but I wanted to add something from my own experience.

          I think MRAs refer to “Equal Shared Parenting” as a subconscious mechanism for trying to address the inequality between their own parents, without having to hold their fathers accountable. They don’t want to look at their own emotional history and so project it on the entire family court system in a type of impotent, inarticulate way. We’ll see how they reply to you.

          There is, ironically, a book called “Equally Shared Parenting,” by Marc and Amy Vachon, which I love, which is about setting up your marriage and family in the model of equally shared and equal status parenting. It is a well thought out and very adult book.

          I think the MRAs really want “Equally Shared Parenting” but they don’t have what they need psychologically to do it (in part perhaps because of their history with their own parents), so they seek support from the family court system.

          • Another example of feminist ‘concern’ for mens issues…

          • SallyStrange says:

            That’s nice, but I tend to avoid psychoanalyzing. It’s speculative at best.

            • Female Feedback says:

              Whatever – I think understanding psychology is very helpful.

              It’s very clarifying to understand the psychology of these guys, especially when confirmed by books like “Inside the MInds of Angry & Controlling Men” or Alice Miller’s books.

              Maybe someone interested in more depth will find this helpful.

            • “It’s very clarifying to understand the psychology of these guys, especially when confirmed by books like “Inside the MInds of Angry & Controlling Men” or Alice Miller’s books.”

              When you say “these guys”, which guys in particular are you referring to you? Can you give me their names? Have you ever met “these guys”? How do you know if they are “angry and controlling” if you have never met them? What do you suppose gives you the authority to make such armpit psychology statements?

              Do you realize that “angry and controlling” are feminist buzzwords? Do you feel that you need to “control” people by using manipulative language in this way? Do you feel that this might be a tad bit presumptuous on your part, or do you chalk it up to “all’s fair in war”?

              Do you plan to write a book of your own some day, telling people how to do these things?

            • Aw, it’s so cute when you rail against stereotypes with other stereotypes. It totally lends credibility to your words.

            • Better that than a serious attempt to psycho-analyze a total stranger over the fucking internet.

              something by the way, which should (by rights) get you barred from ever practicing real psychology, if you’re even an actual doctor.

            • lol wut? I’m a psychologist and I don’t approve of this message.

          • Nope, equal parenting is intended to address societal bias against fathers that has become an integral part of family law.

            • Female Feedback says:

              No interest in actually learning how to do parenting, unfortunately. It’s not really about the child, apparently, it’s about not wanting to pay money. I’ve said this before – get a vasectomy and only date/marry women who don’t want children if you don’t want to learn how to parent.

            • How do you possible make the claim that father’s aren’t interested in parenting?

              I’m quite certain there would be a lot of absent mothers if they had to jump through the same hoops of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on court just for the privilige of being an occaisonal visitor to their own children.

            • Female Feedback says:

              No generalizations please.

              Many men are excellent fathers.

              You are not, and I’ve never heard an MRA who was. I’ve never heard a word out of your mouths about what good parenting is. I’ve never heard a feeling word, such as “I am angry” or “I am sad.” I’ve never seen one scrap of empathy for anyone.

            • “You are not, and I’ve never heard an MRA who was”

              How would you know this? Have you seen MRA parents? Would you say the same for female MRAs?

            • “You are not, and I’ve never heard an MRA who was. I’ve never heard a word out of your mouths about what good parenting is. I’ve never heard a feeling word, such as “I am angry” or “I am sad.” I’ve never seen one scrap of empathy for anyone.”

              I am not hearing a word out of your mouth other than buzzwords and psychobabble. When people use language in that way, it is often a pretty good sign that they lack empathy. It’s like they are putting up a kind of “wall”.

              Speak normal English and you will sound more credible AND more empathic.

              Oh, and if you are a feminist, you ought to call yourself “Feminist Feedback”. That would be more intellectually honest than “female feedback”. Personally, I think intellectual honesty and empathy go hand-in-hand.

            • And the lack of it goes hand in hand also.

          • “I think MRAs refer to “Equal Shared Parenting” as a subconscious mechanism for trying to address the inequality between their own parents, without having to hold their fathers accountable. They don’t want to…etc.

            I will thank you not to ‘psychologize’.

            That is the old feminist trick of mixing the personal with the political.

            MRAs tend to be ‘political’ creatures. Kindly don’t forget it. 😉

          • Kyle Pruett of Yale studied infants living with just their dads and found that in the areas of personal and social skills, they were two to six months ahead of schedule.107

            An Israeli study found that the more frequently a father visited the hospital of an infant who is prematurely born, the more rapidly the infant gained weight and the more quickly the infant was able to leave the hospital.108 More importantly, the more the father visited, the better was the infant’s social-personal development and its ability to adapt.109

            In a study of black infants, the more interaction the boy had with the father, the higher his mental competence and psycho-motor functioning by the age of six months.110 By the age of three years, psycho-motor functioning is associated with the development of a higher I.Q.

            Maybe you should consider what you are withholding from children with your attitude towards fathering, for an insightful perspective try to reach beyond Oprah’s book of the month club.

            Here’s a link FF so that maybe you can move on with your maturing process. But no one is holding their breathe. http://whitehouseboystomen.com/blog/?page_id=154

            It’s interesting that at the same time TGMP chose to do the hatchet job on MRA’s this was being submitted to the White House for due consideration by 35 advocates of men and boys. But not one mention of it here.

        • “Provide evidence that feminists are “actively opposing Equal Shared Parenting” please.”

          Sally, do you consider NOW a feminist group? Are its members feminists? Do you consider them mainstream or marginal? They are on record as opposing equal parenting both on the national and state level.

          • Appleblossom says:

            They worry about their members losing access to their kids. And it is a legitimate concern-if a man is being abusive, why on earth is the shared parenting thing a good idea? The male already is hurting her and now you want the court to order her to let him have access to her?

            So she either has to give up her children or put up with being beaten just so she can still see her children. (Or in one local case here, murdered.)

            This is why being a family court judge is the worst job in the types of judicial positions.

            • Currently, male victims and violent women are virtually ignored by the system. Abusive women are extending their power and control via sole custody and the children suffer when they are automatically under the control of an abusive mother.

            • “if a man is being abusive, why on earth is the shared parenting thing a good idea?”

              Another fine example of feminist misandry. As soon as the subject of shared custody comes up, out come the slanders of abuse.

              For the record, mothers commit child abuse at twice the rate of fathers.
              http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm

              So the real argument is, why are the family courts giving custody to mothers, who are the primary abusers of children?

            • Appleblossom says:

              Blithely ignoring the fact that abuse does occur does not negate my point.

              If a male is beating a female-why do you support giving him access to her?

            • > If a male is beating a female-why do you support giving him access to her?

              I don’t. Neither would I give access to a woman who beats a man, which occurs just as often.

            • Appleblossom says:

              Can you prove that amazing assertion?

            • Do some reading, lots of great research (non-feminist) here:

              http://www.nfvlrc.org

          • SallyStrange says:

            Yes, I consider NOW a feminist organization, though I don’t always agree with their positions. Can you please provide a link or a quote showing where they stated that they were “opposing equal parenting both on the national and state level”? Otherwise I’m going to assume, based on the evidence provided by my previous interactions with MRAs, that you are referring to some drive they have on to promote the interests of single mothers, and you interpret equality as an equal sum game, meaning that whenever women advance, men must then regress somehow, therefore any advocacy for women specifically is an underhanded swipe at men.

            • In Canada, feminist organization LEAF actively opposes equal parenting. They do it with some absolutely brilliant logical fallacies.

            • Appleblossom says:

              I found the information-the position was based on worry about an abuser having access to an abusee and men using the system to take children away from mothers out of revenge.

              Both legitimate concerns in my opinion if not the MRAs who think men almost NEVER harm women physically or want revenge by keeping her child away from her.

            • The only problem is that you are only accusing men of being abusers.

              Under the current status quo of preferential maternal sole custody, there are thousands of abusive women getting full custody.

            • Appleblossom says:

              Women can abuse to-that is not what the concern is from NOW…they are concerned with women being harmed and losing their children from vindictive exes.

              And if you think that men are lily pure when it comes to these things, I got some graves for you to come visit with me.

            • “And if you think that men are lily pure when it comes to these things, I got some graves for you to come visit with me.”

              Did somebody say that men were lily-pure about these things? No, reading throught the thread, I cannot see where anybody said that. You are willfully twisting and distorting.

              The point is: women are ALSO not lily-pure about those things. But that fact is forever being swept under the rug, just as you are attempting to do right now.

              In fact, what you are doing right now is a microcosm of society.

              Why do you wish to mirror the feminist trend in society?

              Why do wish to downplay the fact that women are equally “bad”?

            • Appleblossom says:

              Not at all-women do abuse men. However these guys are not acknowledging at all that men abuse women and there is a legitimate concern to prevent that.

              Nor is there any acknowledgment that men can be petty and vindictive during a divorce so having automatic shared parenting is not always the best case scenario.

              As for women behaving badly-Justia on Facebook posted a link yesterday to a woman who has been slapped with a $120,000 judgment for being a complete psycho about her the father of her child. And based on her actions, it probably should have been more.

    • “Because judges and other members of the judicial system are not immune to the sexist dogma that holds that women are “naturally” more nurturing than men, that women’s role is to parent and raise children, that men are not interested in child-rearing, since they are “naturally” less nurturing than men. ”

      Three guesses as to who convinced lawmakers this was the case. Here’s a hint, Suffragettes, Prohibition, and the Tender Years Doctrine.

      Ah, I can’t wait to see if you check it out…

      Feminists were the ones who had the law changed from Father-presumptive to Mother-presumptive, based on ‘women are more nurturing” stereotypes. This is one that can be laid SQUARELY at the feet of your early feminist heroes…

      • SallyStrange says:

        Yes, it’s not surprising that early feminists used sexist stereotypes that depicted women in a positive light to advance their agenda. For example, early Suffragettes sometimes argued that since women are “naturally” more cool-tempered and compassionate than men, they should be given the right to vote, because this would have a calming effect on electoral politics. That never happened, of course, because women are cool- or hot-tempered in about the same percentages as men are.

        Those Suffragettes and early feminists were exploiting already-existing stereotypes about men and women to advance their agenda. They didn’t create those stereotypes. Those stereotypes existed well before the development of the feminist movement, even in its earliest incarnations–they are an essential part of the ideology that teaches that women are best suited for reproduction and child-rearing rather than any other type of work. As feminism has advanced, understanding of how even stereotypes that depict women in a positive manner can be limiting and oppressive, and the acceptance of the validity of those positive stereotypes has decreased. As has been noted, positive stereotypes about men (strong, assertive, confident) can be limiting and oppressive for men as well.

        Once again, you demonstrate how MRAs’ perception of reality is consistently inaccurate, skewed by their commitment to contorting available facts to fit within their fantasy world of matriarchal oppression of hapless men.

        • “Yes, it’s not surprising that early feminists used sexist stereotypes that depicted women in a positive light to advance their agenda. ”

          Early feminists? It’s hardly a thing of the past. The whole Rape Culture dogma trades in patriarchal stereotypes.

          “They didn’t create those stereotypes. ”

          They certainly did not. They inherited them from traditional society and quickly put them to use, without ever interogating them, and have never stopped using them.

          Feminism is the Lady’s Auxialiary to the Patriarchy.

          • SallyStrange says:

            Again, your understanding of reality is turned on its head.

            The ideas encapsulated by the phrase “rape culture” are precisely the opposite of misandry. It’s not feminism, but the dominant USAian culture that teaches women to regard all men as rapists, and to regard the problem of rape as akin to a hurricane, something that’s unstoppable because men are by nature brutal and dangerous, so it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from it as far as possible. It’s not the dominant culture, but feminism, that would have us recognize that all men are NOT potential rapists, and creating a culture where women are obliged to treat men that way because too many rapists never get caught is damaging to everyone involved (except for the rapists).

            If feminism is the Patriarchy’s Lady’s Auxiliary, then does that mean you regard the Patriarchy as a Bad Thing?

        • “Those Suffragettes and early feminists were exploiting already-existing stereotypes about men and women to advance their agenda.”

          “Once again, you demonstrate how MRAs’ perception of reality is consistently inaccurate, skewed by their commitment to contorting available facts to fit within their fantasy world of matriarchal oppression of hapless men.”

          So, you admit that the sexism existed, that feminists manipulated this sexism to work in their favour, that the stereoype employed to gain women advantage was based on fallacious thinking…

          And yet, you say my perception, which you AGREED WITH, is somehow ‘contorting available facts’…because you posit feminism has changed in tactics and demeanour.

          Well, I got a whole movement that says you’re full of shit on that last bit…

          • SallyStrange says:

            Erm, I believe that YOU are the one who is admitting that sexism existed prior to the invention of feminism and the Suffrage movement, which rather undermines one of the core MRA hypotheses… or is MRA too slippery to have a concrete position on something as basic as the existence of sexism prior to the feminist movement? My comment about your perception of reality being entirely inaccurate was based on the implication in your post that feminists invented sexism… but if that’s not what you’re saying then perhaps you’re not as out of touch with reality as I thought.

            Other movements besides feminism have exploited positive stereotypes to advance the interests of their members. Native Americans have played off the “in touch with nature” stereotype to gain sympathy for their cause. Asian-Americans have played up the “model minority” stereotype to gain sympathy for their cause. This doesn’t make them evil. I don’t think it’s the best way to advance the cause, but I think it’s understandable. Ditto for early feminists. Not only did they exploit sexist stereotypes whenever it was advantageous, a great many of them were racist. Also, they wouldn’t have cared a whit about the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered people. In fact, contemporary feminists still have trouble remembering that anti-racism is part of the work too, and that transgendered women are women too, and so forth. Those are problems that should be addressed, and are being addressed. But that doesn’t mean that feminism, the idea that women and men deserve equal rights and equal opportunity, is a Bad Idea.

            • “or is MRA too slippery to have a concrete position on something as basic as the existence of sexism prior to the feminist movement?”

              http://gynotheory.blogspot.com

              “But that doesn’t mean that feminism, the idea that women and men deserve equal rights and equal opportunity, is a Bad Idea.”

              You and I differ on that one. I think Feminism is the greatest evil ever to be visited upon the political west, and at some point in the future historians will look back on this epoch with horror. Obviously, you don’t share that view.

              Consider this:

              Feminism doesn’t have a lock on Gender Equality.

            • typhonblue says:

              Dude.

              If you believe women were powerless prior to feminism and that men had no problems then, logically, all the problems that men have now are a result of feminism.

              Either feminism is wrong or feminism is to blame.

              Choose.

            • typhon, you’re a goddess.

            • Or that menz ‘problems’ aren’t really problems but just hyped up rants about losing priveleges.

        • And I’ll be the third to support the argument that feminists today are all to happy to evoke sexual stereotypes when it works in their favor. The fundamental premise that women are all hapless victims of patriarchal society is a primary example. There is no situation that feminists cannot twist and distort to portray as female victimization.

          • SallyStrange says:

            I suppose, if I were to speak of a real world example of women being victimized just for being women–for example, the recent reports from Libya of black African women in Libya being raped simply because they are black-skinned, in the wrong country at the wrong time, and in possession of a vagina–you would say that I was “twisting and distorting” reality. Your rhetoric sets up a no-win dynamic. Your own absolutist language (“no situation”, “ALL hapless victims”) betrays your lack of interest in the truth.

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              Ah, classical! When the discussion is about domestic situation in the western world, where women are being respected and considered to be good to point of being ridiculous and damaging to men, QUICK! Bring in the shaming tactics by using things from the third world, as if that is somehow the fault of MRAs.

            • “Bring in the shaming tactics by using things from the third world, as if that is somehow the fault of MRAs.”

              Yes, we have all noticed this little tactic plenty of times, haven’t.

              If you would like a name for this behavior, to be added to the MRA dictionary, call it :

              Global Escapism

            • But in Libya there are also reports of African men being lynched by mobs and being shot. You have to use your own value judgment here but I don’t think getting raped is worse than getting killed by a lynch mob. To equate something horrible happening and ignoring that horrible things are happening to men is how you end up with articles like “Ethnic Violence in Pakistan: Men Are Dying, But Women Are the Victims” where it argues that the real victims of men being murdered are their female relatives.

        • “For example, early Suffragettes sometimes argued that since women are “naturally” more cool-tempered and compassionate than men, they should be given the right to vote, because this would have a calming effect on electoral politics. That never happened, of course, because women are cool- or hot-tempered in about the same percentages as men are. “

          Then you must admit that those early feminists LIED. Or at the very least, that their endeavor was built upon a foundation of falsehood. And from what I have seen of present-day feminists, they hold pretty much the same view of men (hence women). How many times in recent times have you heard some feminist say that women ought to be in government “because they are more compassionate” or some such? Nothing much has changed…..

        • SallyStrange sez:
          “Yes, it’s not surprising that early feminists used sexist stereotypes that depicted women in a positive light to advance their agenda.”

          OK, Sally, so you admit that feminism is an ideology, that has an agenda and that is not above using sexist stereotypes to promote said agenda.

          I agree.

          But if this is the case, why should we presume that this has changed TODAY? And why should we presume that the feminist agenda is “what’s best for men, women and children”, to the point where anyone who criticizes it is presumed to be anti-humanist?

    • wavevector says:

      > I’m not sure what exactly the MRA solution to this problem would be. Quotas for men in custody cases?

      It’s called “rebuttable presumption of shard parenting”. The idea is that physical custody would be shared 50/50 unless one parent can demonstrate that this arrangement would not be in the best interest of the child. The burden of proof is on the parent petitioning against the shared parenting arrangement.

      The purpose of this is to counter-act the longstanding preference for the mother, and to assert as a legal principle that the father is an equal parent to the mother. It still provides the full flexibility to the courts to assign full custody to one or the other parent, based on the situation.

    • But we are also not simply blank slates, either. Men and women are interchangeable. It is women who rest their heads on men’s chests, not the other way around.

  8. SallyStrange says:

    Correction:

    “that men are not interested in child-rearing, since they are “naturally” less nurturing than men.”

    Should obviously be

    “that men are not interested in child-rearing, since they are “naturally” less nurturing than women.”

  9. “So men are indeed architects of their own adversity. ”

    This is completey true, and this is the core of the MRM* – destroying the old order of protection and provision and special privileges for women.

    – No special privileges in law or in the execution of the law for mothers in child rearing, both before and after the these days almost inevitable divorce.

    – No more abdication of men’s responisibity to raise their children. No more tolerance for inadequate paternity leave. no more tolerance of legal kidnapping in adoptions where the fathers are not even notified much less consulted much less allowed to contest the adoption, No more toelrance of “mommy-blocking” in the home. No more tolerance of mothers who refuse to go out and work and bring home a 50-50 share of the family’s income. No more tolerance of gender inbalances in elementary and secondary education, where women are grossly over-represented and children see almost no men at all as role models or in capacity other than the school janitor – to be accomplished with effective Affirmative Action programs enforceable by funding cuts for schools that fail to meet objectives.

    – No more male expendability. No more easing women into the safe indoor jobs to even up the numbers without forcing women out into the dirty and dangerous jobs in the same industry. No more exclusion of women from combat – not “allowing” but forcing women, through the draft, to shoulder the exact same burdens of citizenship as their brothers do, in the same percentages. No more tolerance of the use of violence against men as a form of entertainment.

    – No more privileging of rape over other forms of assault – no more special little rape shield laws, no more abrogation of the presumption of innocence, no more lynch mobs or legal lynchings.

    – No more denial of women’s violence against men. That means a recogniton of the full scale of women’s domestic violence against men, that means recognizing and prosecuting the full scale of women’s sexual violence against men and especially boys. That means no more presumed consent to sex if a women makes advances on a man, no more congratulating boys who get raped by women and telling them “they got lucky”. This means a full recognition of women’s role in war, on all levels, beginning with the economic, proceeding to the cultural and on into the political level.

    Et cetera.

    The goal is total equality, the promise of at least one form of feminism. It’s hard to see how a feminist would object to any of this.

    *Shorn of all the Neanderthal get-back-in-the-kitchen former fellow travelers. that split was pretty much complete a couple of years ago.

    • kryptogal says:

      Jim, I certainly don’t object to any of this, and I’m absolutely on board with the “total equality” goal.

      But is it really true that the MRM has been “Shorn of all the Neanderthal get-back-in-the-kitchen former fellow travelers”? I read about this topic online now and then since it’s of interest to me, and I would say that a sizable (maybe a third or half) of MRAs commenters seem to be clearly in the traditional gender-roles camp. For someone like you, who is more interested in the equality angle, I would imagine that it must be frustrating when the traditionalists align themselves with your movement, since they ultimately make it sound hypocritical and dilute the message (the same way female-privilege advocates ultimately hurt the feminist movement).

      • Female Feedback says:

        I think kryptogal is right. I see almost zero evidence of emotional availability (other than anger) in MRA postings and articles. I see zero discussion of what parenting is about other than the “rights of the father” and fury that children cost money (were they dissociated during the sex act or do they not understand that sex produces babies? – weird). I see no evidence that they distinguish between good fathers and abusive/neglectful ones.

        • wavevector says:

          > I see zero discussion of what parenting is about

          But that would be off-topic in most MRA forums, where the discussion is generally about societal issues like legal rights, not the personal experience of parenting. I for one am a very involved parent, and consider it the most important thing I do. But I don’t usually talk about that on MRA sites – not because it isn’t important, but because it isn’t the topic of discussion.

          • Female Feedback says:

            Then you missed the entire point of Hugo’s article.

            • wavevector says:

              I would say Hugo misses the entire point of the MRM.

            • Female Feedback says:

              No, I think he gets it. Parenting is hard work in service of someone other than a coach, a military commander, an authoritarian father, etc. and requires emotional availability. The MRM demonstrates neither the ability to work for anyone but other authoritarian types – certainly not for a dependent person, such a child, and shows no emotional availability, which is critical for working with children, particularly when they are pre-verbal.

            • Female Feedback says:

              Sorry bad sentence –

              Meant to say “The MRM demonstrates neither (a) the ability to work for anyone but themselves or other authoritarian types – certainly not for a dependent person, such as a child and (b) the ability to be emotionally available and empathize, which is critical for caring for and parenting children, particularly when they are pre-verbal.”

              Quite striking when you compare them not only to men like Hugo but to other dads groups like NYCDads Group, DaddyDialectic, The Evolution of Dad and to fathering experts like John Badalement (The Modern Dad’s Dilemma), Stephan Poulter (Father Factor), Kyle Pruett (Fatherneed), Joshua Cohen (The Lazy Husband).

            • Jesus, woman. Men are under no obligation to sniffle, cry, or display emotion.

              *hugs*

            • wavevector says:

              “other dads groups like NYCDads Group, DaddyDialectic, The Evolution of Dad”

              Those groups are about fathering, so the men who participate a discussing that. Emotional availability is relevant in that context.

              MRM forums are not about fathering per se. They are about rights, legal injustices, and societal discrimination. This is a very different type of topic and results in a very different type of conversation.

              Men may be inclined to be ’emotionally available’ in contexts that require it, but not in contexts that require facts and reason rather than emotion. The father’s groups are examples of the former – the MRM groups are examples of the latter.

              You are imposing a gynocentric standard of behavior on men, whereby you value emotional expressiveness in all contexts, and are faulting some men for not displaying that behavior in certain contexts. I reject this standard, as would most other men I think.

            • Imagine that, a hardline feminist being dismissive of men, their feelings, and their issues.

              Isn’t that supposed to never happen with this Feminist movement that “really cares about men”?

            • typhonblue says:

              Your statement ’emotional availability’ is frightening to me.

              What the hell does it mean? It sounds like abuse. Shoving your adult emotions all over a child is no different then shoving your adult genitals on them.

            • What a myopic and self serving statement, I have always held disdain for heroic parenting, People who aggrandize the responsibilities of parenting, are usually the first to rub it in the faces of their own children. Pathetic self importance.
              Are you suffering from Munchhausen by proxy?

          • Appleblossom says:

            Maybe if you started bringing it up then Hugo would not be missing what you claim the MRM is about.

            • Female Feedback says:

              Then they wouldn’t be the MRM because the MRM is not about parenting; it’s about complaining about women.

      • typhonblue says:

        I want the traditionalists to die.

      • “But is it really true that the MRM has been “Shorn of all the Neanderthal get-back-in-the-kitchen former fellow travelers”? I read about this topic online now and then since it’s of interest to me, and I would say that a sizable (maybe a third or half) of MRAs commenters seem to be clearly in the traditional gender-roles camp.”

        There is not, and never had been, an “MRM”. That idea is largely a mythic construct. So when you ask if the MRM has been “shorn” of such people, it is quasi-meaningless, because it almost seems to imply that those people just *disappeared* into a void and left a “pure remnant” to itself. Which, obviously, they did not. No, they are still around, and yes, you will hear their voices piping up, even alongside others. And it will always be hard to know how to draw the correct lines separating what from what.

        But if you are worried that somebody is going to “push women back into the kitichen”, then don’t be silly. The chance of any such thing happening is, realistically, slim as hell. Fact is, they were never “pushed” there in the first place, not even in the bad old days!

        There might be a few other things that women need to worry about, but trust me, it ain’t THAT.

        What women really ought to worry about is not that men will “push them” anywhere, but just the opposite, That they will leave them totally to their fate, to fend for themselves.

        Indifference, I mean. This is what the smarter MRAs will tell you, if you ask them for the scenario.

    • Yes gender-neutral laws which don’t favor or discriminate against one gender are essential for true equality.

      The gender communist policies of feminists which favors women have no place in a true and equal society!

  10. I think she also cribbed from Michael Flood as well.

    • Sarah TX says:

      The author is clearly a guy. Furthermore, it’s a tragic mistake to assume that gay men are not subject to the same pressures as a straight man to conform to a heterosexual masculinity — I think it’s safe to assume that there is MORE pressure on gay men to conform in all other areas of their life save their sexual preference, as a sort of compensation.

  11. MRAs are all wrong… no male victim ever exists… the older angry MRAs only feel like that but they are wrong… etc. etc.

    Hugo knows it all.

    What a biased scornful article by a feminist professor.

    MRAs are disturbing Hugo a lot – he has no good arguments against them.

    Like it or not, Hugo, but feminism is not about equality between men and women, it is even not about equality among women themselves, it is about getting advantages and privileges for certain groups of women.

    MRAs advice men to study about existing laws and law execution, MRAs advice men to PREVENT troubles from the very beginning on, MRAs advice men to avoid mistakes which might change their life to the worst.

    If Hugo likes that or not is irrelevant.

    Of course, Hugo does not care about men, he cares only about women… it’s up to him to do so.

    MRAs care about men and is asking them to go their own way, and it’s up to us to do so.

    So, Hugo, what is your problem with the MRAs?

  12. Whenever I look into the problems facing men, I don’t see that “the source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood.” I see feminists, aggressively acting to bring men down.

    When legislation for “rebuttable presumption of shared custody” is brought before state legislatures, feminists are fighting it.

    When reforms are proposed to help boys who are failing in school, feminists attempt to discredit them.

    When proposals for more equitable healthcare spending for men are raised, feminists oppose them.

    When the issue of gender equity comes up in criminal sentencing, feminists support more lenient sentencing for women and harsher sentencing for men.

    When economic policies are discussed, feminists support programs that redistribute wealth from men to women, but oppose programs that would increase the employment of men.

    I am forced to conclude from the evidence I see in the real political world that feminists are the enemy of men. No amount of obfuscation from feminist propagandists like Hugo here can obscure this fact.

    • You offered no evidence and no facts. You listed a bunch of things you claim you’ve seen, with no sources, no supporting materials – nothing. Your selective memory and deliberately slanted commentary is not evidence.

      As it stands, you’re just wanking misogynistic.

      • Hugo offers no evidence or facts, with no sources or supporting materials.

        Enough with the Ad hominen attacks, it is against site policy but I doubt any man-hater will ever get banned.

        • Maybe so Denis But Hugo is wanking Misandric there is a difference. Apparently his is more appealing.

        • Sarah TX says:

          This is not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem attack would be “You are a wanker, therefore I do not listen to anything you say.” Instead, Oyveh wrote that zie did not present any facts at all, so there’s no reason to listen to what zie has to say. Because of that, zie is a wanker.

          • It might help if you understand some things:

            Feminists ALWAYS demand proof…but rarely, if ever, even read it. And then they dismiss it out of hand.

            Therefore, demanding proof – especially of something so widespread and easily seen – is widely regarded as a ‘wild goose chase’. Add to that the very slim possibility that you will be convinced (or even listen), there is no percentage in trying to prove this stuff.

            Even if we do, you’ll just ignore it.

            As an addition to this, Feminist “statistics” like “1 in 4 women…(anything)” are routinely debunked, yet propagated year after year. Every Superbowl, for instance.

            So, you folks lie through your teeth, ignore evidence that shows your ideological cousins are doing nasty things (NAFALT), repeat ‘information’ you know to be false as if they are truths, dismiss out of hand anything that refutes your worldview…

            And you have the nuts to complain when someone doesn’t postt a link (that YOU will find acceptable, of course) for every statement they make?

            That right there is yet another example of why discourse with Feminists is a waste of time.

      • “wanking” – Oh of course, the standard shaming language. It’s no substitute for an actual response, honey.

      • Well, I provided assertions of facts that can be checked. You provided absolutely nothing but a gratuitous insult.

        So right back at you. As it stands, you are a moronic misandrist.

        For the sake of other readers with higher intelligence, I will provide links to support my claims this evening, when I am no longer at work.

    • I’m a feminist and I’m working on developing teaching methods for boys that are more active and hands-on. At the same time, I also recognize that my mother has a genuine problem with the girls in her class who fail math because they’re under the impression girls are bad at math. As a feminist, it’s my duty to work towards equality on BOTH of these problems.

      • “As a feminist, it’s my duty to work towards equality on BOTH of these problems.”

        Yeah, but we all know which problem you’ll devote your energy and time to…

      • From the way that you have described yourself, it is hard to understand why you would call yourself a “feminist”.

        That’s a filthy word. Do yourself a favor and drop it. Call yourself by some other name.

        Remember that in the future, when things get crazy, people generally won’t bother to ask, or care, what “kind of feminist” you are. They won’t be of a mind to mince definitions.

      • You are one teacher, working against a stream of “help the girls, drug the boys” rhetoric I wish you luck, I guess.

  13. I don’t know why but the dogged insistence of MRAs to avoid reality at all costs never fails to amaze me. You’d think that they would embrace the things that would alleviate the problems they face, or problems they want addressed. But no, instead it’s [insert batshit crazy misogynistic conspiracy theory] and [stupid, repeatedly refuted lies].

    It makes me kind of sad. There’s a way out of this mess, and yet they insist on whining about imaginary culprits.

    • That’s a very vague and wide paintbrush you use, you must be one of Hugo’s NOMAS buddies.

      • Ten bucks says this weenie couldn’t expound on ANY of the issues mens activists are on about.

        • Who? Hugo or Verklempt

        • I’ll bet the weenie couldn’t expound on the issues SHE’S on about!
          and I’ll take your bet Factory. If she expounds on anything beyond BS we both contribute 10 bucks to AVFMRadio.

        • There you go, bullying other men for their perceived “weakness.” Who even says “weenie” anymore.

          • There you go, employing shaming language and appealing to authority.

            I bet your Mom is proud.

            • Um, I think standing up for someone is slightly different from shaming. Don’t be a bully.

            • “Um, I think standing up for someone is slightly different from shaming. Don’t be a bully.”

              Shove it. I will do and say what I like, within the bounds of this site. I get this is your regular hangout and you feel all tough, so you can try and ‘lay down the law’ all you like, I’ll flip you the bird the entire time.

              But you’re right, there’s no way ANYONE should take offense to stuff like this:

              “You’d think that they would embrace the things that would alleviate the problems they face, or problems they want addressed. But no, instead it’s [insert batshit crazy misogynistic conspiracy theory] and [stupid, repeatedly refuted lies].

              It makes me kind of sad. There’s a way out of this mess, and yet they insist on whining about imaginary culprits.”

              Right?

              “Bully” my ass. If anyone here is trying to puff out his chest to impress, it’s YOU, not me.

            • Fine…………weiner! Is that better….how bout sausage.

    • Well, I agree that you are kind of sad, but let’s push on. You’re not going to get anywhere in this discussion by refusing even to listen to the other side’s argument, ebcause unless oyu do, you end up making the same stupidly irrelevant comments. Here’s and example:

      “I don’t know why but the dogged insistence of MRAs to avoid reality at all costs never fails to amaze me. You’d think that they would embrace the things that would alleviate the problems they face, or problems they want addressed. But no, instead it’s [insert batshit crazy misogynistic conspiracy theory] and [stupid, repeatedly refuted lies].”

      What the MRM is “embracing” is a movement to destroy chivalry. Is that radical enough for you? When MRAs denounce feminism, they are denouncing chivalry because they see no difference between the tow. Feminism is just chivalry tarted up in modern terminology.

      • Appleblossom says:

        Chivalry was a movement invented by men to get into married women’s pants.

        William IX of Aquitaine invented the concept of courtly love that was melded with the honour and other stuff that knights used when not out fighting interminable wars between petty kings that led to the thing we call Chivalry.

        So quit blaming us women for what some man did in the 11th century to get laid.

        • We don’t. But we’ll also make sure you never benefit from it again.

          Fair?

        • Please don’t be pedantic re: “the 11th century” and “William of Aquitaine.”

          That is NOT what people are currently talking about when they use the term “chivalry”.

          And you know it.

          So knock off the temporal escapism.

          And, as Factory suggests, you’d best not be benefiting from this “chivalry” if you intend to be consistent.

      • Ubermensch says:

        I wish you would stop speaking for the whole MRM. I only support the destruction of chivalry, because when men stop protecting women, they will ultimately destroy themselves. Queen Victoria said in 1870:

        “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of “Women’s Rights”, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to “unsex” themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.”

        • Thus sayeth the woman who, at the time, was running the largest empire the world had ever seen.

          Does anyone else not see the irony in this?

          Frankly, I think Vicky was being dry and humorous. You seem to take her words at face value, Uber. But if she truly believed what she said, why didn’t she give up the throne?

    • “It makes me kind of sad. There’s a way out of this mess, and yet they insist on whining about imaginary culprits.”

      That way had better NOT be a feminist way. After all, I am a non-feminist.

      Also, please define what you believe “this mess” is. It think it is possible that different people would have different ideas about that. And don’t use feminist jargon, since I am a non-feminist.

      And explain how it is possible to “whine” in writing, given that whining is a function of voice tone…

  14. The perspective of the article is comfortable for many, and well supported by stereotypical archetypes. From the presentation of the violent male graphic to the twelve step program to the notion that men are blaming women, it’s a nice package that no doubt will serve your purpose.

    I would simply ask, when men don’t fit these paradigms of righteous indignation and fear nurturing misandry, When they are not equal to the sins of the savior Hugo what in this glorious society of equality will accommodate my safety and my freedom equal to you.

    If I refuse your redemption and it’s meager portion as a false accusation,is this your evidence against me.

    It is a comfortable court you sit in to solicit statements from the accused. But you may do better to count them.

    It is never wise to punish a man twice for the same crime.

  15. Feminism is a well crafted story used as political philosophy. As in any story, it hides certain presumptions and demands suspension of belief. One of those is the claim that women have suffered for thousands of years and men have not. Throwing “patriarchy” into the rhetoric doesn’t make the claim any less nonsense. But believing anything without question, always risks disaster. For example domestic violence shelters do not serve men, a policy which comes straight out of the current extensions of feminism. But “exit reports”, showing the reason women left the shelter, reveal that half of the women are kicked out for being violent to others or “non compliant”. You might think that such a result would necessarily question the presumptions, but in every case the reporter swears the women was abused by her husband or boy friend. Belief can hurt. Imagine these women getting a restraining order and with it, custody of children. Belief can kill. Our county is dealing with its own hiding of the deaths of children in its own “protection”. The dept. in charge has its own feminist procedures. Most of the children died at the hands of their mother. Some after long histories of concern by fathers. Saying some men are angry may be handy, but what kind of person stands resolute over the death of a child for the sake of a story?

    • Hugo, sorry if this wasn’t better written, particularly the last line which belatedly seems overly harsh and even ad hominem. What I meant was that we need to not drink the kool-aid, and find more sustaining values. Safety of children is one, but honoring parents equally is another. Neither is served by pitting one against the other, And clearly the future is in doubt if we are not able to question the threatening current of bigotry in feminism today. What matters most is not the rhetoric, but the consequences. As a parent of both a girl and boy, I ask you to let them live in peace, alive and together.

  16. It is unfortunate that Hugo chose to use a strawMRA, because the actual complaints raised by those in the men’s movement are valid. Hugo glossed over a basic fact about human interactions: people tend not to do things that do not get them the results they want. It is rather easy to blame men for their own problems (which is why Hugo did it). However, it is more difficult to look at the situation from an objective perspective.

    Human interactions do not occur in a vacuum. Men who wish to date to have to engage in certain behaviors in order to attract a mate. Some of those behaviors that may be defined by the broader society, yet some are defined by the potential mate. The notion that women do not choose one type of man over other types of men simply does not hold water. We can all see that certain types of men get more attention from women than other men, just as we can see that certain types of women get more attention from men than other women. There is plenty of research showing that family courts favor mothers over fathers. There is plenty of research showing that athletic programs for males have been cut in order to create programs for females.

    Blaming “traditional manhood” simply makes for an easy scapegoat in order to avoid addressing how women’s attitudes and feminism negatively effects males. This does not mean that every bad thing that happens to males is because of feminism or women. However, it does mean that women and feminism are not always the solution and in some instances are the cause of the problem.

    Many of the issues that MRAs bring up revolve around males being valued. If fathers were valued, it is unlikely that women would receive sole custody the overwhelming majority of the time. If boys were valued, it is unlikely that the education system would drug boys or ignore their interests. If men were valued as people rather than as providers, it is unlikely that so many men would have to “prove” themselves in order to attract a mate. Feminism does not seem to provide the solution to that problem because feminism does not value men, either as men or as people. Rather, feminism regards males as the “enemy” who needs to be reformed. The average does not need to be reformed. He just needs to be listened to. However, it is hard to listen to someone when you are busy putting them down for expressing their pain.

    • “Men who wish to date to have to engage in certain behaviors in order to attract a mate.”

      You should emulate Hugo rather than try to undermine him. Despite being a, to quote MRAs, “Mangina” he manages to have been very successful in attracting women.Hugo is not a thug/outlaw biker/ rich Wall street type. So that NiceGuy b.s. is weak.

      “There is plenty of research showing that athletic programs for males have been cut in order to create programs for females.”

      So women should have atheletic programs?

      “Blaming “traditional manhood” simply makes for an easy scapegoat in order to avoid addressing how women’s attitudes and feminism negatively effects males.”

      No, the ways in which traditional manhood supresses men is independant of what problems you have with ‘women’s attitudes.’ Not being able to show emotions without fear of being called ‘gay’ is not something the women in my life are fostering. It’s the men solidly who will call out and mock any sign of ‘weakness’ I show.

      “If boys were valued, it is unlikely that the education system would drug boys or ignore their interests.”

      There are so incorrect associations here.
      1.) Schools don’t supply drugs.
      2.) Parents who fret about their kid send them to psychologists who are paid by drug companies run by… yep, rich CEO men.

      “If men were valued as people rather than as providers, it is unlikely that so many men would have to “prove” themselves in order to attract a mate.”

      Everyone has to prove themselves as a mate. Mating is not egalitarian. Attraction is not something you can equalize. Women have to pluck, Jazzercise, tweak, surgically modify, and starve to often fit a crazy rat race of getting picked over less conventionally attractive women. Shit ain’t fair. If you don’t want to be judged for ‘providerness’ then you should be willing to overlook ‘unattractiveness’ as that is an equally arbitrary and oppressive standard. That is unlikely to happen in this lifetime.

      “If men were valued as people rather than as providers, it is unlikely that so many men would have to “prove” themselves in order to attract a mate.”

      Wrong, feminism understands and knows it needs men to make the whole social program work. They only count as enemies misogynists who wish to keep the favors stacked for men.

      • With a couple of marriages and a history of substance abuse under his belt, I’m not so sure I’d put Hugo Schwyzer up as some sort of male role-model for the “nice guy”.

        I mean, I think it’s great that he’s overcome all his demons and is now trying to live a more balanced and productive life. And I surely wouldn’t say that my personal history is anything to be proud of (in fact, if I’m not dead in the next ten years of some stress-related illness, I’ll be very surprised), but to presume that Hugo attracts women becaus he’s “a nice guy” goes against the evidence of the man’s own biography, as presented by himself.

        Maybe we should ask Hugo’s exs what sort of guy he is? And maybe Hugo’s exs are stone cold bitches and he’s not the problem. Or maybe they split up amicably. In any case, I think that given the evidence, it’s pretty stupid to presume that Hugo is some sort of new male role-model simply because he’s a gender studies prof who spouts a feminist line.

  17. Morrisfactor says:

    “The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood.”

    Actually Hugo, you are totally incorrect here. If you are ever unlucky enough to experience divorce with your current spouse, you will quickly find out that Family Court is completely biased against fathers. You have virtually no chance of getting custody of your daughter, no matter how badly your ex-wife has behaved. (Women get custody of the children in 84% of divorces in the USA and 93% of the time in Canada).

    Can you possibly imagine the unhappiness and suffering you will feel as your beloved daughter leaves the courtroom with her mother? To suddenly realize that you will, for the rest of her childhood, only see her every other Saturday/Sunday and for two hours on Wednesdays? This is the “cookie cutter” visitation schedule almost every state in the union recommends for child visitation.

    “Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”

    You really think that Hugo? Maybe you should imagine this:

    You will find out how painful it is to see your daughter just four days and a few hours in an entire month. No matter how good of a father you are, with such a short period of interaction forced upon you by a judge, you will feel your daughter slipping away from you.

    Additionally, over 60% of ex-wives love to reduce the amount of time a child can spend with their ex, and will “gate-keep” – do their best to make contact between you and your daughter problematic. They can do so with impunity, Family Courts seldom do anything about enforcing visitation rights. And should your ex-wife choose, she can move across town, or to another state, and there will be nothing you can do about it. How will you parent your daughter then?

    And you will probably discover that much of your child support will not be spent on your child, but that your ex-wife will use it for her own interests, such as vacations with the new man in her life. So you will spend even more of your income to provide basics for your daughter, such as food, clothing, dance lessons, etc., not to mention traveling back and forth in an effort to stay in contact with your child.
    And you’d better hope that you don’t lose your job or get a pay reduction in this recession, because the Family Courts seldom allow child support payments to be reduced and are eager to add on penalties if you are late—those penalties added to the State’s coffers. You will find the entire weight of the State apparatus bearing down on you. You will be denied visits with your child, lose your drivers and professional licenses (how do you find work now?), and can even be sentenced to debtor’s prison, as have thousands upon thousands of men.

    You claim men have brought all this suffering upon themselves, but that is not true. The government, much influenced by feminism, gives women huge incentives to divorce men. Women initiate divorce 70% of the time and a large, recent study showed that the number one reason women initiated is because they knew they would get the children, the home and child support.

    Men are outraged because of losing their children to this feminist system and becoming indentured servants to their ex-wives for decades. If we are angry, we have good reason. And manginas like you are equally to blame for sustaining this agony.

    Hugo, your life as you know it lives on a thread. Should your wife ever decide to leave you, then you will come to understand how frightfully wrong you are about the feminized society you so happily promote.

    • “You claim men have brought all this suffering upon themselves, but that is not true.”

      Actually, it’s not our own fault, but it is the fault of other men, for letting women get away with this.Women should not be the targets of our efforts, because they are peripheral – women did not set up this system, however much they benefit from it, and however much they suffer under it. And once we stop supporting it, it will collapse. Once we stop tolerating bigoted family court judges, they will vanish. Women didn’t put them in place, and women didn’t arrange these bigoted laws either – we handed them all of that, just like the vote. There was no fight, not a shot fired. We can just take it all back, insist on equality, and it’s over.

      • kryptogal says:

        This is true: “We can just take it all back, insist on equality, and it’s over.” May I ask then, why do you think men DON’T insist on equality (and in fact a great many of them seem quite in favor of the protective laws/norms for women)? Why is it, in other words, that most men don’t seem to care about the issues pushed by the MRM?

        Likewise, and in line with Hugo’s point, why do you think so many men engage in gender-policing with each other? For example, if I were to engage in any kind of stereotypical male behavior, my female friends might not like it, but no one is going to call me a lesbian or tell me I’m not a real woman or otherwise disparage me (a man might, but it’s unlikely a woman will). But men do that to each other all the time when one of their male friends does anything that’s not strictly in line with the “male code”…men can’t order sweet drinks, carry a bag (i.e. “purse”), like cats, etc.

        Why is this? I’m genuinely curious because while many people here are refuting Hugo’s thesis, no one has yet denied that men DO engage in an awful lot of gender-policing, nor explained why that might be.

        • I understand why some women / feminists are afraid of true equality. They have gained choices and opportunity but maintained their traditional feminine privilege.

          The MRM seeks true equality and that would eliminate traditional feminine privilege.

        • I think in traditional societies, both genders police their own gender roles strictly.

          In Western societies, feminism has given women more freedom in gender behavior, with less policing from both men and women. But there has been much less emphasis on the gender roles of men. As a consequence, men are largely still confined to their traditional roles.

          The Mens Rights Movement is not really a corollary of feminism. Its main focus is the defense of men’s rights against feminism, which is thought to be attacking them. But the MRM is divided on the issue gender roles. Some are traditionalists who value traditional roles for women and men. Others adopt the liberal ideals that underlie feminism, and seek freedom from gender roles for men too.

          You will also find that male feminists such as Hugo are inconsistent in their support of greater gender flexibility for men. Hugo is quick to resort to shaming language against his opponents, and shaming language only has power in the context of traditional male values. Furthermore, he is also prone to ‘unprincipled exceptions’, where he will temporarily invoke traditional male values such as duty, but only when doing so serves the interests of women.

        • May I ask then, why do you think men DON’T insist on equality (and in fact a great many of them seem quite in favor of the protective laws/norms for women)? Why is it, in other words, that most men don’t seem to care about the issues pushed by the MRM?

          It is not that men do not care about the issue the men’s movement discusses. It is more that men are socialized to internalize their pain and not complain, something that feminists reinforce every time they call men who talk about their problems “whiners.” Men are also taught that they can and ought to solve all their problems on their own (again, a notion feminists reinforce whenever men ask for help). These two social expectations result in men thinking bad things will not happen to them and keeping silent should anything bad actually happen. When men do speak out and find support, one often sees many more men come forward. What it takes is another man, preferably one respected by men, to take the first step. That cannot happen if every time a man steps up forty feminists jump up and start in on him.

          Likewise, and in line with Hugo’s point, why do you think so many men engage in gender-policing with each other?

          The gender-policing is not as severe as Hugo implies. Some of what he considers policing is actually just friends mocking each other. Plenty of men own cats, order sweet drinks, and carry bags without anyone stopping them. Likewise, plenty of women do not engage in a host of behaviors for fear of how their female friends will respond. It really depends on what the person does. I have been made fun of numerous times for saying that I like Project Runway, but none of my friends has ever tried to stop me from watching it. It is also worth noting that the presence of women plays a major role in how males react to each other.

          • I’m sorry, as a guy I just don’t buy that…

            Men are much more likely to hurl insults what you call “mockery” at each other for traditionally ‘femme’ things. Women don’t usually hurl the ‘lesbian’ threat at each other. They, for the most part, don’t denigrate each other for trying out traditionally masculine activities.

            Why would someone who is a ‘friend’ call you a ‘fag’ for wanting to get a cat? Or wanting to see opera over sportscenter?

            • Morrisfactor says:

              “Women don’t usually hurl the ‘lesbian’ threat at each other. They, for the most part, don’t denigrate each other for trying out traditionally masculine activities.”

              No, but they frequently call each other “bitch” for all sorts of things.

        • Because the vast majority of males, and the overwhelming majority of MRA’s are beta males. I don’t say that as an insult. I’m a beta male myself. Our resources are limited. Alpha males can do anything they want. They are at the top of the summit, the highest of the highs. Not even alpha females are as high as alpha males. So when you see men ‘gender policing’ it is just a pack of us beta males sorting each other out. Beta males, bear in mind, are not without power. In packs, we are dangerous. In large packs, like a herd, we are unbeatable, and can take down the alpha males, if we have the numbers. Hence the paleozoic gender policing. we’re sniffing each other out.

          Now, I will also say, as a single 41 year old man, I am only now discovering my sensitive side, and so yes, I shop like a woman. I’m even piercing my ear. I just bought a manscarf the other day. So, we males are indeed evolving, but slowly.

        • Because unlike women, men have no value to the opposite sex for the simple fact that we exist. So feminization insults toward men conveys the worst possible scenario of male value i.e. that he is so much not a man that he is equivocal to a woman and if this is so he is not valued AT ALL.

          Men perform “gender policing” because we are in competition with each other for male value.

          • Conversely women are able to perform male activities etc because all it does is devalue men and not their inherent value as a woman. Men have no such luxury. Women will always define men by external utility and “worthiness” outside any semblance of inherent value.

            What men can do however is realize that male external utility and the male gender is exploited to the hilt and as such reject this and GO OUR OWN WAY.

            • We are now fully enveloped in the process of gynocentric consumption by way of female social, political and economic agency. Women will continue to create policies which divert resources away from men in the public realm and even education which prevents us from providing resources to females in our private lives.

              Women will continue to consume us of our own means of production by public policy and in our private lives. Feminism is a paradoxical ideology that serves to consume the system of its own means of production and this includes male incentive and enfranchisement to produce. Men are already “checking out” and when this happens the downfall of western civilization is not to far behind.

        • Oh, Gender Policing happens….but nearly universally ONLY when there are women in earshot.

        • “Why is it, in other words, that most men don’t seem to care about the issues pushed by the MRM? “

          Short, spiffy answer: Because they haven’t taken the red pill yet.

          Also, what makes you think that “most” men think this way? Are you Mr. Gallup, the poll guy?

          “But men do that to each other all the time when one of their male friends does anything that’s not strictly in line with the “male code”…men can’t order sweet drinks, carry a bag (i.e. “purse”), like cats, etc. “

          I suspect that this “male code” is a construct of your own imagination, or if it is real, it exists only within certain cultural enclaves, i.e. the ones that you yourself belong to. I have NEVER heard of any male prohibition against liking cats (I like ’em, and dogs too!), I don’t know any male person who would not order a “sweet” drink if he damn well felt like it — and I am not talking about flaming metrosexuals either; I mean regular “Joes”. As for “bags” (purses), well….. if it looked too classically “purse-like”, that would present difficulties, but if it were a jaunty, satchel kinda thingy made of some material like canvas, well, no problemo!

          So, I am not sure what cultural neck of the woods you are living in — although you strike me as some brand of urban sophisticate.

          It’s funny, but I get the impression at times that there is a conspiracy by certain people to “own” the consensus on “objective social reality” in order to make this part of an ideological foundation.

          Schwyzer comes to mind.

          • kryptogal says:

            Well, of course we’re all influenced by our own subcultures. FWIW, while I do live in a city, it’s in an extremely conservative state where traditional gender roles are still the norm. But I’ve lived other places where gender roles are much less rigidly defined.

            The examples I gave are related to things I’ve seen happen to my boyfriend. He doesn’t carry a purse, but I have seen him be accused of being gay merely because he doesn’t enjoy watching sports. And his friends also sometimes get visibly uncomfortable watching him play with our cats. However, he works a physical, working-class job, which has its own semi-macho subculture — probably for good reason as keith points out below — so this might have something to do with it.

            I’ll have to think about this more…many of these comments are quite thought-provoking. I said before that women don’t gender-police very much, but now that I think about it, they DO tend to reject women that they consider to be “guy’s girls”. This is something a bit different because it’s not a matter of trivial signals like clothing or pets, but a more comprehensive dispositional issue. Women are sometimes suspicious of other women who they deem to “think like a guy” or get along with men too well.

        • I think for the most part, men are socialized into more rigid social expectations with fewer choices and options. I think men are inter-dependent on other men. Less ambiguous and more direct.
          I don’t think the gender- policing between men is anymore profound than between women. I tend to believe that gender-policing from female to male may be more profound than male to female. Males are much more likely to find themselves in life threatening circumstances even in their employment. In fact working amongst experienced tradesmen say on a roof, there is a tendency to watch out for each other. What you consider as policing can often be bonding. I often speak to younger men with vulgarities to tune their focus and not be distracted by their feelings.

          If you want to move 1000lbs the first thing you have to do is overcome your own psychology, beliefs and feelings. Then focus on the task.

        • Kryptogal, because the MRM message is nothing but reaction to feminism. It is not borne of actual real world activism and earnest concern to improve the human lot. It exists entirely online and in forums and chat rooms and websites like The Spearhead.

    • Hugo mentioned that he has been divorced twice.

  18. Spot on, Hugo.

    While the individual stories of men screwed by the courts and other social systems abound, and those very unfortunate men are right to be sad and angry, the essence of unhappiness for American men lies not within our stars, but in ourselves.

    • how can you possibly be serious?

      the prospect of my children being taken from me one day against my will through no fault of my own makes me unhappy.

      laws in the US being structured to give a woman in a marriage every possible incentive to renege on her end of the contract and get rewarded for it make me unhappy.

      the fact that i could want to continue a marriage and not have done anything wrong, yet still be reduced to wage slavery for the rest of my life makes me unhappy.

      the fact that my freedom, reputation, and career only exist at the whim of the women around me, any of which could take them all away with a phone call and false accusation makes me unhappy.

      suggesting that these issues are somehow internal to me is absolutely ludicrous, unless you are trying to imply that my desire to have a family is somehow not normal or respectable.

    • It doesn’t make any sense to admit that family law is biased against fathers and then blame fathers.

  19. Christian J. says:

    This article is written by a man that teaches “Women’s Studies” and we are supposed to accept his anti-male bias and treat it as gospel. You have no credibility Hugo. Best stick to your favourite subject and leave the discussion to MRA’s, at least then we can at least have a real one.

    • Most of here at GMP believe that all perspectives are worth hearing about. Even those as loathsome as the more shrill members of MRM.

  20. “Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others.”

    I’m an MRA and the passage above just like much of article does not apply to me or my male friends who support the Mens Movement.

    • Female Feedback says:

      Then show it. I see nothing of this in your post.

      • Explain precisely what the hell you want him to “show”.

        And explain exactly what the hell you “see nothing of” in his post.

        Because, you know, regular normal people don’t what the hell you are talking about.

        Make it extremely clear, and don’t use psychobuzz femspeak!

        And then explain why the hell you think that ANY non-feminist should be a performing seal who owes you answers??

        Who the hell do you think you ARE, anyway??

        You appear to be a feminist, and that makes you the enemy. Therefore…

        You’ve got a friggin’ nerve to think we own you any frigggin’ answers, or even the friggin’ time of day!

        Stuff it!

  21. Thanks for the article!

    I am a 23 year old woman, and I have had my fair share of cat-calls and lingering glares to make me walk the long way around to avoid the group of men who are the culprits, but I have also witnessed the abuse that men receive from both men AND women and seen women attack women just as viciously.

    I guess just because I am a woman and want equality in the world I am a feminist, but I don’t fit the stereotype of the hippie ‘dyke’. I also want equality for my boyfriend to not be pushed of the footpath because the Maoris (large native New Zealanders) walking through know they are bigger than him and would win in a fight. We need a new term for people of any gender, age and nationality to band behind that demonstrates that they simply want world-wide equality. Not just women, not just men… equality of all. Feminism is tainted by the bad few and what I gather from this article and other comments the MRA is too.

    What title can we stand behind? Equalists? Heaven-forbid if we just stood behind the fact that we are all human and we all bleed red but you know, the people we are taking a stance against aren’t the smartest people in the world.

    • Great comment, it’s called humanism.

      • Hear, hear. I consider myself a humanist more than anything else. Don’t understand why the term isn’t adapted more broadly. Having these women’s and men’s rights groups, to me, only serves to broaden the gender gap, cause you’re always going to have the crazies who hate one sex or the other, and it’s the crazies that get the most attention because they are the most outspoken.

        • Female Feedback says:

          Feminism is not a hate group. It is about untangling patriarchy, including its wounds and hate, through sex/gender equality.

          When you have children these issues become much more critical because of the need to protect and empathize with the emotional life of a child. Since children are utterly dependent they can quickly get traumatized if parents are not compassionate, patient, etc. The MRA demonstrate none of this capacity. Many other dads do, but they tend to be grateful for feminism giving the chance to connect with their children, have better sex lives with their wives, increase the wealth of the household (even though such dads don’t have as much time for earning as a breadwinner dad – the increase in wealth comes from the aggregate affect of shared parenting/shared earning), and be known and truly loved.

          • You are appealing to emotion, a common logical fallacy, but utterly useless in a debate.

            PWNED.

          • The feminists posting here have noticeably failed to address the following earlier posts:

            1. Mothers abuse children at twice the rate fathers do. HHS website identified. 2006 statistics.

            2. Credible, independent organizational evidence of the significant extent to which women abuse men.

            3. Repeated posts regarding the heart of the matter: the clear negative and disparate impact on men and children of current family law, which disproportionately deny men the ability to be with their children and give women near-unilateral power to control divorced fathers’ access to children.

            4. Posts regarding how the current system enables women to abuse boys. (I suggest you look at the Vancouver, BC Sun article from a couple of years ago: a University-controlled study found that fully 75% of the male teenage street kids in Vancouver were being “rented” by adult women.)

            I find this a refreshing, no-BS debate, where for a change the Men’s RIghts folks are telling you what they think. I feel it is only fair to ask for responses on these four unaddressed points.

    • I call myself an egalitarian of anti-oppressionist rather than the long anti-racist, pro-workers’ rights, prison abolitionist, queer activist, environmental activist, anti-ableist feminist, :)

      • How do you fit all that Acadmicese crap on your business card? And does anyone think you’re smart for making up words like that?

        • So you are saying I need to pick one thing to care about, and nothing else–or that you can’t read words or use google?

          • No, I’m saying that feminist-ese madeup word crap looks infantile, not Academic.

            • Feminists made up anti-racism? Tell that to the black power movement.
              Feminists made up worker’s rights? Tell that to early union leaders.
              …Prison Abolitionism? Tell that to libertarians and black feminist theorists.
              …Queer activist? Again, not sure what is so academic about supporting LBGTQ rights.
              …Environmental activist? Nothing too hard to understand about sustainability.
              …Anti-ableism? So you are in favour of discriminating against the disabled?

              Again, not seeing the reason for your objection. Unless caring about people is too complex for you too understand… that, or words.

            • Switch,

              These guys are just angry assholes. They don’t wanna meet you halfway.

    • Appleblossom says:

      Why do you use the term “hippie dyke?”

  22. Great article. Personally, I can’t get past the “all women are bitches, liars, whores, gold-diggers, stupid, chidren, narcissistic, and on and on and on” that MRA’s constantly spew. So much of what they “teach” is utter garbage. It’s a hate group and not much more. They think they are going to get huge, but they aren’t because they alienate too much of the population. I know many men who want nothing to do with them. Many deny that they hate women, but clearly, they do as this is the PRIMARY theme of every website affiliated with them, including Paul Elams.

    • Read the site comment policy about ad hominen attacks.

      Just who are you quoting anyway?

    • Female Feedback says:

      Yes, Chris, I agree. I have spent a lot of time reading their stuff not wanting to reject their point of view out of hand, but I think you are right. It is a hate group. I do have compassion for them to the extent they have suffered trauma from patriarchy themselves. But many of them seem to be doing this for status & power rather than trying to actually make things better, including dealing with their own issues.

    • Chris: WORD.
      Useful to remember that these men (and the occasional woman), the MRA’s, are unlikely to garner much support from the general population, handicapped as they are by their greatly oversized sense of victimization. They are useful as a learning exercise in how an extremely deep sense of male privilege causes a person to act.

      • I agree. But then again, it’s interesting to note that feminism doesn’t seem to garnish much support from the general population these days, either. I mean, to hear feminists talk about it.

        What I would suggest is that MRAs and feminism are simply two sides of the same coin. While the sex/gender system does indeed create multiple axes of inequality and oppression, both feminists and MRAs support a reductionist notion of gender that’s ultimately based on Marx’s concept of antagonistic classes. In this model, only one side can be oppressed and the other side needs must be the oppressor.

        Much of second generation feminism is based upon a conscious adaptation of Marx’s class model to the rhetoric of earlier forms of feminism. The MRM (quite ironically, as most of its members seem to be fairly conservative in their politics) simply took this model and unreflectively flipped it on its head.

        To most of us out here in the Real World, dealing with real issues of gender inequality, both groups come off as slightly mad and more than a little fanatical.

        • I don’t know about relating it to Marx, but overall I’d say this may be the best summary of feminism and MRAs I’ve ever seen. A good bit of the movements really are little more than a mirror image of the other. I have to wonder how horrified many of them would be to how similar they are to the other side if they stopped and thought about it.

        • No. The feminists and the MRA’s are not simply two sides of the same coin. The feminists are a movement originating from real grievances that can be easily supported through the historical record. The MRA’s are a countermovement, emanating from centers of power which feel threatened by the existence of feminism. They will try to return society to its pre-feminist status quo. They will fail for the reasons that coutermovements usually fail. They might, however, do real damage before dying out of the world.

          • Oh, women have real grievances, Athiest. I agree. I’d even go so far to say (at least as far as I can see) that they’ve historically had more real grievances as men, if you want to make that sort of wholly unscientific, two-dimensional and reductionist analysis of social conflict.

            However, having met many MRAs IRL, I have to say that it’s absolutely ludicrous to suppose, as you do, that these men are located at anything like the “center of power”. Forgive me for saying this, but you are extremely naive to think that divorced, working-class fathers who are incensed by unfair child custody laws are the people who are making the rules in this world. Naive or very ideology-bound.

            As for “feeling threatened”, it seems to me that the emotionally-charged responses of many of the feminists posting here – including the strawmen and ad hominem-laden arguments of messrs. Marcotte and Futrelle – show that the MRAs seem to make many feminists feel threatened. If they didn’t, said feminists wouldn’t bother trying to censor them and would refute their arguments with simple logic, instead of rhetorical and ad hominem attacks.

    • Chris, I agree that these commenters are part of MRM hategroups. Their comments sound like racially inflammatory Youtube commenters.

  23. Female Feedback says:

    Yes, please do.

    It’s actually not ideology. I was looking for a scrap of emotional availability, empathy, interpersonal awareness – any evidence to disprove the very point Hugo was making. I see NONE of that in the MRA posts here. I would not let you anywhere near a dependent child.

    • Natasha says:

      FF–

      This is the second time within a post that you have intimated or just flat out accused a man whom you dont know of being a child abuser.

      Get a new schtick babe, this one is transparent and slanderous…..oh yeah…and typical

      • Female Feedback says:

        Yes, it’s true in your posts too, Natasha! Congratulations, you just granted the MRA wish of an actual abusive female.

      • Female Feedback says:

        These guys wanna be parents – they need to show emotional availability. That is, and has always been, necessary for parenting.

        No wonder nearly every fathering expert has rejected the MRA position. Kyle Pruett, Stephan Poulter, William Pollack, etc.

        And those are just the male fathering experts. I’d cite the female ones, but since to the MRA mind, females are by definition incapable of saying anything of value – unless they are parroting and ennabling the MRA – I gather this would be a waste of time.

        • This is a dangerous tack you’re taking. You are attempting to equate MRA with child abuse in order to discredit their position. It is pre-meditated character assassination.

          • She’s a feminist, following a well-established Feminist attack meme. She is a product of her ideology (obviously, since she can’t think for herself it seems, but can only quote Feminist shibboleths).

            She is, in fact, the “Modern American Woman”.

          • Female Feedback says:

            If by definition, MRAs want nothing to do with women, how can they possibly be capable of being a father to a daughter. They abuse/neglect children by THEIR OWN TERMS, not mine.

            • Please be honest, and change your screen name to “Feminist Feedback”, okay?

              Or do you claim to represent a universal “female” position? I know plenty of women who would take offense at what you are doing here.

            • Female Feedback says:

              I don’t identify with every “feminist” position, but I do identify as female, and this is a site about men and the varieties of their positions. Hence the name “female feedback.”

            • Next, feed me some touchy-feely crap about my lack of empathy or the like.

              ——————————————————

              To the Unbiased Observer who may be reading this now, I offer “Female Feedback” as specimen of the perfect, archetypal feminist..

              If you want to know what “real” feminism really is, and what we are struggling against, then read through this comment thread and closely study FF’s writings and interactions with other commenters.

              You will come away with a perfect mental template, in microcosm, of what feminism is all about and how it imposes itself upon the rest of the world.

              After that, take what you have learned and extrapolate it onto the larger social stage, and I believe it will light things up for you.

              FF, being a hateful venomous hypocrite herself, has no moral license to demand empathy or fine emotions from other people, and no capacity to assess these qualities (or lack of same) in those people.

              But she does approve of Hugo Schwyzer, it seems.

      • Natasha says:

        Well, there is that….but it still galls me to think anything that hateful has purpose

  24. Richard Aubrey says:

    “Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others.”

    Hugo makes a lot of mistakes, but this is his perennial. Completely untrue. For current examples, search for “Brennan Daigle”. Or Fennville bastketball.

    I was born in 1945 and was raised by a father, uncles, neighbors, friends’ fathers, teachers, scout leaders all of whom were veteransof WW II. You’d think I’d have been in the best place to get that instruction. Didn’t happen. Or perhaps I slept through that block of instruction.

    If this is one of the anti-MRA’s pillars, they need a new architect. But, without it, I don’t know what they’d have.

    • Also check out Susan Faludi’s “Stiffed” for a much more nuanced view of the kind of masculinity you grew up with, Richard.

      “Stiffed”, I would think, would be required reading for MRAs, but I suppose many of them see Faludi as an eeeeeevil feminist, so…

  25. “The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding.”

    A good example of the remarkable ability of feminists and their toadies to hide their genocidal hate campaign.

    • Appleblossom says:

      If women wanted you dead, you would be already.

      • “If women wanted you dead, you would be already.”

        Oh yea….how would this be accomplished?

      • She means that I would have been aborted before being born. Currently women demonstrate their ability for moral agency by killing one out of every three children via abortion. So, women think it is a pretty good threat to use against men. The threat is that if men don’t do as women say, women will start to abort all the male fetuses.

        Go ahead, make my day. Artificial wombs are less than a decade away. It will soon be difficult for feminists to use children like commodities. Commodities which can be discarded, drugged, humiliated, or bartered for financial resources whenever the woman desires.

        It makes me puke.

  26. Richard Aubrey says:

    AntZ. I dunno. My son was annoyed when he got to college and discovered that the lacrosse team, previously a varsity sport, had been Title Nined to club status. Women’s laxers, of course, get full support.
    Crew made a strong effort to recruit my daughter. I understand it’s the cheapest way to bump up female varsity participation, whose numbers are handicapped by the lack of women who want to participate.

  27. Hugo said: “Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy).”

    This is horrible stereotyping. Horrible. So incredibly short-sighted. Please stop. Men and boys deserve better.

    • Female Feedback says:

      LOL – yeah, that’s the point. He was describing the stereotype the MRA lives, not healthy men who have stepped out of it, done the emotional recovery, etc.

      • No. He is bashing masculinity and in the process is bashing men. He is breaking all of the feminist driven rules like “diversity” “advocacy” “inclusion” and “equality.” Easy to see that those feminist principles only seem to be used when applied to women and femininity. You won’t hear a peep from him about women that is remotely similar to the male bashing we see here. This is the thing that most thoughtful folks call BIGOTRY when you treat your preferred group in a very different manner than you treat “outsiders.”

        • Female Feedback says:

          No, Nancy. No one is saying that MRAs cannot go on and live their lives in the way they want, EXCEPT that they need to give up any right to father a child unless they learn parenting. Because want they want is isolation from women, this by definition makes them incapable of parenting a daughter.

          I don’t want anything to do with these guys and they don’t want anything to do with me -that’s fine EXCEPT that they need to forgo fatherhood of any kind, except paying money for children they created because 50% of those children are girls and they would by definition abuse/neglect them.

          We do not abuse/neglect children in the US. They need to leave the country apparently if they are not going to follow that standard.

          • You might fit in well with Adolf’s crew that decided who would have babies and who wouldn’t. LOL Either you are a parody or you are dull as a river rock.

            • Female Feedback says:

              Well, Nancy, I assure you that we defend children against abusive/neglectful women as well, so if you are not prepared to parent well, perhaps you need to go to Adolf land with them, or get some help yourself (first and foremost with learning about your biological sex – I assume since your name is Nancy that you have XX chromosomes but just identify as a abusive patriarch for some reason).

              It is very telling when people don’t grasp the concept of abuse and neglect. My heart actually breaks for you and the MRAs, in a way, because you almost certainly suffered abuse/neglect yourself if you don’t know what it is. On the other hand, you are adults and are responsible for getting help.

              Having children is a choice. Men and women who are not capable of owning that choice do face increased risk of abusing/neglecting their children – and of having the state or public interest organizations that speak for those children prosecute them.

            • I think my grown daughters and sons would strongly disagree with your assessment of my parenting skills. Your prejudice is epic. Amazing that you feel free to harshly judge others ability to parent based solely on a few words typed on an internet discussion. You make that river rock look pretty good by comparison.

              I am thinking you are a great candidate for the 21st century Archie Bunker. May I just call you Archie?

            • Nancy, you have an astounding ability to intentionally misread.

            • jeezus, get your tongue out of FF’s ass already and maybe you’ll actually see that her penchant for psychoanalyzing people over the internet and declaring that they all have some form of paternal abuse is not only wholly irresponsible and ridiculous, it’s flat out dangerous and stupid

  28. Richard Aubrey says:

    Female feedback.
    Nope. He was describing all men, with the exception of his sainted self.

    • Female Feedback says:

      Oh, I see. You have just never met a good man apparently. No wonder you are stuck in this state.

  29. Richard Aubrey says:

    Female feedback
    You don’t see. Hugo has no doubt met good men. There are so many. Problem is, it doesn’t fit his persona to admit it.

  30. Good lord, Hugo…you give with one hand and take with the other. Your last article here was a home run and now you come on and swing a foul ball….

    You clearly dismiss nearly all of the core points regarding the Men’s Rights movement with a simple and baseless claim:

    “The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”

    Sir, you are committing an act of intellectual dishonesty with that one statement which disrespects ever male in this country who has suffered because of the flawed and unfair feminist-leaning legislation and social biases that are endemic with this country.

    How does “traditional American manhood” answer false rape claims, male victims of statutory rape having to pay child support to their rapists, women who falsely accuse men of being abusers/molesters to gain custody and leverage in divorces, and the myriad other abuses of the law and social order that are leveraged in favor of women?

    I will agree that there are issues regarding the commonly held views of masculinity in American society today. But to blatantly deny the injustices that men suffer at the hands of the legal system today and blame them on a skewed viewpoint of the world and individual self worth is disingenuous to say the least and bordering on malicious and intellectual emasculation at the worst.

    I’m not going to insult you on your own post because I’m better than that. However, I genuinely despair of your viewpoint of the American male and I am sorry that whatever experiences you suffered have caused you to hate your fellow man so, Hugo; for whatever else you may think or write, a viewpoint like this can only truly come from disrespect at the very least, but more likely genuine hate.

    You have my sympathies, sir.

    • “How does “traditional American manhood” answer false rape claims, male victims of statutory rape having to pay child support to their rapists, women…etc…”

      There are at LEAST two “traditional American manhoods”.

      First, the one that exists out there in the world in objective reality — be what it may.

      Second, the “mental construct” of this which exists in Hugo Schwyzer’s brain — based largely upon extrapolations and projections of his own youthful memories, and upon his personal “issues”.

      Hugo is running basically the same scam as Michael Kimmel, Kyle Payne, all of these pro-feminist men’s movement guys. They are all cut from the same underlying fabric.

      Really, these people have no authority at all apart from what the world grants them.

      Their presence in the world is parasitical, and the minute we non-feminists muster the collective will and collective PLAN to expel these parasites . . . we will.

      We’re working on it, but it’s a huge job. . .

  31. How the hell does Hugo know what pain men are feeling? How dare he state that he knows better than men themselves what they are feeling. What a presumptive, self important fool this guy is. He’s a professor? I don’t think so. He teaches at a community college, for God’s sake. Why would anyone take advice form a self-defined addict, twice divorced loser?

    • Being a Professor still gets you laid, even in a Community College. Spouting female-centric sympathy lines, while positioning yourself as a “protector” from all those “bad men” is pretty much THE defining characteristic of a White Knight.

      Now, far be it from me to assume Hugo is a Professor because it opens the legs of nubile young students (we’ll let historical fact stand on it’s own there). But I can definitely see where he would have an intensely personal interest in taking the views he does, and propagating feminist drivel.

      Three marriages huh? And how many were students when he met them?

  32. Oh, yeah. Here I am. As a MRA, living up the the “masculine ideal.” (http://fauxwhore.com). Yeah, right.

  33. The truth of the matter is, in the last 40 some years, women have dynamically changed the entire structure of their lives. They’ve overcome huge obstacles to create dynamic live, exciting careers, amazing history and research. And just what have men been doing? Well, they remain depressingly the same. There is nothing very new at all about what men do in the world. And they refuse to be angry at the things they should be angry at — male violence, male rape of women and the world, male lack of emotional intelligence.

    The male remains the same, stuck, and so he blames his lack of change, and the neverending backlash against women– he blames his misery at these outdated “guy codes” on women. We women march on, excited, motivated, gettting more college degrees than ever before, breaking new ground in women’s studies– we surge ahead as doctors, lawyers, and politicians. When we are police officers, we are much more non-violent, more community based. When we go into finance and politics we are more honest.

    So men are stuck. They haven’t created the new world the feminist women have. So in their failure in the world, in their war, rape and destruction, they see no way out for themselves. They know they have lost the game of life and innovation in some very basic way… because well, they run back to “guyness” and remain forever after the obstacles rather than the solutions worldwide.

    • But this answer the reality we see all around us, Kay. The fact is women are not doing all of the these things:

      dynamically changed the entire structure of their lives. They’ve overcome huge obstacles to create dynamic live, exciting careers, amazing history and research.

      It’s just verbal subterfuge, that’s all. So you can words like, dynamic, exciting, amazing. The truth is that at the highest end of the IQ distribution women are outnumbered by men by a factor of seven. Women have clogged up the middle, so women are managers…but in the non-profit sector. Women are Professors….of art history. Do you see where I am going with this, Kay? Women still do most of the low-risk labor. Work that is done in climate-controlled offices. Men take the risks, and forge ahead, and lead. Women do not.

      Is it really truly amazing when a woman becomes a journalist, or a manager of a non-profit?

      Didn’t think so.

    • wavevector says:

      “They know they have lost the game of life and innovation in some very basic way… because well, they run back to “guyness” and remain forever after the obstacles rather than the solutions worldwide.”

      You must mean ‘guyness’ – like inventing the internet, PCs, smart phones, Google, Facebook – i.e. the entire infrastructure of the modern world.

      While women are ‘surging ahead’ into low level cubical jobs and mid-level management, men are inventing a new world. Men are at the top of that new world, because they created it. And women come after, when all the risks and uncertainties have been overcome, and everything is safe – whining that they are underrepresented, and demanding affirmative action and a place at the table that they played no part in creating.

      • Appleblossom says:

        You might want to slow down there with the bashing of women when it comes to tech toys:

        A woman wrote the first computer program.
        A woman invented Kevlar.
        A woman invented non-reflective glass.
        A woman invented the compiler (and COBOL.)

        In the past ten years, four women have won Nobels in Physiology and Medicine-one won in Chemistry.
        A woman invented the disposable (and recyclable) cell phone.
        ————-
        In other words-women had their part in inventing things that we cannot live without today (in fact, many of the most significant inventions of the past fifty years in medicine have been by women so they are not only doing their part, but they are saving lives as well.)

        • If that is the case. Why do we then need womens’ advocacy group and special government panels on womens’ problems? Women should have no problem fighting on their own in the world we live in.

        • Has a woman ever won the Fields Medal in Math? Has a woman ever been the world chess champion? No to both. The reason women have advanced is because they have had the support and encouragement of men who have shared their primary role as breadwinner in a fairly mature manner. Let’s hope that women some day will be able to muster such maturity in sharing their role at home and not be such stern gatekeepers as we see now.

          Yes, women have gone forward in some ways but a mature and thoughtful woman would acknowledge that men have helped that to happen rather than spew misandrist crap.

          BTW the new husband is government and without the governments help and support where would women be?

        • Men invented the computer and have been the main driving force behind it.
          Men invented smelting and are the majority that work with metals.
          Men invented glass and also the car which uses it.
          Men invented the first COMPLETE compiler.

          The MOST significant inventions have been made by men throughout history.

          MEN = PROGRESS
          WOMEN = EXTRA PROGRESS
          MEN + WOMEN = LOT OF PROGRESS
          MEN – WOMEN = PROGRESS
          WOMEN – MEN = BARELY ANY PROGRESS

    • “And they refuse to be angry at the things they should be angry at — male violence, male rape of women and the world, male lack of emotional intelligence.”

      Hey, thanks for telling us what we should think, and what we should care about. Until I found a feminist to tell me, I had no idea what to think.

      Sheesh.

    • Kay, is this the entire non-feminist sector you are describing here? Are you saying that every non-feminist is like this?

  34. I think you will most whores are women.

    • Sorry about the typo.
      I think you will find that most whores are women.
      Men have created the world that women inhabit.
      If a job is dirty, difficult or dangerous, it will be done by a man.
      Women have not created some innovative new world.
      If the world were left to women, there would not be a car on the road or an airplane in the sky.
      There would not be water in the pipes or electricity in the wires.
      Women do make good doctors.
      As for lawyers and politicians, well, I already made the remark about whores.
      Lawyers and politicians are unproductive members of society.
      Most teachers are women. The schools are failing at an unprecedented rate.
      Is that the innovative new world you are talking about?
      Go get yourself pregnant, blame a man and sue him for all he’s worth.
      That is your new innovative world. Congratulations.

      • Women invented farming, thank you very much. Men wouldn’t have been able to do half the stuff they have done without farming. Farming made it possible for civilization. Farming made it possible for hunting and gathering groups to be able to stay in one place without having to move with the herd all the time. Farming made it possible to keep the human race alive since humans back then subsisted mostly on what women gathered since meat was difficult to come by.

        • Women invented farming….maybe. If you mean planting stuff…ok. But men invented agriculture.

          Fixed that for ya.

        • You shouldn’t talk about vague historical stuff in the distant past like it had any bearing upon the immediate present-day crisis. That smacks too much of a feminist dodge, like “global escapism”.

          But I will call this one “temporal escapism“.

          You activated non-feminists may wish to add “global escapism” and “temporal escapism” to your lexicon.

        • I’m sorry didn’t realise you were 10,000 years old, tell me how much bullshit have you read?

      • Appleblossom says:

        Except women have been inventing practical stuff for everyone to use for centuries.

        From Kevlar (keeping cops alive in shoot outs) to the basic windshield wiper, your claim that women did not do squat falls completely flat upon looking at the vast list of things they have created that we do not wish to live without.

        • typhonblue says:

          My god. Did I just stumble on a playground fight?

        • Im sorry we didn’t mean to invent electricity or planes or even games, the internet, glue cause none of that is really practical now is it?

          I mean I would be happy if I was sat in mud with some kevlar and a windshield wiper but why would I need a windshield wiper after all the car is a male invention so can’t be practical.

          Think then write.

      • That’s odd, Fred.

        Who say most whores are women, correct?

        Then you go on to say “If a job is dirty, difficult or dangerous, it will be done by a man.”

        Prostitution is a damned dirty, dangerous and difficult job, man. Either admit that there are some jobs of this sort that women are indeed over-represented in, or show demonstrate that most whores are men.

        Can’t have your cake and eat it too, man.

  35. Sorry article is incorrect, the source of many men’s lives ruined is precisely a system with anti-male biased laws, policies in western countries which gives men the short end of the stick, from the feminized education which drugs physically active boys, to the unreasonable secretive divorce courts which have no shared parenting, false abuse allegations which can destroy a man’s career and life without providing evidence, nor limits to child support or alimony payments which results in massive wealth transfers, high rate of suicides among males, which makes any man who experiences these things half the man or worse whom he used to be.

    The author ignores the real issues.

    • “The author ignores the real issues.”

      That he does indeed. Everything in the article is straight out of the feminist rhetorical playbook.

      Hugo Schwyzer has no authority, as a self-admitted feminist, to dictate terms or define reality for non-feminists.

      In this article, Hugo commits what I call the crosshairs fallacy. That is, he lines up a narrow, and arbitrarily defined target in order to discredit, in a rhetorical way, a complex global phenomenon.

      Furthermore, his depiction of the target is inaccurate.

      But I won’t hold that against him, because after all, this is war. And in war, shady methods are the order of the day. In the present case, it is propaganda war I am talking about. And this article is a masterfully slimy piece of piece of spin, done in classic style a la Hugo! 😉

      But just remember, for the record, that Hugo Schwyzer has no authority but what you grant him. And I, not being one of his followers, grant him none.

  36. Feminism continuously hails female advancement, yet completely ignore’s men’s issues, how can there be equality when there’s so much special support for women by the government, but nothing for men.

    • There will NEVER be “equality” because that is an essentially contested concept, i.e. semantic garbage. We all need to clear such garbage out of our heads if we wish to think clearly.

      As a general point of semantic hygiene, one should never use the word “equality” without operationalizing it in some way. Preferably, this should be mathematical. But whatever the case, it requires a clear, concrete referent.. One should tie it to a particular context or situation, and state very distinctly WHAT is proposed to be made equal, and HOW.

      One should never use “equality” vaguely and abstractly, as a golden halo word or rhetorical banner slogan. It skates too close to the edge of newspeak or doublespeak.

      When people talk about “true equality”, my eyes glaze over. It is not that I disagree with the concept. Rather, it is vacuous, and being such there is literally nothing to disagree with in the first place. It is like saying, “a true nullity”.

      So, what I dislike is the implication that I ought to entertain any feeling or opinion whatsoever about a nullity. That is asking too much.

  37. I find Schwyzer’s article slick, shallow, patronizing and riddled with falsehoods and distortions about the non-feminist world, and the MRA world in particular. Who IS this Schwyzer guy anyway? And who does HE think he is? I don’t know where he gets his pontification license. . but he is not the pope by a country mile. He has no greater authority than what his followers bestow upon him. . .

    In theory, at least, that authority could be revoked at any time, and then he would be just another “Joe” again.

  38. Jay Hammers says:

    “It’s time to take responsibility.”

    It’s time to take responsibility??

    For what?

    For being discriminated against since the day I was born for having a penis?

    For having my genitalia mutilated because society only cares about the well-being of females, not males?

    For persevering in the feminized education system, even though I have a penis?

    For earning summa cum laude from a prestigious university, even though I have a penis and never received any scholarships or special encouragement due to my penis, whilst women received plenty of scholarships and support through the Society of Women Engineers?

    For receiving no internships because the companies I interviewed for preferred to hire attractive, less capable women over me?

    Don’t worry, though. I have always persevered even though I’ve never received any special privileges. I grew up poor, white, and male – the worst possible combination if you want to get an education.

    Yet I’m still here, though I don’t make nearly as much money as I would if I had a vagina. That’s fine, though. I no longer wish to contribute to a society that discriminates against me in so many ways. Instead, I’ll contribute my hard-earned cash to the men’s rights movement and spend my time having fun. No longer will my tax dollars go to single moms and college women who haven’t earned a dime of it.

    As more and more men stop contributing to the society that pisses on them, you will reap the results, and they won’t be pretty.

  39. Wow, this site REEKS of misandry

  40. Captain Bathrobe says:

    The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.

    QFT

  41. I found myself agreeing with a lot of the author’s points here, but there seems to be a fundamentally flawed assumption in the article, and it’s an assumption I think many MRA’s share as well. It’s the idea that a dominant group, however defined, makes ALL the rules, and the subordinate one, however defined, is just exploited by the rules. This just sounds like the flipside to the MRA position, which I find equally oversimplified. Group A controls everything! No, Group B controls everything! You’re responsible for all your problems! No, the Other is responsible for all your problems!

    Gendered ideas are very powerful things, but they are produced by a lot of different people. Do some people have more influence over gender ideas than others? Sure. Do gender norms reinforce forms of power? Sure. BUT, notions of masculinity are shaped by men and women. Notions of femininity are shaped by men and women. Powerful ideologies have blind spots and blowbacks and trade-offs and double-edged blades. Ideologues can use traditional ideas to support radical changes, and they can use radical ideas for traditional goals. Or, if these things are just giant impersonal forces, they are created and reworked by all sorts of people.

    I’m somewhat fascinated by the mirror image that has developed here between the left and right over gender. They both seem to have a Marxian ideology (Karl Marx more than Groucho Marx) about a single dominant class that makes all the rules, reaps all the benefits, and simply exploits the disposable subordinate class.

    I can see why that model is so appealing for either side. It’s simple. It has an explanation for everything (accurate or not). Best of all, if someone disagrees with you, that person is clearly a tool of the dominant class and/or a product of false consciousness. You have either broken out of The Matrix like those who are clear-headed or are hopelessly stuck inside it. I am obviously brainwashed by the dominant class because I fail to see that it’s so simple. Or, even worse, I must be one of those obfuscators who is clouding the real issue by being overlay academic.

    I apologize if someone else already made these points. (I skipped over a lot of the “are so!” “am not!” bickering in the middle.)

    • Your first two paragraphs are fairly similar to a lot of what I was going to say in my post below before the site went haywire on me. I think this is where MRAs often do go wrong, and ironically enough, so do their big enemies the feminists, except of course they look at it from the completely opposite side of things.

  42. I hate to break it to you “male feminists” but you are 90% full of crap. Your solution to correcting discrimination is to discriminate. A male feminist is just an angry beta male that is pissed off at men for the same reasons women are.

  43. I was in the middle of a response about this article, when the website managed to somehow change itself to another article without my touching a single thing. For the love of God, can someone tell me why, and how, it does that? It’s the second time it’s happened to me. This alone would be enough to drive away a lot of people from this site.

    I don’t have it in me to retype both decent-length paragraphs I had going before, so I’ll just say I think Hugo has a decent point here but seems to oversimplify things in blaming men for their own problems as a summary of what I had going before.

    • Lol…hey Reb :)

      Just do what the rest of us are doing and type it all out in word pad or in an email draft…..

      Total pain in the ass, but don’t let it discourage you

      • Guess I’ll have to do that. Though I’ve been here a few times before this week is the first time I’ve ever posted anything here. I’ve never seen a site work quite like this one.

  44. Hugo once again proves that feminists have to rely on sexism and hateful propaganda to ‘prove’ their cases against men.

    ======== From the article:-
    Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others. This frantic effort to shut down a whole aspect of one’s potential isn’t caused by testosterone or Y chromosomes. It’s caused by the longing to live by the “man code.”
    ========

    Whoa… So men distance themselves from ‘kindness’ and suchlike? Wow… I wasn’t aware of this ‘fact’ at all. So all you men, my feminist sisturs were right all along – you am evul menz!

    And just which men are defining heterosexuality as violence?

    What a sexist man this Hugo fellow is… It must really suck to believe things like ‘kindness’ are feminine traits while ‘violence’ are male traits. I guess he hasn’t looked the child abuser relationship statistics before, showing the vast majority of child abuse occurs “in kindness, no doubt” at the hands of mothers while the safest person a child can be with is their father.

  45. Why on earth are we on a men’s website, and reading an article on some dude, bashing men?? I am not sure what part of your brain you had to starve of oxygen to write this article. For a simple start a modern man does not seek his approval from other men. Look around you, wipe your glasses, and open your eyes. Do you really think men are rushing into salons for facials, so other men would smack them on the back and say “Nice spray on tan Phil”. Your article is so full of flaws that I would need too much time and energy to refute them all.

    Please do us all a favor and go back to writing on feminist blog sites, where all you have to do is ridicule yourself and your fellow men to get some cheap easy applause as common sense seems to have been educated out of you.

    Seven Chinchillas…….make sure you wash them thoroughly after use!

    • I second that, mra or not u cant help but feel disgust when reading this article. When you’re young as a boy its almost normal to cater to women every whim since we have no idea whats really going on but as we get older and go from boys to men and women and feminist for what they really are its unimaginable how someone can stay so naive. Not only follow and obey the slave-master but defend her at any cost. Women are not all intrinsically good get that threw you’re head. Here’s an idea, ever heard of you-tube mangie? look up Bernard Chapin warning: you’re master may yank the leash so beware

    • Peter: Why on earth are we on a men’s website, and reading an article on some dude, bashing men??

      This is NOT a men’s website, this is a ‘Good Men Project’ of Ms. Magazine.

  46. “Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”

    Thank you, from a woman. I am a feminist but not the bad kind. All feminism is,to me is getting rid of this monkey on our backs; The expectation that anybody should live up to someone else’s ideal. Men, women, trans, whatever, society’s ideals of group-think are ill-thought out, ill-advised, and obsolete, especially w/r/t gender. I have enough on my mind without adding anybody’s opinion of what mold I ought to fit into, and I imagine by your statement that men feel the same way. And good for us for trying to rid ourselves from it. We all want to live like the sky is the limit, and gender expectations aren’t ever going to help that along.

    • Living up to society’s ideals is the definition of ‘civilization’. without adopting ideals to live up to, you are ruled by nothing but selfish impulses. You are an animal, fit for nothing but living outside of society.

      But, when society’s ideals begin to actively CONFLICT with your personal ideology, Then your duty as a civilized human being is to change the ideals for the greatest possible benefit to the greatest possible number of people.

      Discarding society’s ideals without forethought and a great deal of introspection and PERSONAL responsibility is an anarchic response that fuels the fires of violence.

      The problem is that modern ‘feminism’ is pushing an ideology that absolves females of the neccessity to think for themselves and try to understand all the possible ramifications of their bid for freedom from ‘societal mores’. Most social rules that have developed between men and women in the last ten thousand years (The evil patriarchy) exist because there was at one point a REASON for them to exist.

      discarding societal values without understand the reason for their existence is as silly as throwing your handbrake out of the window of a moving vehicle because you do not see the neccessity for stopping when you are trying to go someplace.

      Yes, some societal mores were created in a less technologically advanced age, but feminism blindly throwing out the baby with the bathwater in discarding them because they impinge on what they perceive as ‘their personal freedom’ without bothering to understand why they exist, such as protecting more important freedoms of OTHERS from being trampled, is not only short-sighted, but frankly suicidal.

      as a brave man once said, “The freedom to punch me stops at the end of my nose”

      The problem is, that the current agenda has carried right through with the punch and is fairly plastered in the nose… and the agenda is being supported by a huge number of men who don’t understand that they are also the ones getting punched, and they will eventually feel the hit.

      tens of thousands of men are being subjected to the horrors of jails and prison because a woman has stated that they were ‘abused’ or ‘raped’ without physical evidence of abuse or rape or by warping the definition of rape so far that it is nearly impossible to have any physical or social contact with a member of the opposite gender without risking jail time. and yet these men are ‘dismissed’ and ‘marginalized’ by the feminist ideology, since of course, tens of thousands of males being beaten to death and raped violently in prison is no where NEAR as horrible as a few thousand girls getting too drunk to say ‘no’ effectively or feeling ‘pressured’ by a male standing too close or brushing her in an ‘inappropriate’ fashion.

      How can you honestly compare the horror a ‘first timer’ with a ‘rape’ charge that gets him 5 years in jail (almost guaranteeing he is going to wind up as a ‘toy’ to another prisoner) to having your nipple tweaked by an unwanted advance? or waking up in bed to someone that you don’t remember before your 2th beer the night before?

      You consider this JUST punishment? You consider this even closely approaching equity?

      Feminism has lost all sense of balance and all sense of perspective in their fight to destroy civilized conduct between the genders. Is it any wonder that the MRA’s are becoming nearly rabid in their attempts to break this stranglehold of inequality and re-establish some of the courtesy and civilized behavior that have proven themselves to help maintain an equitable and fair balance over millenia?

      When I was in high school, a young women that i did not know and did not have any interest in grabbed my crotch.
      Modern feminist ideology states that my protest over her crotch-grabbing antics was me, interfering with her right to express herself.
      If I had grabbed a young woman’s breasts, without permission or interest from her, I would be in jail for at LEAST a year for sexual assault, right after the football team beat the hell out of me. and I would be permanently and for the rest of my life labelled as a ‘sex offender’.
      and feminist ideology protects and encourages these brutal charges for what is, in the end, a fairly minor case of nonviolent touching.

      Does this honestly seem like equality to ANYONE?

      and feminism would marginalize this disparity as ‘oh, to make great social progress we have to break a few male eggs’ The problem is that this is NOT just breaking a few eggs. This applies to EVERY male and is causing a huge psychological rift in men… every man in america knows by now that he will be ignored if he is groped inappropriately but will wind up in jail if he is caught doing the groping.

      This is not a case of feminism ‘not going far enough’. It is a case where feminism has gone so horribly far that an entire half of our species is living in constant fear of reprisal for trying to be ‘equal’ to women. Men’s rights to express themselves, their freedom and understanding of the fairness of all things, is being relentlessly ground out of existence.

      And feminism replies with ‘Oh, it’s only fair. you guys have had the power for ten thousand years and now it’s time to screw YOU over…here, here’s a list of statements with no basis in fact that ‘proves’ we have been oppressed for ten thousand years’

      Men are living in fear… and our responses are split three ways between trying to ‘appease’ the majority (by reacting to this ‘new society’ as though it’s a positive thing and turning on those who recognize the problem like starved dogs fighting over a chunk of bone ), by trying to ‘ignore’ the problem (Man up guys! I am a man and I don’t feel oppressed at all! all those other guys had it coming, and it can never happen to me!), or by fighting back. The MRA’s HAVE to be twice as brutal and twice as hard core about hoarding what little concession we get, because we are outnumbered at every turn by terrified appeasers and ignorant ‘live and let live’ types JUST among our own gender. not to mention this huge block of feminist propaganda that is turning our own instincts to protect and love women against us, as well as an enormous amount of sympathy that have simply, unthinkingly, bought into this propaganda and ideology without considering the consequences.

      Most MRA’s do not hate women (in fact, I don’t know personally a single one that does) in fact, we LOVE women… but we have realized that our backpedaling agreement to every ill-conceived and selfish demand feminist ideology has placed upon us is destroying the very foundations of civilization that we have spent the last ten thousand years building. It is time to STOP caving in to every casual demand that feminism makes appealing to our weakness in telling a woman ‘no’.

      We, the MRA, are out searching desperately for the baby that feminism cast out the window with the bath water, and we are going to fight anyone that tells us that it is not worth searching, or laughs at us, or attempts to stop us with fear of repercussions.

      • You sound crazy. Your ranting about the 10,000s of men being brutally raped in jail after being falsely accused of rape was hysterical hyperbole. You didn’t give a single example of where feminism – which you basically blame for the coming apocalypse – has caused even one man any harm. Before feminism, were there no false rape charges? Was it just a better time because women were more ashamed and didn’t report it?

        What the HAIL were you talking about in this post? Because it makes NO sense.

    • and yes, by your simple statements you have already proven yourself as a ‘feminist, the bad kind’

  47. Stellar, incisive article.

  48. this site is misandric, and hugo is a mangina.

  49. One thing I’m just loving are the ads Google Ads think appropriate for this topic on my web browser:

    Ofertas no Rio de Janeiro
    Receba um incrível Cupom por dia. Até 70% de desconto. Confira!
    http://www.GROUPON.com.br/Ofertas

    Single Baltic Ladies
    100s Genuine Baltic Women Wonderful Wives. Join Free!
    AnastasiaDate.com

    Date Sexy Brazilian Women
    Brazilian Dating & Singles Site. Find the Perfect Brazilian Woman!
    http://www.BrazilCupid.com/Dating

    Ask a UK Lawyer Online
    7 UK Lawyers Are Online! Current Wait Time: 10 Minutes.
    UK-Law.JustAnswer.com

    Ahn, the joys of being a sex/gender researcher who specializes in prostitution and sexual tourism. 😀

  50. Hugo, go back to advocating for male genital mutilation.

  51. In sum: Man Up, ignore your pain, and take personal responsibility for listening to men who tell you how to live your life.

  52. Even women are shouting down the hypocrisy of feminism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plkeKMTDM9g

  53. Thaddeus G. Blanchette says:

    I agree pretty much with everything Love Shark is saying. I would only ask why men would even WANT to play victim? I mean it doesn’t seem to have worked out so spectacularly for women, to hear the more reflective and intelligent feminists talk about it.

    • I remember someone saying that Christianity was a slave religion. Could it be that as our cultures are based on Christianity, that we worship the slave – the victim?

  54. I do not think, MRAs are getting feminism wrong.

    I am not surprised that you delete comments from MRAs on your own blog all the time, because the truth hurts.

    Hugo, you are surely not, what I would call ‘a good man’.

  55. “Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”

    “Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy).”

    These truisms are something that have to become realized by more boys and men so that we will finally stop repeating the destructive cycle of the “tough guy” attitude egged on by society for ages and ages past. Men are inherently capable of kindness, sensitivity, intuition, & empathy and they should not try to inhibit or hide these critical aspects of the human experience.

  56. Of course Hugo FAILS to account for the hypocritical entitlement mentality of feminism. He is like many emasculated males in our society who are never taught to question the tenets of feminism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plkeKMTDM9g

    At least Manhood Academy has the balls to expose the scam of feminism.

  57. L'Avant Gardener says:

    This is actually very well thought out, Shark, but allow me one big’ol womanly criticism:

    Gender police? So very inaccurate. In my experience… well… how about a story?

    A college graduate I lived with had a big upset with her fiancee when she found out he had been with five other women over the course of their relationship. They went to therapy, talked it out etc. and mutually decided to stick together, continue the relationship and slowly work through the fall-out. Cool beans, said the ladies over margaritas. While there were one or two loud, wordy exceptions, most of us listened to her and decided to support the couple during hard times.

    Then she got a call from her fiancee’s brother. Asking her on a date. Then she got some hate (Facebook style) from his friends. It turns out that, during guys night out, the boys had decided that she was to blame, and had to go. And hey… if she’s single…

    It was a mess. She not only had to deal with the delicate issue that is infidelity and dishonesty, but she also had to contend with buddies who had a very “dump that ball and chain” attitude.

    So in your struggle to bring awareness and fairness to both sexes, let’s not make any more generalizations okay? They never get us anywhere. People are capable of doing every sort of thing, anytime.

  58. Seems to me that all the people who disagree with what hugo says have been downvoted.
    That tells me their are more woman on this so called goodmen project than men.
    Now i wonder why it is that a magazine created for men seems to be turning them off could it be because most of their if not all of their article writers are feminists or are bias towards men and in paticular mras,mgtow and pua`s.
    the day i take adive from you hugo or any man like you will be the day the femarellas have a collar around my neck and a leash to pull on.
    surprised just how many of the articles on here degrade and have outright misandry comments contained within them.
    this is one man who is certainly going his own way.
    nouse replying to my comment as ive took a leaf out of the feminist handbook and just ignored what i dont agree with or know to be true but would undermine my whole argument.

  59. Logic Lobby says:

    It’s such a shame that so many women think that feminism is a dirty word. In its best and most common incarnation, feminism is not the latest battle in the war against the sexes, but a means of obtaining reprieve. It concerns itself with violence against women, but not to the detriment of concern for violence against men. It is more about questioning and eventually dismantling a system that is based on myth and stereotype: that women want, need, or lack control, and that men naturally have it and should use force to maintain it, but not too much.
    Kudos to Hugo for calling this what it is: a system that is outdated, flawed, and just as harmful to men as to women.
    If we can release ourselves from violence, both giving and receiving, then we have done a deed as momentus as the first vaccination, the abolition of slavery, or the moon landing.

  60. If feminism were even remotely an equal rights movement, virtually ever man, woman, and child would call themselves a feminists. Obviously, since very few women almost no men call themselves feminists, it’s clearly got nothing to do with actual equality.

  61. hot debate??? there is no debate, if your comment is not welcomed by the hivemind, it is removed.

  62. “The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”
    Thank you so much for explaining the source of men’s unhappiness so succinctly.
    Before reading your article, I had no idea that the reason my ex-wife got custody by default was due to my own personal stunted emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential. I would never have guessed, after my ex abandoned the children and I got custody, my efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal would result in my being ordered to pay her continuing child support despite my custodial parent status.
    And who would have guessed that the terrible straitjacket which we willingly don is the reason why we receive such a disproportionately low percentage of health care funding?
    Alas, it saddens me to realize that the many young men who’s children are adopted away from them against their will would have had the opportunity to parent their own flesh and blood, had they only been less masculine.
    Or, you could be a complete tool. Yes, that’s it. A complete and utter tool.

    • You realize that it is the “straitjacket of traditional American manhood,” that was the reason why you did not get custody of your children? We live in a heteronormative culture that does not allow for men to be good parents, despite the fact that they are equally as capable as women. The courts just reflect what popular culture tells them, and for YEARS, the courts have been told by this heteronormative culture that one shouldn’t trust men with kids (which, let me remind you again, is utter bullshit). It’s not just you personally in “straitjacket of traditional American manhood,” it’s the entire American population trying to live up to the heteronormative culture that’s to blame.

      Also, please, refrain from personal insults. Even if you don’t like or buy someone else’s argument, if they remain polite, then so should you.

      • Okay… So why were men granted custody by default prior to the 20th century? What we’ve seen in the court system is an over correction based on a narrative that is, at most, 100 years old. This is the result of patriarchy how?

        The feminists that have gotten laws enacted and changed haven’t done anything to safeguard the rights of the opposite sex and they’ve gone to great lengths to preserve everything that benefits them. This does not mean all women or all feminists deserve the blame for male suffering, but it does mean two things:

        1. Prominent feminists have played a part in slighting men and stripping away some of their human rights.

        2. Patriarchy is not an adequate explanation since that would mean that the definition of patriarchy is so flexible as to be meaningless. This system, which was specifically designed to benefit men and secure their privilege – a system that still remains albeit in a weaker form, according to feminists – has made it so that men are no longer trusted with children and many of them face numerous restrictions when it comes to their own kids? That completely flies in the face of common sense.

        There’s plenty more to delve into, but anyone who is curious enough about this can find plenty of MRA sources that talk about these subjects. As for myself, I don’t think that either gender is oppressed in the west, and that the only way to deal with the problems that remain is to adopt a two-pronged approach. Doing otherwise will result in oppression, and it will also allow simplistic narratives like patriarchy theory to become the official standard for how people view the world.

    • Exactly what he said. Your social narrative simply does not reflect reality, Schweizer.

  63. “Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.”

    Couldn’t it be argued, as a counterpoint, that men are driven to that kind of self-defeating pursuit by social pressure?

  64. ZimbaZumba says:

    Having Hugo Schwyzer writing an article for The Goodman Project reduces it credibility by many orders of magnitude.

  65. Demonspawn says:

    Feminism? I think I understand Feminism far better than you do.

    The first thing to remember is that feminism was never and likely will never be a movement for equality. It was a movement for, in it’s most pure form, equal rights for women. But equal rights alone is not equality, as it ignores the burdens of equal responsibility. And remember this point, as we’ll return to it again. But for right now, let’s look at modern feminism:

    1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men have and women do not have in equal or greater levels.

    2) Please enumerate any government-enforced responsibilities which women bear which men do not bear in equal or greater levels.

    If women have equal or greater rights and equal or lesser responsibilities, as enforced by government, then why is there need for feminism (a supposed movement of equality) to petition the government for redress of grievances?

    Otherwise, to propose that the government needs to assist women to create a equal playing field is an admission, by feminists, to one of two potential facts:

    A) Women are not equal to men, and therefore women need help from the government to be equal to men (to be able to fairly compete).

    B) Feminism is not about equality, and is instead about giving women advantage over men (if women were equal to men AND receiving government help, then they would be in the position of an advantage over men)

    Given that it is easy to see where feminists are arguing for more rights in areas where women’s rights are equal to or exceed men’s rights, then we must question the ultimate end:

    If A is true, Feminism is a lie. If B is true, Feminism is a hate movement. I can demonstrate that it is both.

    How can it be both? Well, if we suppose that the people who support feminism truly do believe that men and women are equal, then they exist under condition B. Feminism is a hate movement of female superiority. As for it being a lie, I’ll hold that to the end because I want to tackle another issue on the idea of equality.

    And that issue is the idea of social influence. Despite the fact that government has no business regulating social values, feminists will argue that feminism needs to petition government to re-adjust social values so that women can be equal. This, again, is a farce. Given that women make up 51+% of the population, then again women would have to be less than equal to require government’s help to change social values. But it gets even more interesting. Given that 85+% of K-12 teachers are female, given that 40% of births are out of wedlock, given that women get primary custody in divorce 90+% of the time, given that even in intact families women are much more likely to be a stay at home parent… we can see women’s disproportionate impact on influencing the youth of the next generation. When you add those facts to the understanding that women are a majority, how can the next generation be anything other than what women want it to be?

    I’m sure the wealth argument will be played out next. This is quickly dismissed by multiple studies that demonstrate women control 80% of consumer spending. The results of this are very easy to tell as women are the sacred cow in commercials. Women also have more free time than men on average, which reinforces the positive portrayal of women on ad-supported television.

    So now that we’ve demonstrated, without a doubt, the feminism cannot be about equality, and given plenty of evidence towards demonstration of feminism as a hate movement, how can it also be a lie?
    That comes down to the third leg of the equality triangle. There are rights and responsibilities, but there is also privilege. Privilege is the relative ability to escape responsibilities or to extend rights beyond what is codified. While this is easy to measure in the realm of government and laws, it is a bit more murky in the public sphere. But what we will find is that women have greater privilege than men, and the fundamental reasons behind this are biologically driven (and therefore uncorrectable). This is why exact equality, where each leg of equality is balanced, is impossible between men and women. As such, the only possible equality between men and women is relative equality where each leg is imbalanced but the total is roughly equal. Traditionally, this has worked by men having more rights, women having less responsibilities, and women having greater privilege. (hrm… notice that feminism was all about “equal rights” and ignoring the other two legs where women were ahead? More proof that feminism was never an equality movement.)

    Our society and, in fact, all societies serve women. They are more important than men. Men are the disposable lives that protect society, and women are the lives that are society. This is how it has been for the history of the world. Some societies protect women by reducing their freedoms (Islam) others do it by not holding them accountable for their actions (Western society). But the gall of feminism is to rail on about “the patriarchy” when, in fact, all societies treat the average woman better than the average man.

    Why? Reproduction. It comes down to that simple fact. Might makes right, and numbers make might. That’s why we don’t send women to war (we need to repopulate so we are safe from the next invasion), it’s why we get women and children off the boat first (repopulation), it’s why we care more when women die working in the coal mines (and, notice that women only wanted “workplace equality” once jobs didn’t include the risk of life and limb?). Quite simply, society individual men as more disposable than individual women.

    But there’s a counter side to that as well. You can’t treat the men as too disposable because society advances on the backs of men. Now, I could repeat Dr. Baumeister’s insightful essay, but I’ll just condense it down into a few points. Men create civilization by the gender trend to value equity over equality. Women prepare the next generation by following equality over equity. Women select the best men and reward them with sex and children. Men compete to become the best men to be chosen by the best women. That competition is what advances society. This is why when sex becomes cheap and competition declines, so does the society.

    That’s the fundamental bedrock of what makes civilization work. That’s another reason that feminism is not about equality. The truth is, we cannot free our men from traditional roles as we have freed our women from them. To do so would be near-instant social suicide. The sad truth is that freeing women from traditional roles is also social suicide, just on a slower scale.

    So there it is, Feminism is not only a hate movement, it is also a lie. And the sad truth is that it can’t be stopped. The simple facts are that if you give legal equality (including suffrage) to a group which enjoys social favor, the disparate influence will shift the legal equality to legal favor… ever increasing until the system can no longer support itself. Or, as I like to say: Feminism is a self-correcting social problem. It destroys the society it infests.

    • Your comment has helped me cope, for the moment, with the doubts I’ve been having about myself in a social scene where anyone who isn’t a feminist is either dumb, evil, or uneducated.

      Bravo. I’m saving this to show to other morons that say I have “male privilege”… while I’m holding the door for them.

    • Thanks for this comment, it realy makes a lot of sense and puts things into perspektive.

    • Understands Feminism says:

      You got one thing wrong, though. Feminism is not just for “women’s rights” – it is for the advancement of all humans regardless of biological sex or gender. Your false dichotomy, and assumption of a gender binary, shows that you actually just simply don’t grasp the later waves of Feminist Theory. i’m male-bodied and don’t call myself a feminist, but at least i know the basics.

  66. Jeff Wolfsberg says:

    Hugo,

    Thank you for the post. I enjoy reading another point of view. I just completely disagree with most of what you write. I read this post and tried to imagine if it was written about women and the hail storm that would erupt. Men continue to take in on the chin and whenever we stand up for ourselves have to contend with “he’s angry” or “women hater” of “he’s anti-women” no I’m not, I love women, I’m just tired of men being treated like idiots in the media when we are the ones financially supporting most of the institutions and products that make us the butt of jokes. I continue to enjoy your point of view, but I couldn’t be further from your point of view.

    I look forward to your next post.

    Jeff

    • MRA’s face a two-front opposition to be heard; feminists who have the default support of women and male feminists. Feminists alone did not make the changes, and still do not make the changes, that MRA’s seek redress for. Men who support feminism facilitate these changes as well. The problem now is feminist men do not want to face the real problems that men, outside of the feminist utopia, face. Men are treated well until divorce, accusation of rape, accusation of DV, being on the receiving end of violence from women, being raped by women, access to their children, right of true paternity knowledge or even being recognised for men.

      There is a serious disconnect were some problems are dismissed as phantasmal simply because they happen to men. This is where feminist men get the MRA’s wrong.

    • Awesome. We should totally try to “translate” some of Hugo’s stuff.

      David Byron explains to angry women why they are all wrong</blockquote.
      Ladies, I know you're all up angry about not having the vote, but remember that your tiny lady brains cannot be expected to take on the serious work of democracy. Every month your bodies are subject to the emotions created by the loss of blood pressure that takes away oxygen from your vitals and makes it so you can';t think better than an ape or perhaps a monkey. Now just go home and make me a sandwich.

  67. Demonspawn:

    Given that 85+% of K-12 teachers are female, given that 40% of births are out of wedlock, given that women get primary custody in divorce 90+% of the time, given that even in intact families women are much more likely to be a stay at home parent… we can see women’s disproportionate impact on influencing the youth of the next generation. When you add those facts to the understanding that women are a majority, how can the next generation be anything other than what women want it to be?

    It has nearly always been the case that women were the primary child rearers. Would you argue that female domination has also nearly always been the case? That explains why we’ve had so few male presidents, I guess.

    In seriousness, it would appear there’s something fallacious about assuming that a generation raised by women will become one which is good for women. Oh, and how the heck do out-of-wedlock births demonstrate female influence? I thought they were a mutual act (which women bear much more of the cost of).

    I’m sorry about the custody thing, but as long as we’re spewing generalities, how many men are expected to be the primary caretakers of kids? That’s what more MRAs need to fight for — the right to change the damn diapers! That’s what I support, anyway.

  68. This entire article is just one long run-on ad hominem attack on men isn’t it?
    Is that true of all this guys articles?

    The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood.

    (1) I’m not American
    (2) I don’t care about “manhood” or “tradition”
    But mystifyingly I arrive at the same conclusions as the MRAs (except even more so).

    Next week:
    Hugo responds to all of my arguments by explaining “he’s just a momma’s boy”.

  69. At what point do you determine that male anger is justified as opposed to merely a symptom of a “masculine ideal”? Rather than glossing over the real issues and telling men how they should feel and why they feel it, wouldn’t it be far more honest to acknowledge that such unfair systems exist?

  70. odd and disturbing that the author doesn’t write of the large-scale violent assault and mutilation of male infants (yes, what people numbly and blindly call “circumcision”). if u can’t see, or imagine, how this violent genital assault on an infant has profound effects, you are in major denial and fear. please… look directly and deeply, honestly, into this basic sickness yet among us.

  71. My impression is the opposite, I think women have been successful in morphing the masculine ideal into something they ironically dont like. I know my dad didnt teach me to be a man, it was something I had to piece together myself. Why do you think the program Mad Men has become a roaring success? I think there is something primal that attracts women to men who dont complain, who have a mission in life, are oversexed and unapologetic.

  72. Dear Hugo. Look up Trojan Evolve commercial. Do you feel like a pig?

  73. “The men’s rights activists tend to be wildly off-base about what women actually want, but that’s another topic.”

    That topic being “women want a drug addict who will attempt to kill them while they’re unconscious.”

    Seriously, why is Hugo being published here (or anywhere for that matter)?

  74. I going to say one word: Patriarchy. Its the word that makes people look at me like I am crazy when I say it.

    Then I am going to say Thank You. Spot on. I’m glad my observations are seen by someone else. I am very observant. People think I’m insane when I say I think I know people’s motivations… my bluntness can kill. Apparently.

  75. “If you don’t believe that, think for a moment about how hard boys will work to please a demanding football coach.”
    The fact you think football players are working hard only to please their coach is astonishing to me, that you can understand even less about male nature than female feminists. Men work hard to please themselves. They want to impress themselves. Not other men. Football players work hard for their coach because they want to succeed as football players, because they trust that their coach is pushing them for their own good and because they understand the need for order and authority in a sports team and that their coach decides whether to play them or not and has a large say in whether they succeed or not.

    This is typical of the hateful garbage you hear from feminists. All maleness is wrong, idiotic and harmful. It originates not in our nature, that we behave in certain ways because we are happier that way, because it satisfies and stimulates us and helps us work towards the things which we want, but because we were socialized away from being the perfect, beautiful, emotionally sensitive, empathetic angels women are.

    “Working too hard for female approval just makes you a “mama’s boy” or “pussy-whipped,” and the frantic efforts young men make to ensure neither of those labels apply to them tells you all you need to know about who it is they are really trying to impress.”
    Maybe it’s because women would never be able to give you any advice on how to get what you want from them. They’d tell you to be nice and kind and caring and a good listener and on and on and on about things that don’t actually cause attraction in them but are just something they’d like. Men figured this stuff out long ago. The men who follow their male nature get into the panties of the women they are attracted to. The men who try to do what women tell them they want get to take care of their kids once those women are in their mid-thirties. Feminists understand their own nature almost as little as they understand male nature.

    This article is so hateful, insulting and dismissive of men it’s hard to fathom how a man could have written it. The fact you teach classes on Men and Masculinity concerns me. You’ll be contributing to men being confused about their feelings and desires and incapable of understanding themselves.

    And as far as the reasons for the MRAs, a lot of them are men who have been incredibly screwed over by the biased courts system and other things in our society so for you to say that their unhappiness does not stem from that is disgusting, condescending drivel. Theirs does. They’re not the architects of anything, they were treated unfairly by a despicably biased system and >>>are<<< victims.

    This is so unbelievably typical. Find a way to blame men even when they're the victims, while feminists consider women victims in every facet of their existence.

  76. I once heard a woman say there was no need for a movement for issues men have because there already was one called feminism. Wtf? Look, if “feminism” were about human beings it would be called humanism. It doesn’t take a a genius to see the root of the word has to do with females. In addition, when feminists such as yourself talk about men, there is either a total lack of understanding of the realities now faced by men or a suspicious lack of empathy/compassion. People who deny the misandric core of our society just prove over and over how deeply ingrained it really is. By not addressing the disadvantages and injustices men now face after so many years of living in a totalitarian feminist matriarchy, you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious discussion.

  77. I should add that although men are the victims of feminism, playing the victim is a female’s game and I don’t recommend it. To any young men stumbling upon this information … do not bother with workinv within the system because it is already too far gone and corrupted. The best you can do is to gain a deep understanding of what you are up against and protect yourself. It is always better to take the red pill.

  78. Before reading this article, I just finished reading one on the emotionally abused man and I think there is a tie-in.
    It is certainly true that the emotional straight-jacket of traditional masculinity is not the invention of women and certainly not feminism.
    But I think it is also true that this straight-jacket of masculinity also provides a weapon to women who emotionally and/or physically abuse their partners. A man hurt by his SO can be further harmed in two ways, both stemming from traditional masculinity. Either “You’re too sensitive! be a man.” or “I didn’t really hurt you.” or “You’re just uncomfortable with my strong emotions because you’re a man and bad at feelings.”
    The box of traditional masculinity does harm to men not only by stunting their growth but also lets women off the hook for the harm they do commit.

Trackbacks

  1. […] if you wade through the comments below my Tuesday column on MRAs at the Good Men Project, you’ll see lots of invective and ad hominem. If you visited this […]

  2. […] such argument is made by Male-Feminist Professor Hugo Schwyzer, where, in his article, “How the mens rights activists get feminism wrong”, he asserts that men are the sole cause of the “anger” men’s rights advocates […]

  3. […] of them, no surprises here, actually popped up in the wake of the post on so-called Men’s Rights Activists and the ones specifically dealing with rape […]

  4. […] if you wade through the comments below my Tuesday column on MRAs at the Good Men Project, you’ll see lots of invective and ad hominem. If you visited this […]

  5. […] without being hostile towards feminism. I would also recommend checking out Hugo Schwyzer’s How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong, and Amanda Marcotte’s The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism. Share this:Like […]

  6. […] [38] Schwyzer, Hugo. “How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong.” The Good Men Project. N.p., 8 Mar. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.  http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-the-mens-rights-activists-get-feminism-wrong […]

  7. […]       If men truly wish to overcome the sometimes toxic restrictions of 21st Century Western masculinity, far from seeing gender equality is a zero-sum […]

  8. […] about the men’s rights movement can be found here, here, and if you’re feeling especially intrepid here. Amusing coverage of the […]

Speak Your Mind

*