If you can’t see guys as good, maybe you’re looking in the wrong place.
For those of you who don’t know how The Good Men Project began, here it is. One day, Tom Matlack, with a decade’s worth of highly successful venture capitalism under his belt, decided to write a story. It was a personal story, an honest story. It was his story.
And he kept sending draft after draft to his former venture capitalist partner James, who was now on sabbatical in France with his family. And one day James said, “Tom, I love your story, really. But I can’t just can’t look at it yet again. Can you go out and get some stories of other men?”
And Tom said, “Great idea.”
Tom is known for working at lightening speed, and immediately went out and found other men and listened to them tell their stories. He noticed that guys would tend to talk about a defining moment in their life. The time when they thought they knew what was happening, the time when they thought they understood how it was all supposed to be working out, and then they suddenly turned around, and all their expectations had been shattered. And at the core of that defining moment was a moral dilemma—“how can I navigate my way through this mess and do what it takes to be a good man?” And so, The Good Men Project was born, with at its core a storytelling of raw, honest truths—stories that changed the teller and changed the listener.
♦◊♦
But why men?
We’re often asked, why not the Good Human Project? Why, in this day and age of gender equality and gender desegregation of all kinds, why focus on just men?
The key to making any idea work, to build a brand that has long-term value; even to create a story that has meaning is this: find a place to stand. Take a look at a worldview no one else is seeing. That will center you, allow you to have insights you can then share with others. Plant a flag where you are standing; stake your ground.
Nobody else was talking about men from the place Tom was, from a point of personal truths. Media for men was still trotting out the same old tired clichés: Men are only interested in sex and sports. Visuals of hot babes in bikini’s were all they’d look at. And when the media did tell stories of men, men invariably came across as philanderers or liars or villains or cheats. Not the multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, thoughtful struggling-to-get-it-right kind of guys that really exist.
For Tom, the reason to focus on men was also personal. The power in men’s stories was in the truths they told, and Tom’s view was that in the past it had been “socially less acceptable to get really honest as a guy.” For Tom, hearing men tell their stories packed that extra punch. “I hear something that unlocks an important clue about who I was meant to be in the world.”
When I first met Tom, he told me story after story of the guys he had been talking to. Then he handed me a half-finished manuscript. “You can read my own mess of a story in there if you want to.” He looked away. “It’s the stuff guys don’t usually talk about.”
♦◊♦
It gets harder and harder to navigate what we are supposed to believe about gender. Is it OK to use the word “macho?” Do we have to spell out “he” or “she” all the time? C’mon, why can’t we use the word they already? I got accused of using sexist language in one of my articles recently: “You always say ‘men and women’. You never say ‘women and men’. I think you privilege men,” said the commenter. Really? I thought to myself. I privilege men even though I was just talking about rape and sexual abuse? Never mind the fact that I am writing on a site that is about men. It’s times like these I feel as if there’s a new gender protocol manual that no one ever handed me.
There’s no doubt that there are some things we’d all like clarification on. But the sheer audacity of the title of Hannah Rosin’s otherwise thoughtful piece, “The End of Men,” was meant to provoke and challenge, blame and infuriate. Beyond that, it’s just stupid. Who on earth would want The End of Men?
♦◊♦
I want to admit something here. All my life I’ve thought of myself as feminist.
Now, before the Men’s Rights Activists get in a tizzy and scream “I told you so—The Good Men Project is under the wing of a feminist,” let me explain something.
Much of my life, I’ve been afraid of men. They were on the whole, bigger than me, stronger than me. My relationships with men hadn’t gotten off to such a great start. I was afraid of men because they were sexual creatures—as was I—and thus were both objects of my desire and a source of my nightmares. And I was afraid of men because they had more money and more power and more presence when they walked in a room than I ever did.
So I looked to feminism to solve the problems that I, as an individual, had with men. “Too hard to ask for the salary I deserve? I’ll wait ‘til feminism figures it out.”
I’ve since learned that it’s better to walk right up to men and actually talk to them.
♦◊♦
When I was growing up, women came in only two flavors. Either a woman was a sex object, preferably a thin, white, blonde with wavy hair and curvy curves; or she was a mom with an apron and apple pie. And part of what feminism did do well over the past few decades was change those one-dimensional stereotypes into a worldview that let us see women as multi-faceted, complex creatures who could do almost anything.
I think I was in 6th grade when a slogan started making the rounds: “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” Even with my brain in my small, prepubescent state, I remember thinking, “Well, no.” The problem is that fish don’t ever desire a bicycle. I would be hard-pressed to say there was ever a time in my life—even at times when I was most afraid—that I didn’t desire men. Not just sexually, of course. But as someone different, someone who had a worldview I didn’t. I desired men as part of the pattern of the world that makes it so interesting.
♦◊♦
My children all played ice hockey. It didn’t matter that three of them were girls, that when my oldest daughter started playing she was always the only female on the ice. But for the most part, hockey didn’t define them, there were other skills, other talents, other roles they played. For instance, they all participated in the yearly Christmas time community theater production.
Every year, the hockey games overlapped with the theater performances, and every season my life creaked under the stress of dashing from afternoon performance to hockey game to evening performance. My daughter Shannon was the 4th in line to go through this ritual, and she knew the drill: “OK, Shannon, you get off stage, dash out the back door where I’ll be waiting and we’ll drive straight to the hockey rink.” She put her equipment on in the car and we arrived just as the Zamboni was exiting the ice.
But in the car after the game, Shannon burst into tears. “What’s wrong?” I asked, surprised. I thought the game had gone well.
“Mom, you have NO IDEA what it’s like to take off your hockey equipment in a locker room full of boys and be wearing an elf costume underneath.”
Why yes, honey, actually, I know exactly what that’s like.
♦◊♦
Every time we slip into a gender role that we think we’re supposed to be, instead of being who we are, that’s pretty much what it feels like. I’ve talked about my humiliation about pretending to play golf in order to try to fit in with men at work. Or my obsession with trying to look good on the outside, because I thought that’s what men wanted—at a cost to not only my soul, but to my ability to spend my time doing things I really want to do, instead of spending time trying to look the way I thought I was supposed to look. My fear of being taunted for not appearing to be beautiful enough and feminine enough often brought me to tears. Which, of course, got me worrying about being “too emotional.”
But there are less dramatic ways that my struggle to be a women emanated itself. There was the taunting that I received as a kid for appearing too smart: “You’re too smart for your own good,” said like a threat. Even as an adult, the subtle way that people would roll their eyes or studiously ignore me when I said something I thought was somewhat intelligent. Do you know how hard it is to try to be smart but not appear smart? For the longest time, that was what I thought I had to do—downplay my intelligence, up play my looks. Being “too smart” was almost as much of an insult as “too ugly.” Even today, I struggle with that balance. Sentence by sentence, word by word. It’s why I write kind of casually, you know? It’s become part of my voice.
♦◊♦
The thing I want to be clear on—and the point that is most important here—is that as difficult as it was for me to be the type of female I thought I was supposed to be—I think men struggle as much or more with their role as men.
The problem with feminism—and yes, I’ll say it, “the problem with feminism,” at least from my own very personal viewpoint, the place where I stand, is this.
I was taught to believe that the plight of women was so difficult that I failed to see that men had problems too.
It’s been working on The Good Men Project that’s changed me. I’ve since been shown “the man box”—the way in which men struggle with appearing to be a man the same way I struggled with appearing to be a women at all costs. I never before understood that men clearly saw themselves as “The Provider” in the family, and that’s often the reason they feel they have to so aggressively pursue money—simply to make sure their family is provided for. I had failed to notice the day-to-day acts of heroism so prevalent in males—I had been shown, so many times, the side of them that the media showed me, the side of villains or philanderers or couch potatoes. The dads shown on TV commercials as bumbling idiots hiding all of their wonderful instincts about child rearing and child caring and nurturing in an effort to “look male.” The stay-at-home dads who get ridiculed for that role the same way I felt humiliated for wanting to play golf with the office business strategists.
And I’ve internalized what I see as a great truth that I wish feminists everywhere would take note of: That the easiest way to break through the glass ceiling just might be to break down the walls first.
♦◊♦
When I had lunch with Tom Matlack the first time we met, he told me story after story about the guys he had talked to. And some had been in prison, or war, or battlefields of the mind. Some had struggled with addictions and some had felt failure in their ability to provide for their kids. All of those men had been able to internalize that struggle, move on, and talk honestly about what they went through in order to share their insights. And as Tom told me those stories, the last thing on my mind was that this was “The End of Men.”
Instead, what I thought was, “This is the beginning.”
–
—Photo walking camera/Flickr
–
This piece is part of a special series on the End of Gender. This series includes bloggers from Role/Reboot, Good Men Project, The Huffington Post, Salon, HyperVocal, Ms. Magazine, YourTango, Psycholog
About Lisa Hickey
Excellent piece, Lisa. There is a divide between acknowledging the abstract idea that gender is a social construct, and living the reality of our gendered lives. Gender itself isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. But our ideas about it need to be more flexible. Patriarchy is a system which limits everyone from fulfilling their (look, I used “their”) real human potential. It pits men in unnecessary competition with one another, and it devalues the contributions of boys and less traditionally “masculine” men. Both sexes suffer from this. Sexism is unfair treatment based on sex, and women certainly don’t have a monopoly on that. But it’s not a blame game! It’s about seeing where sexism lives in our everyday lives, and rejecting it as much as we can.
Ugh. It’s a lovely article; beautiful as ever from Lisa, but I have to say something else first, in response to the other comments. Aimed at nobody particularly; anyone who needs to hear this.
Do people understand that the word “patriarchy” is deeply offensive?
“Patriarchy” means “Men are crap, nasty, violent people. They are in charge of everything and everything is their fault.“. It’s the single most insulting anti-male word you could possibly use. Do you understand that? It’s like calling a black person the N-word. And I see that word thrown out all the time on this site.
Sometimes feminists use the word in a phrase like, “patriarchy hurts men too”. Here’s how that sounds to me:
And do you know what it is that hurts men most out of that stream of insults? It’s not saying we are stupid. It’s not saying we are violent. It’s not saying we are arrogant. It’s not even the pretense that we are in charge. It’s saying we like hurting women. That’s about the nastiest thing you can say to a guy and feminists simply never stop saying that.
If there’s anything worse to say to a man I don’t know what it is. Even calling them a coward isn’t that bad. I don’t even think calling them a pedophile is that bad. And feminists never stop saying this to us men.
I am begging you to stop using that deeply deeply offensive word.
Erm…I don’t think patriarchy means what you think it means…
It may not mean what he thinks it means, but it does what he says it does.
And I think that’s the point.
Anyway, using the word patriarchy to shame men(pretty much just for existing) will eventually have one of two results.
Either men will shut down emotionally and exit society, or they’ll just stop caring about hurting women.
Wee! What a wonderful world we’re creating!
I applaud all the men who are willing to share their stories and explore their humanity. It shows us all how much more we have in common then there are differences. We’re all just out here struggling to figure out who we are and how we fit in this crazy world. I love The Good Men Project for it’s inclusivity, but also it’s male perspective. It’s refreshing and enlightening. I’m a feminist, but I have always believed that feminism can only go so far without men’s input and help. We all have something to learn from each other. Thank you.
That’s lovely, thank you Jaime. Exactly the reasons I love Good Men Project.
I love men…I loved a man a long time ago and I listened and empathized….I listened to him for seven years to all his problems, his difficulties with supervising his co-workers, his struggle to get his PhD while working full-time, his problems with running a laboratory according to exacting standards all the while being unfairly accused of sexual harassment, his financial stresses involved with raising 3 teenagers, and his poor, unloving relationship with his wife….Yes, I was in love with a narcissistic, abusive man (who pursued me while I was a too young and too naive girl) and I only listened to his point of view to the exclusion of reason and the people around me….according to him, he was still suffering for being blamed for the accidental death of his sister and for the cold, aloof treatment by his parents, and etc., etc. ….he was always suffering and always the victim… I listened to him so much I forgot to listen to my own feelings and to other people….It wasn’t until recently that I have finally realized how damaged my thinking was about my past with him….I was so brainwashed to think that only his viewpoint was valid; I was numb to my own feelings and misgivings…. I was so overly sympathetic and empathetic to his overwhelming point of view that I neglected to really see how much he had abused his power over me: he manipulated, coerced, and badgered me into submission and got off on that power… If we only feel sympathy for men and silence the opinions and voices of women and girls, then we have annihilated a significant part of ourselves….I could never argue with him…he always shut me down…it got to the point where I would just sit in silence with him because I was afraid of setting him off on one of his diatribes….How can you argue with someone who was convinced that Robert Chambers (The Preppie Murderer) was telling the truth about what happened that night? How much are the women shut down? Silenced? Snuffed out? Do we only listen to Robert Chambers’ testimony and not that of Jennifer Levin (she’s already gone…..does she matter?)?
A few days ago there was a thread on goals for the website and what people got out of it. For me the answer is easy: Lisa Hickey. I went through and read everything by her I could soon after I came to the site. Why am I doing that? Why am I reading stories about this woman, when this is a web site for stories about men?
She’s so beautiful. I don’t know how else to put it. As a person who sees how much men are put down in this life, I see her as beautiful. She is an oasis. She is life giving. A woman who loves men. A woman who likes men. I don’t even like men. Men are hard to like. But Lisa really seems to like them. She doesn’t say mean stuff about us. You just don’t see that. I mean EVER. That’s just not the way women are. I’m not being down on women. Men are that way too, but with men we’re used to it. With women it seems all wrong. We love women. We want women to like us. But they don’t. They say we suck. But Lisa doesn’t. She says she likes us.
I know exactly what you mean because that’s exactly how I feel about women.
You are so NOT a feminist Lisa. You’re the complete opposite.
“You are so NOT a feminist Lisa. You’re the complete opposite.”
Trouble is, if alot of the people who call themselves feminist, like Lisa, are actually the opposite, how is it that the remainder defines feminism?
Its a compliment, if a somewhat backhanded one.
See, as I see feminism, or as I grew up seeing feminism, she is a feminist. Because she isn’t denying either side. I’m a feminist and I love men, married a man, have male children, have male friends, and am writing here. Humanist, feminist, humorist, sexualist.
What a great question Peter.
I hear on this site a lot, “Well, why aren’t you decrying the radfems! Why aren’t you doing something.” Am I not? Here? By writing about people? By being as kind as possible on comments? By volunteering time to help moderate fairly? By learning? You don’t know what I’m doing day to day, with men, in my life. I don’t have, yet, a giant media platform and fame to take my messages of universal sex ed, liberal thinkin’, pleasure based living, conflict resolution, and equality for all out into the world.
And I’ll stand by that even if my audience is quite small.
It seems like it is really hard to communicate just how negative the feminist movement is without you (or whoever) becoming really defensive and taking it personally and so it either becomes an insulting response or a dismissive one or else (as here) you come across as if you feel you have to justify that you’re a decent human being to me which frankly makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
Ideally what I want is this exchange:
Me: Feminism really sucks.
You: Oh but I think feminism = equality
Me: That word really offends a lot of people and to them it means man hating. It’s just going to get in the way and cause a lot of arguments.
You: Well it’s not a big deal. I can use another word that’s less controversial.
That NEVER happens. Why is that?
You know you don’t have to believe feminism is a hate movement to figure that using a term that so many people find so aggressive is maybe a bad idea. Maybe I should try some positive arguments along the lines of Farrell’s Gender Transition Movement stuff. The bottom line is that the term “feminism” is toxic in these discussions and not only that but feminism’s way of looking at stuff — ie the “sex war”– is incredibly toxic. Feminism says that gender issues must be understood as a war between men and women, so if you don’t WANT a war between men and women it’s a bad idea to be a feminist. If you support equality and you want men and women to be able to talk to each other, then you need a movement that is based on treating everyone fairly, not one that demonizes half the human race and demands they kiss-ass the other half. You need a movement that speaks for everyone not a movement that speaks for one half and just makes the other half angry.
All that seems so obvious to me. I’d just like to know what part of that doesn’t make sense to you?
I’m going to reply to both this comment and your other one below, David.
One thing that struck me today with the article where I called myself a “humanist” was how many feminists scoffed at me for it. Julie, you were on the thread on Hugo’s FB. A smattering of comments, all from people who are identifying as ‘feminists’:
– “we need more feminist men and women out there not people who are afraid of the term and call themselves a humanist instead”.
– “I get an ‘ugh’ when I when I heard someone talk about being a ‘humanist’ and not a feminist. It feels like it’s inherently saying, ‘Oh we have almost all of the same values but I’m not going under that scary/tarnished/ugly ‘feminist’ label.’
– Feminism is the only logical conclusion of humanism, unless you eliminate female humans from the race.
– anyone who can’t see that feminism is as much a men’s issues as it is a women’s “just doesn’t get it’.
– As feminists we’re constantly told other people aren’t concerned with our issues.
– “people choose the word humanist when privilege precludes understanding of the social / historical context”
– “totally misses that feminism at its most emancipatory is not about a ‘female frame of reference’ but about understanding power and the dynamics of power to define what constitutes gender and gendered relations in the first place”
And then my all time favorite:
– She’s just ignorant on this matter for whatever reason.
Well OF COURSE I’m ignorant. How could I possibly NOT be when ya’ll talk like that?
But now – see, that sentiment will get me branded as “feminist bashing” because – I’m choosing not to identify myself with a word that even ardent feminists can’t explain to me in a way I can understand.
That makes no sense to me. None.
Here’s how feminism works for me personally. I will try to explain this again, one more time. I hear the statistic bandied about that “only 8% of investor-funded companies have women CEO’s”
So what do I do? This is what I do. I say – “oh, that’s unfair” – and then I GO OUT AND BECOME A CEO.
If feminism is a form of activism, that’s as activist as I can get.
I agree there is some toxicity that is true. I am always willing to look into and accept that things are different than I think they are. What doesn’t make sense? I’ve personally never experienced feminism as a “hate movement” which is probably why I approach you from the personal perspective, but I’ll cease that as I don’t want to make you feel odd. And it’s probably beside the point.
This has always been my reference point for feminism:
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
My personal examples were intended to share that I’ve never seen it as a war, that I’m asking people to kiss my ass. I just want to be hired for skills I have, have access to reproductive rights (and believe me I think that’s complicated), and not be patronized. k
I’d love to see the Ferrell’s theory stuff. Link if you have time. I’ll look it up too.
Words are important. I’m wary of unilaterally saying, “Well, feminism is dead, long live equalism.” As I’m not a theorist, nor a scholar, nor do I actually have the ability to claim that anyway. I mean, I could say it all day long, doesn’t mean the blog-o-sphere is going to respond.
Warren Farrell was a feminist (head of the NYC chapter of NOW I believe) who one day decided to be critical of his own feminist beliefs. He decided to ask “is that so?” of a number of feminist assumptions and ended up developing a lot of masculist arguments, which got him kicked out of the feminist movement of course. So he wrote a book called “The Myth of Male Power” that listed a lot of ways in which men were disadvantaged and that was I think in the 1970s. So it’s a classic text of the men’s rights side of things. You should definitely read it.
I’m surprised you never heard of him. That’s like saying you don’t know who Betty Friedan is but one of the problems in the “debate” is that feminists are completely uninformed about the other side.
The book is a cheap easy read and I strongly suggest you read it because Farrell is about the nicest, easiest, most pleasant intro you could hope for, to a subject that is going to be really hard for you to take in I think.
Looks like you can get a copy for less than $10.
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448
I suppose the question is, what does a hate movement feel like? How could you tell the difference? What exactly counts as a hate movement anyway? You’re already aware of people who call themselves feminists who are “really mean” shall we say. So how mean do they have to be? How many do there have to be? How much influence do they have to have? Who decides such things? What evidence is there and how would you measure it?
The label thing…. a lot of the time critics of feminism get accused of making too much of it, but from what you are saying feminists are equally strenuous about what label to use. That does not surprise me. Still it is hard to see a commonality as to why in that list.
The case for a neutral label is pretty clear I think. I would have guessed that feminists would basically be saying “you got to call yourself a feminist or you are being disloyal”. Some are along those lines but it’s hard to say all.
I’m a statistician so I don’t see any issue with the 8% CEO thing. I would want to know how many people try out for the CEO jobs. If only 2% of the people who try for those jobs are women, then women have a strong advantage. If 30% do, then they have a strong disadvantage. If 10% do then that may not be statistically significant as a difference from equal odds. As a statistician I can’t tell you if there’s bias without that extra information.
With a movement like feminism my own view is that 95% of membership is simple self-identification. Basically you’re a feminist if you say you are one. But there is that other 5%. In fact I think it is especially interesting when trying to determine the nature of the feminist movement (which is what I do) to ask which people are rejected by the larger body of the movement. Who crosses the line? Who is told they are NOT a feminist even if they claim they are? There’s no official mebership of course so this can only be determined by the statements of feminists in good standing. Fortunately as they are mostly women there’s a lot of catty “you’re not in my group” sort of language to look at.
Firstly many times men are excluded as a whole. Many feminists say men cannot be feminists. Same goes for mtf transgendered. This is not a majority view. Neither will being a woman allow a person to criticise feminism – they are called “gender traitors”. It’s interesting to note but does not define the movement.
Secondly you have what I call the dissident feminists. I think that might be Donna LaFramboise’s term. Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy… I know I am forgetting a bunch of them now…. these are feminists (always women unless you count Warren Farrell) whose political opinions draw such attack by the other feminists that they are told they are NOT feminists. I believe it is very instructive to look at this group of people and see what they are saying because they define feminism — negatively. Whatever they are saying is what the feminists simply cannot stand. and what they are saying is that men are human beings too. Men have rights tioo. men have issues too, and worst of all, that women might be to blame.
Never thrown out of the movement? People like mary Daly, Valerie Solanas and other extremists and nutcases.
Lisa’s opinions are so the opposite of feminism that she wouldn’t even get to be called a dissident feminism IMO. I doubt she ever was a feminist. But perhaps she is a dissident. I am not trying to tell her what to be. This is just my observation.
Amen David. I’m like you too. I love both the bodies and the brains of women. It’s too bad that in an effort to be the “knight in shining armour”- that I feel all men should strive to be – I have become the lonely, sexually repressed man armed only with a dim hope that one day I will find a woman who has a view like Lisa’s and – wow – actually cares about the MAN that is me. All because I keep running into women who are hell bent on toying with my affections rather than honestly reciprocating theirs to me. I fully blame “feminism” for this. I don’t mean feminism where the strengths and weaknesses of both sexes are acknowledged and respected, but this new “feminism” where men are continually being demonized and a fear is created around us. A fear that most women can only combat using mind games and manipulation instead of even attempting to understand and thus harmonize with our point of view. A lot of women literally HATE us nowadays for actions done by the idiots among us.
I realize I sound incredibly idealistic, perhaps naive, but I strongly feel you and I are on the same page here. Or maybe, we’re too old fashioned
This is a truly great articel. I usually came here to analyze people, who in my opinion have it all wrong, feminists like Hugo Schwyzer. But now that he`s gone and I read this articel, I have good faith. that the goodmenproject is moving in a very positive direction. Feminism is not needed for gender equality, I even think it is working against it. My sister lied to her boyfriend about liking video games and skateboarding in her teens, much like you pretended to golf to your collegues, for getting accepted. The thing is women don`t have to do this sort of thing, men will accept you for the women you are. Also feminism holds the idea that men and women are essentially the same, which is total nonsense in my eyes. My girlfriend and I understand that men and women are fundamentally different, which does not only create great sexual tension, but also makes interacting with her on a intellectual and day to day basis much more enjoable. I hope my English doesn`t come across to bad, it is not my first language, I`m from Switzerland.
“But now that he`s gone and I read this article, I have good faith.”
Hugo’s gone?
Yes, he resigend.
Thats a mignificent piece of writing, no point in writing more, theres nothing more to say.
This article does not appear under the list of stuff by Lisa Hickey.
Perhaps it is missing a tag?
Dah! My mistake but now I cannot delete that other comment of mine.
So this article is tagged fine with “Lisa Hickey” but I didn’t realise that it was originally started some time ago.
Do you want it deleted, David? i can if you wish.
Sure.
Wow, Did this article really say good men are in one or more of three situations:
1:In war or on a battlefield
2:struggling to pay child support
3:Prison
Those men sound like disposable men.
(their only utility is what they do for women)
I submit the better man is one who is not caught up in such situations,one who *gasp*
actually lives life for himself first.
(just like a woman)
We are more than what we do for women,geez whiz it so hard to understand the radical concept that men are human beings?
It’s being taken for granted that is leading us afar.
That and the lack of basic human rights.
Try treating us like equal human beings and perhaps we will fall back into the service you desire.
“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.”
Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man
I think it really depends if you are speaking about job opportunities or being the head of the household because roles are definitely on the brink of shifting.
Amber Johnson, Author, http://assistanceforsinglemothers.com/
Well, I’m really pissed. I just spent 20 minutes writting a response and the page reloaded and I lost it :@.
) but I find there is alot of feminist theories out there that are simply outrageous and I find myself arguing and problematizing them constantly.I’m not putting down all feminist theory, by all means no, I find myself agreeing on most aspects on the libertarian feminist front, but throughout my studies I’ve realized this; if women have been constantly uncomfortable or have felt restricted by gender stereotypes, who’s to say men haven’t? I’ve noticed in most feminist litterature that they group men as whole, having all-encompassing universal traits. It’s false, and horribly denigrating.
ANYWAYS, I’ll shorten it this time around. I just want to say THANK YOU for this article Lisa. I’m currently in university majoring in Anthropology with a minor in Women’s Studies, however I’m thinking of switching out of my minor and going to into Gender Studies for exactly the reason you described in your article. I’ve called my self a feminist for quite some time now. I’m what you’d describe as a physiological “feminine” female, but psychologically am not. And that is the precise reason I turned to feminism in the first place. I was tired of people making assumptions about me based on my assumptions (As a kid/teen I’d always get the “you’re too pretty to play hockey/videogames/soccer” crap) so I turned to feminism hoping to make sense of our society, to debunk gendered stereotypes and to prove to myself that I’m normal the way I am. I’m a true believer in equality. Maybe it’s because my dad is my bestfriend (and the only one who encouraged my tomboy attributes) or maybe it’s because I’m married to the greatest man ( or human
Anyways, I’m sending this article to a classmate of mine with whom I’m constantly arguing that men have struggled and are struggling. Sure, the struggle is different, but just as harmful.