Feminism, the Duke Rape Hoax, and Searching for Empathy

A reader reminds us that “looking at the other’s point of view” can be difficult even for those who call for it publicly.

EDITORS NOTE: This was sent to us by email. The sender agreed we could publish it, but asked to remain anonymous.

The post — and the variety of responses — gets at a lot of the issues we talk about here: 1) goodness and why it’s important, 2) men’s portrayal in the media 3) empathy and what it actually looks like in real life, 4) the difference between criticism and attacks, 5) what is “privilege” and what is the difference between male vs. female privilege. Is there an inherent, systematic approach to “protect” women over men and can that be seen as privilege? 6) The way in which intentions get misconstrued in the media.

♦◊♦

UPDATE: We have been in contact with Amanda Marcotte by email, and she asked us to put in the following statement: “I do not support Mike Nifong’s choices in this case and wish generally that rape cases could be handled with due process instead of tried by a public that has politicized what should be a matter for the criminal justice system. Any suggestion that I feel any way about this case outside of that is false.”

 

♦◊♦

Thomas,

The discussion you had on Twitter that was posted to the Good Men Project featured the following exchange:

TMatlack: WTF. So the only way to be a “good” man is to imagine how hard it is to be a woman? What a crock of shit.

AmandaMarcotte: Imagining the POV of someone you’re in conflict with is bare minimum of being a good person, yes.

I thought this exchange was darkly comical, at minimum, because of the acerbic tone Marcotte’s writing at Pandagon has always had. If compiling a list of pundits who were adept at imagining the point of view of their ideological opponents, Marcotte’s name wouldn’t leap to the top.

In particular, her coverage of the Duke Rape hoax was extreme, and led to her “resigning” from blogging officially for John Edwards’ presidential campaign. From Wikipedia:

Statements on Duke Lacrosse Case

Reason contributing editor Cathy Young has described Marcotte as a “leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax“. In “Marcotte’s eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault.”[25]

Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused Duke students were “rape-loving scum”.[26]Time reported that in “late January, more ethics charges were heaped on the District Attorney in the Duke University sexual-assault case, and Marcotte attacked the news with her usual swagger and sarcasm:”[27]

I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.[28][29]

The New York Times[30] and others[31][32][33][34][35][36] made so much “hay” over what she wrote that she ended up deleting the post entirely.[37] In an article that she wrote for Salon, she referred to this as the first in a series of “shitstorms” that caused her to resign from the John Edwards campaign

Brooklyn college history professor K.C. Johnson’s blog Durham in Wonderland is the most detailed record of the Duke Rape hoax, written as events unfolded and summarized afterwards. If you’re unfamiliar, the short of it is a district attorney named Mike Nifong who was seeking reelection exploited the racial tension in Durham to win the black vote and his reelection, and pushed ahead with the prosecution of a rape accusation that evidence did not support. The end result was Nifong’s disbarment and criminal conviction along with the Attorney General of North Carolina declaring the accused Duke Lacrosse players innocent of the charges against them (not not guilty, but actually innocent).

Some of the ethical violations by Nifong and the Durham police department were inexcusable. The alleged rape was said to have occurred at a party thrown by the Duke lacrosse team, at which both the accuser and nearly all of the lacrosse team were present. The line-ups used by Durham police featured only Duke lacrosse players, eliminating any realistic chance of a false positive when the accuser was asked to identify the particular Duke lacrosse players involved. Perhaps worse (certainly so in the eyes of the North Carolina State Bar) Nifong made pubic statements to the media that he had DNA evidence placing the specific lacrosse players accused at the scene of the crime, which not only was an outright lie, but Nifong delayed releasing the full results of the DNA testing performed by the Durham police that would have helped exonerate the defendants.

When Nifong asked the state attorney general’s office and the Administrative Office of the Courts to pay his legal fees and help defend him against the civil suit that followed, both offices refused on the grounds that Nifong’s actions involved “fraud, corruption (and) malice.”

In Marcotte’s eyes, and by her own words, anyone who took issue with the unethical and criminal actions of Nifong as the case unfolded and it became more and more apparent Nifong was a menace, was “rape-loving scum.” I and many others must live in a fantasy land where neither rape, removing the burden of proof from the state, convicting people of crimes they did not commit, nor police and prosecutor misconduct are considered acceptable. It’s a shame Marcotte seems incapable of “imagining this point of view” and can only frame people into one of two polarizing, opposing camps.

If you cross paths in the future, do me a favor and ask her if she believes herself to be a good person.

Best,

R.F.

 

photo by vance holmes

About Anonymous

Comments

  1. just for the record- “Crystal Mangum, 34, was sentenced to between 14 years and 18 years in prison after a jury reached a verdict after six hours of deliberations.” for murdering her boyfriend…
    http://tracking.si.com/2013/11/22/duke-lacrosse-accuser-found-guilty-of-murder/

  2. UPDATE: We have been in contact with Amanda Marcotte by email, and she asked us to put in the following statement: “I do not support Mike Nifong’s choices in this case and wish generally that rape cases could be handled with due process instead of tried by a public that has politicized what should be a matter for the criminal justice system. Any suggestion that I feel any way about this case outside of that is false.”
    Oh don’t get this twisted. Nifong was an overly ambitious attorney that was trying to make a name for himself with a big rape conviction (which says a lot about race and gender relations that such a case can be used this way). That doesn’t make his actions okay of course but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that he distancing herself from him makes her smell like roses again.

    If Amanda was all about the due process instead of public opinion then why in the world did she call for blood but then go total silent when Mangum’s story fell apart (and from what I hear she even deleted all her postings on the story that predate her finding out the truth)? Someone that’s all about due process would have at least given those guys a fair shot to defend themselves against the charges instead of calling guilty as soon as the story broke.

  3. For the people who are Flipping The Fuck Out over this being submitted by an anonymous person.

    How much difference would it make if it were from a named source?

    • Wirbelwind says:

      Well, Amanda’s friends would be able to send hate mail easily and start with shaming the author, claiming he is privileged etc.

  4. “wish generally that rape cases could be handled with due process instead of tried by a public”

    Oh, this is just effin’ ironic, after her blog posts about the Duke case! How dare she now come out in favor of people NOT being tried on the internet, when that is exactly what she did!?

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      I think she means she wishes accusers didn’t have to face so much media scrutiny.

      • J.G. te Molder says:

        Even less?

        They should have a lot more scrutiny, media or otherwise.

        The only times accusers get media scrutiny, is when the police, prosecution, or defense have either proven they are lying, or shown their trustworthiness to be so low it’s a safe bet they are lying.

  5. Aldebaran says:

    I understand taking exception with the words of an individual based on other statements they have made on the public record, but this anonymous post does very little to illuminate whether being able to make reference with “the others” point of view is an essential characteristic of a good person or man.

    It seems to me that it is.

    There is no doubt that relationships between men and women on this earth are going to be emotionally charged (which is not a bad thing, strictly speaking), but sometimes when the atmosphere is charged, there can be an appearance that going after the record of a person instead of the statement they made is actually a way of dismissing (or at least blunting the force of) the statement itself.

    Because while this is interesting, I find it wholly unsurprising that people are both complex and contradictory (especially those who have been on the public record for any given period of time). What is more uncommon, however, are examples of people who suggest that while they don’t like a particular person, or think highly of them, that they appreciated a particular statement that particular person made and found it instructive.

    • Aldebaran what was happening to tom was a dynamic of people telling him he was privileged he made generalizations and assumption and lacked empathy. They were talking to him as if he was a child.

      “AmandaMarcotte: Imagining the POV of someone you’re in conflict with is bare minimum of being a good person, yes.”

      With the context of the article it is clear that amanda is not perfect and she often lacks empathy. For her to lecture tom about how the bare minimum of being a good person is to see others pov is silly. If she had said something like:
      “i have been caught out on ocasions lacking empathy with people i was in conflict with and i didn’t notice it was happening until it was too late. ” .

      She didn’t though. If we were to take minimum of empathy being required to be a good person it is clear amanda isn’t a good person. It is clear that she was lacking empathy for tom. She saw him make a mistake that is similar to the mistakes she had made. Instead of seeing the point of view of tom she saw it as a chance to lecture tom and take the high moral ground.

      What this article demonstrates is that we all make mistakes. It shows amanda doesn’t have the high moral ground. If we only hold the other side to a standard and refuse to hold ourselves to that standard like amanda did here, empathy gets lost. Communication becomes impossible. We end up arguing past each other instead of listening. You can’t have rational debate without integrity. You can’t learn anything if you believe you are never wrong. Tom is willing to admit he made mistakes that can’t be said about amanda. This article is a chance to change that dynamic for both sides to see each other as human.

  6. Richard Aubrey says:

    elissa. Bless you for your charity. My view is that concerns of justice and morality are useful when the one side can be made to abide by them. The other side never had the slightest intention of being inconvienced by them. See Alinsky.
    The other side doesn’t need anesthesia. Never did.

  7. I’ve read someone describe this type of imbroglio as the “anesthetic of familiarity”. When it appears that there exists a larger overriding purpose to a held belief system, and one continues to surrounds themselves with those of similar belief, that belief bath acts as an anesthetic towards peripheral concerns of justice and morality. The only antidote I know of is a continuous self-checking against held premises. A very difficult/costly and consuming thing to be sure – which is why we all fall prey from time to time.

  8. Wirbelwind says:

    Rebecca Watson, Elevator Guy and Richard Dawkin’s reponse (and following it feminist man-bashing, twisting his and EG’s intentions) is a good example of bad will on some feminists’ side. As far as I can tell it’s quite often in feminist spaces.

  9. Richard Aubrey says:

    For a good source on the Duke lax hoax, see K. C. Johnson’s Durham-in-Wonderland. He covers the legal aspects, the media attention, the morons of the Group of 88, the following lawsuits.
    It was also amusing to read the feminist sites as the case went along. I did, with some effort. Never found one that said, “Thank God she wasn’t raped.” Crystal Mangum was cannon fodder for the feminists.
    But few of the feminist sites, bloggers as well as commenters, were willing to let the thing die. No matter how clear the issues were, the guys were all assholes. But, as I said earlier, Katie Rouse was a “Who?”

    I quit dealing with feminist sites when I had one too many instances of having what I said twisted into something stupid and then the commenters acting as if I had actually said it. Meanspirited doesn’t begin to describe it.

  10. This outright denigration of feminists as a group is wrong in that its not productive. I disagree with a lot of what feminists say and do but its much more important to focus on the ideas and beliefs that individual feminists hold rather trying to paint them all as a united front. There are reasonable and rational people who call themselves feminists, in any debate its best to at least try and appeal to these feminists. In the long run being rational and reasonable works and arguing in the way amanda marcotte does, will not work.

    • Feminists as a united group push bills that discriminate against male victims of domestic violence, divorced fathers and men falsely accused of crimes against women.

      In this respect, from a legal advocacy standpoint they are a “united front”, a front for legal and political activities that discriminate against men and boys.

  11. Peter Houlihan says:

    Why do I get the feeling that Marcott’s comment should be preceeded with “My attorney has advised me to say that…”

    What she owes is an apology. The statement she made directly contradicts her blog entries that she deleted, but she hasn’t retracted them, or actually stated that they were a mistake. Calling any suggestion that she meant what she wrote “false” doesn’t cut it. If she wants to distance herself from her misandry she needs to come out, publicly, admit that she was wrong and apologise to the people she hurt. Memory holes only work in totalitarian states.

    • Michael Rowe says:

      Sorry, confused–did she, or did she not, help to help fan the fury “the public” she mentions above, as though she wasn’t part of it, with incendiary excoriations like labelling anyone who dared either support for Duke lacrosse players, or question the facts of the case as “rape-loving scum,” thereby “politiciz[ing] what should be a matter for the criminal justice system?” And did she, or did she not, use those three young men to polish her “brand” and curry favour among her rabid fan-base?

      • Michael

        If you are worried about her opinions and blogging around Duke – you won’t believe what she has to say on Capital Punishment in Texas! The language is just “SO” shocking…..

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/13/rick-perry-execution-texas

        • Michael Rowe says:

          Ms. Marcotte is 100% right in this piece on Rick Perry and the death penalty in the Guardian. I wouldn’t have changed one word, and I would have been proud to author it myself.

          • I was just struck by the difference in language and tone when compared top other pieces by the author. !

            It’s a shocking contrast with other pieces she has written. She even identifies herself with being “non-barbaric” and concerned for innocent people subject to improper Justice and Blood Lust and all due to political corruption and pandering to the masses!

            It was so striking I had to check many times before I could believe it was the same person!

            • Michael Rowe says:

              I agree. The Guardian is a reputable site associated with a serious newspaper, not some ranting personal blog. She isn’t going to get away with editorializing that anyone who doesn’t share her view is “rape loving scum” on the Guardian.

              • “I agree. The Guardian is a reputable site associated with a serious newspaper, not some ranting personal blog. She isn’t going to get away with editorializing that anyone who doesn’t share her view is “rape loving scum” on the Guardian.”

                I almost choked when a read that… in general I suppose its true but there is a fair amount of crap that gets through.

  12. I must admit, I’ve been skeptical and outright attacked the Good Men Project many times before, but this article is a big step in the right direction. It’s nice to finally see a semblance of balance here.

    I’ll note, however, that Marcotte was allowed to visibly dispute the article over the top of it, while in the case of the various anti-MRA hit pieces published here in the past no such opportunity was afforded.

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      Presumably because she asked.

    • DavidByron says:

      Yep. Lisa would have published MRA rebuttals I am sure.
      In fact why don’t you try to find an anti-MRA hit piece and see?

      • Lisa Hickey says:

        Absolutely DavidByron and forweg. DB, just so you know, forweg is referring to a series we ran last February. We had other editors in charge of the series (no excuse, just explaining), and we ran MRA articles and Feminist articles at the same time — but didn’t tell the MRA’s there was going to be a feminist counter-attack. It was wrong, and if I hadn’t publicly apologized for it, I am doing so now. We did take a lot of heat for it at the time, and I got called a “lying feminist scum” in the process. (Google my name and that phrase and see what pops up). I don’t actually care about the name-calling, as much as the reason for the name calling — that is, perhaps there are valid underlying reasons for that perception. So I honestly needed time to regroup, think through the issues and — a big part of what we’re doing here is saying — can we really look at the issues of men from all sides, in a way that is respectful to all sides. Perhaps not, but I’m damn well going to try.

        Forweg, feel free to contact me at any time. lisa at goodmenproject dot com. I’m already in contact with j.g. molder about writing for us.

        • I appreciate the offer, Lisa. However, my words are so filled with an unavoidable degree of anti-feminist vitriol that TGMP may not be the best venue for them. Still, it is something to consider down the road.

  13. Wirbelwind says:

    It’s obvious that Amanda loves double standards and is so gynocentric that her hurt feelings are more important to her than lives of three men.

  14. atheist,

    “Yeah. It’s indicative of the fact that like any other intelligent person, she avoids cowards and haters. If you think these sorts of anonymous attacks make you look good, you have another thing coming.”

    This is one of the most pointless, if not common, arguments I see made on the internet. It doesn’t matter if the author of this piece is anonymous. What matters is whether this account and the analysis is true. It could have been written by anyone – it doesn’t really matter if a name is attached to it or not.

    “This failure to distinguish between whistle-blowers, who may have good reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, and character assassins, makes your argument seem quite foolish and naive.”

    You want to talk character assination? We wouldn’t be having this conversation if Marcotte had not taken part in the character assination of the Duke lacrosse players in the first place.

  15. Congratulations, “Good Men Project”, on taking the phrase “Good Men”, and lowering its market value bit by bit! You’re proof that capitalism really works, or something like that.

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      We have said since we started that “good” cannot really be defined. That all we can do is continue to have the conversation — collectively — about how moral decisions get made, and how those get perceived, and then individually form our own opinion about right and wrong and take actions.

      It is a conversation worth having. You can certainly choose not to be a part of it.

      • Anonymous hit pieces aren’t a conversation. They’re attempts at character assassination.

        • Like anonymous whistle blowers?
          It is character assassination if it were false.

          • Here you fail to distinguish between whistle-blowers, (people within an organization who make public information that the organization wishes to keep secret), and character assassins (people who make public information in order to attack a person’s character). This failure to distinguish between whistle-blowers, who may have good reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, and character assassins, makes your argument seem quite foolish and naive.

            • “(people who make public information in order to attack a person’s character). This failure to distinguish between whistle-blowers, who may have good reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, and character assassins, makes your argument seem quite foolish and naive.”

              If you mean holding amanda to the same standards she demands of tom “character assinantion” then sure. But there is a very good reason why this person would like to remain anonymous. If the person was a feminist on a notable site if she were to reveal herself she would likely get attacked by amandas supporters.

              Why though is someone providing evidence that she is hardly the paragon of virtue she presents herself character assignation? She made character a point in her argument with tom. If you hold yourself to a be person of high character as she did then its quite obvious someone will attempt to find evidence against it.

            • Please focus on the issue that Amanda Marcotte held the accused in Duke rape case guilty at many instances on her blog. Please refute it if you think whatever has been written is factually incorrect. Don’t hide behind the excuses like malicious intention of annonymous author or the facade of Miss Marcotte’s courage and intelligence.

        • If the article is wrong you are free to present evidence but you are tarnishing the name of atheists to argue that we should ignore evidence if its provided anonymously.

        • DavidByron says:

          Has Marcotte ever admitted fault on this case before?
          If she had not then this was actually a pretty useful article, don’t you think?

        • Michael Rowe says:

          In order for it to be “character assassination” it has to be untrue. If it’s true, then the “character” is on its own.

    • J.G. te Molder says:

      Congratulations Atheist, for taking the good name of Atheist and dragging it through the mud by exchanging one religion for another, and not even noticing you did.

  16. Chuck Rudd says:

    Point blank, nuts and bolt: it would be nice if Marcotte explained her past statements pertaining to the Duke case and where she was coming from. If she can’t admit when shes wrong or take an introspective look, then why should anyone trust her as a writer or thinker? That she’s unwilling to do that is indicative of *something*.

    • Yeah. It’s indicative of the fact that like any other intelligent person, she avoids cowards and haters. If you think these sorts of anonymous attacks make you look good, you have another thing coming.

      • “Yeah. It’s indicative of the fact that like any other intelligent person, she avoids cowards and haters. If you think these sorts of anonymous attacks make you look good, you have another thing coming.”

        Nice ad hom. But i am afraid i have seen Amanda many times avoid the brave and intelligent. She isn’t the intellectual she likes to present herself as unfortunately.

    • DavidByron says:

      It’s indicative of something but it might just be indicative of her feeling embarrassed at getting such a high profile case so very badly wrong. That would be pretty normal human reaction I think. I mean if you screwed up so badly for so long and so publicly – and didn’t it cost her her job or something? would you really like to have it brought up again?

      OTOH I don’t think she ever did admit fault before. I guess in the feminist world there’s never any need to admit fault. So this brief comment by her is “new”.

  17. here is dee dennis and marcottes response to this article from twitter.
    “Dee Dennis
    @TMatlack @lisahickey You published attacks by @AmandaMarcotte @hugoschwyzer. Not anonymous emails. Understand the difference?”

    “Amanda Marcotte
    @DeeDennis Not even attacks. Criticisms, based in truth. Not childish revenge”

    Does anonymity mean this article is wrong or unfair?
    Is Amanda claiming this article isn’t true? Is she claiming that she herself is completely innocent of “attacking”?

    The lack of self awareness from Amanda marcotte is staggering. The amount of grandstanding and inability to take responsibility for ones own actions that she indulges in boggles my mind.

  18. “UPDATE: We have been in contact with Amanda Marcotte by email, and she asked us to put in the following statement: “I do not support Mike Nifong’s choices in this case and wish generally that rape cases could be handled with due process instead of tried by a public that has politicized what should be a matter for the criminal justice system. Any suggestion that I feel any way about this case outside of that is false.””

    Hindsight is 20/20 Amanda you might believe that now but you didn’t then. And despite your insults against anyone who disagreed with you at the time you are still yet to apologise. For all your talk of civility or empathy it is clear that you are in no position to judge. Maybe if you apologised 4 years ago you would have some semblance of ethical standards. In reading your work that others have brought up it is clear you are still the same person you were then. I don’t know what you can argue that would justify a retraction.

    Amanda you wrote about tom from a position of ethical superiority, you demanded of tom what you don’t demand of your self. Here he is now simply showing that just as you claimed he wasn’t showing empathy it is clear that you don’t either. How is it possible to have a civil discussion when your side is demanding of tom and all participants to adhere to your own philosophic standpoint when it is clear that your side is not perfect yourself. Publishing this anonymous article may seem petty to you Amanda but if anything here is clear. tom simply learnt this from you.

  19. Above It All says:

    I still like TGMP even though I’m banned. Keep up the good work.

  20. I have a post in moderation.
    Maybe because of links?

  21. Good piece, but I don’t know whether it should’ve been an article.

    Not because it’s Anonymous or anything, but really because 1. it doesn’t say much that isn’t mostly common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about Amanda Marcotte and 2. it does seem to only have significane due to the Twitter spat, so looks slightly vendetta-ish. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the general thrust, and don’t think imagining the other person’s POV is something AM is good at.

    As far as it being Anonymous, meh. No more awful than Feminist snipe and snark pile-ons that regularly occur in cyberspace, usually when somebody says something that is JUST… OMG… SO AWFUL….WOW

  22. Hey, what’s going on here? I log onto the GMP check out this article , and get re-directed to some online gambleing site saying their you’re ” sponsor”!

  23. As a feminist, I must say that I agree completely with this article on the nature of Amanda Marcotte. She does NOT speak for all feminists, and she certainly doesn’t speak for me. Even when I agree with her, I almost never agree with her delivery. She is snarky, she is attacking, she can debate circles around almost any one she comes into contact with — she uses these tactics as a means of dominating conversation and squashing discourse, despite her protests that she believes in discussing the issues.

    To the commenter above, I don’t disagree with you in many ways, and I really appreciate the intelligence with which you’ve presented your arguments. I think where the author is saying Marcotte is being hypocritical is in saying that Tom has to imagine another’s POV — and yet she seemed, in this case at least, incapable of imagining a case wherein a man is not guilty. She isn’t imagining even the sliver of possibility that these charges could be false. That shows that she doesn’t empathize with these young men. It is true, false accusations are very rare, but they are real. I’m not saying these guys were saints, but they are due their due process.

    Shaming accused rapists isn’t the same as fighting against “rape culture” — and it certainly does nothing to help solve the problem of rape in our society.

    • Actually, false charges of rape are not rare. I have seen statistics that put false accusations as high as 31-41%. What seems to be rare are people who know or will acknowledge this.

      • Be careful to distinguish between false rape accusations, and accusations that can’t find evidence which rape may or may not have still occurred. I’ve seen stats of 1% to 50%, tbh I’m not sure which to believe but if possible we need to believe both accused and accuser, give them anonymity and a fair trial to find the facts.

        • Joanna Schroeder says:

          Very important distinction, Archy, thank you so much for that.

          • No probs, it helps to realize that because on the surface it does look very bad from the males point of view (for false accusations) but due to the he says, she says nature of sexual assault it can be very tricky to convict from what I know and hence many can simply “fail” at the courtroom, but still be 100% legitimate.

            • Archy.

              Those figure don’t refer to rape accusations that failed in court. They refer to the number of rape accusers that admitted the claim was false.

              Archives of Sexual Behavior
              Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81(12)
              False rape allegations.
              by Eugene J. Kanin

              With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases (n = 109) reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the a consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.

              “….The police department will not declare a rape charge as
              false when the complainant, for whatever reason, fails to
              pursue the charge or cooperate on the case, regardless
              how much doubt the police may have regarding the validity
              of the charge. In short, these cases are declared false only
              because the complainant admitted they are false..”

              The author of that study did two follow up studies and got slightly higher figures (around 50%).

            • “due to the he says, she says nature of sexual assault it can be very tricky to convict from what I know and hence many can simply “fail” at the courtroom, but still be 100% legitimate”

              Many can simply “fail” at the courtroom, but still be 100% illegitimate, as well.

        • The cluster of studies that come up with the lower mid range numbers, (around 41%) only count a false rape accusation a false accusation if the accuser went on the record saying that it was false themselves.

    • Joanna,

      If Marcotte does not “represent all feminists” why do we never other feminists disagree with her publicly?

      Sure, maybe in a comments thread on GMP, but in a post on say Feministe? Never happpens.

      If feminists do not want Marcotte to be their public face, it’s up to them to do something about it. Until then, I see no reason why Marcotte isn’t a stand-in for everyone.

      Don’t like it? Then do something about it.

  24. The comment in question where she talks about “rape loving scum ” is here:
    “eople who continue to wax on about the Duke rape case: People don’t respond because you’re right. They don’t respond because they know from experience that anyone who defends men who write thing like this:

    tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all besides arch and tack please respond

    Hates women and would defend a rapist who was caught in the act on videotape. No one talks to you because you are rape-loving scum. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken. Your beloved boys who scream “nigger” at black women and joke about killing and raping them may escape the worst charges, but they are not angels. You know it, we know it. That you defend them makes you such lowly, sleazy scum that it’s no wonder no one talks to you. They’re afraid by acknowledging you, they will catch the evil. Know this. Absorb it. Hope you enjoy sleeping at night, you sick, hateful bastards. ”

    This was written by Amanda Marcotte in January or February of 2007 about the McFadden email which happened within 24 hours after the alleged incident in April of 2006.

    “Even Ryan McFadden, Duke lacross player and author of a lewd e-mail following the party where the alleged rape occurred, may get a second chance. McFadden’s e-mail, announcing another party with exotic dancers, announced that he planned “on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.”

    Brodhead said that the e-mail was taken out of context, and that McFadden, who is on interim suspension, will be eligible for a hearing to decide his fate, just like any student would be.

    Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/06/duke#ixzz1i9Hj7GrS

    The email was:
    A. Written AFTER the party.
    B. A quote from “American Psycho”
    C. Most likely a form of dark humor by some kids who were feeling very attacked
    D. Someone in the school (whose identity has never been discovered but which discovery is part of one of the two lawsuits ) leaked this private joke email right about the time where it was guaranteed to do the most damage when taken out of context. In other words, someone at Duke “played dirty”.

    See why I hope the mods take me up on my offer? You parrot this crap and use it to defend Amanda, a person who censored people who provided her with information that should have made her doubt her claims in May of 2006. Of course then there’s the whole racial angle…
    Disgusting.
    Inside Higher Ed

    • Clarence – thank you for providing yet further clarification and background to events that not all readers know about, due to not being US based.

      I see that Freedom Of Speech has it’s disadvantages – and even retrospective editing of net content can’t cover up what is to me clearly most shameful and frankly abusive conduct, language and attitudes.

      Ms Marcotte had better never relocate to the UK. If she did and made similar comments she would face both Contempt Of Court with jail time, and quite possibly charges of Attempting To Pervert The Course of justice with yet more jail time.

      Having seen her own words – I too have to wonder at her failure to apologise not only for her words but her actual conduct in inciting both gender and race hatred.

      In the UK she would also have faced charges of Aggravated Hate – with more jail time. I think I had better pen a letter to The Editor of The Guardian Newspaper, which features her work – though I have noted ever so clearly that when she is published in the Guardian Newspaper she uses a far more moderate tone and far more temperate language.

      For example on the subject of Justice and Execution she is most moderate and personally concerned about abuse of process and innocence, speaking out against those who Pander to Base Human Nature:

      “Rick Perry executes justice, Texas-style | Amanda Marcotte 13 Sep 2011

      Perry may have lost no sleep over Texas’s 234 executions during his tenure, but the death penalty panders to crude bloodlust

      Of course, we of the non-barbaric sort do hope that all this attention paid to Rick Perry’s willingness to execute anyone on death row – no matter how obviously screwed over by an imperfect and often unjust judicial system – could somehow provoke enough national shame that we actually do away with the death penalty. Which we really need to do, not because we have any great love for vicious murderers, but because the death penalty is a known destroyer of a fair and sober-minded justice system.

      Once you have the right to kill people, the voters start expecting semi-regular bloodshed as proof that you’re doing your job, creating incentives for prosecutors and politicians to cut corners to get those voter-pleasing cadaver numbers up. Each new generation of prosecutors and politicians feels pressure to “best” their predecessor in the number of executions carried out, lest they face accusations of being soft on crime. Which explains why they soon find themselves where Rick Perry stands, having executed 234 people, many of whom had highly corrupt trials and at least one of whom is most likely innocent.

      Since Rick Perry, by his own admission, has never lost sleep over the execution of a likely innocent man, you can bet justice doesn’t stand a chance when it comes to cases where the fact of homicide is indisputable. The public’s desire to get blood for blood – especially if they can view the accused as an outsider – turns concerns about due process to dust for anyone whose job depends on a high conviction rate. Subsequently, death penalty cases where the prosecution won a clean conviction without relying on shoddy evidence or a jury’s unfair prejudices are the rare gems in a sea of corruption. The case of Duane Buck, scheduled to be executed this week, demonstrates how the death penalty is more about hustling prisoners to the execution chamber to score points with the public than it is securing just and safe outcomes.

      Perry’s willingness to execute a man who was almost certainly innocent comes uncomfortably close to regressing to the days of human sacrifice. Sacrificing an innocent man won’t prevent other houses from accidentally catching fire and killing the innocent people inside, but it’s clear that Perry will not hesitate to pander to voters who cling to hopes that periodic blood-letting will somehow save us all.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/13/rick-perry-execution-texas

      I have found it hard to reconcile the split personality and language around Justice and Fair Legal process that Ms Marcotte displays on different sides of The Atlantic?

      I have checked – and it is the same person! I had to check many times just to make sure!

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/amanda-marcotte

      If it’s Duke University and Rape she communicates that Summary Justice and contempt for fair process is to be expected – but as a Texan, with a low brow view of her fellow Texans, she is concerned that there is Political Motivation for a High Cadaver Count to prove that you are not some “Political Light Weight”?

      It appears that Ms Marcotte is of the view that Pandering To Blood Lust is not a Civilised Behaviour and she wished to distance herself from such conduct?

      She even indicates that these Cadaver Counts are linked to Corrupt Trials and have resulted in the execution of The Innocent?

      She even intimates that she is personally concerned about these Failures and Unjust Punishments?

      She is openly critical of how one miscarriage of justice, pandering to blood lust, and sacrificing the innocent won’t protect other citizens?

      “Of course, we of the non-barbaric sort do hope that all this attention paid to Rick Perry’s willingness to execute anyone on death row – no matter how obviously screwed over by an imperfect and often unjust judicial system – could somehow provoke enough national shame that we actually do away with the death penalty.”

      She sees herself as “non-barbaric” and against the death penalty and she believes that in National Shame and Justice for Innocent People?

      It just confirms that the language she uses and how she chooses to use it is very much under her own control – and she can be most selective in her tone and content when she chooses to!

      Pandering to you audience by the most careful selection of language is a value known to Ms Marcotte, and one that she evidently knows how to exercise free will over.

      I will freely choose some words to use very carefully!

      Hypocrite – Deceiver – Dissembler – Pretender – pharisee – Sanctimonious – Self-righteous – Two-faced – Masked – “hidden in plain view” – Camouflaged – Duplicitous – Antisocial – Amoral – Raver – Maniac ….

      You know – sometimes words just fail even me! P^/

      MODERATOR’S NOTE: This comment is in violation of our moderation policy because it is much too long. This is a warning. Further comments that are in violation will be removed. See complete commenting guidelines here.

  25. jfpbookworm says:

    This “article” is mostly a regurgitation of a Wikipedia entry that uses conservative “individualist feminist” Cathy Young as the main source of material. I don’t trust her to accurately report the context of the passages she quotes, not when she can score points with her reader base by reframing the use of the phrase “rape-loving scum.”

    The context of that quote is a comment Amanda made here, at number 91. The shirt in question that sparked the post said “NO means have aNOther drink,” and Amanda appears to have been responding to that and to this email [trigger warning] from one of the other (non-accused) Duke lacrosse players. The “rape-loving scum” comment appears to me to be targeted at people who brought up the Duke case as a “defense” against criticism of the shirt – i.e., not everyone who “took issue with the unethical and criminal actions of Nifong,” but those who were defending a pro-rape joke.

    The other quote cited was from this post, which was taken down but the comments remain. Said comments provide a good example of the state of thought about the case at the time of the post though. I’m not sure what the quote itself, which references listening to CNN but not specific comments, was made in reference to. Maybe it was to perfectly reasoned critiques of the prosecutorial process in the case, maybe it was to throwbacks who thought that the facts of the case were irrelevant and good white boys shouldn’t have to be punished for anything that might have happened to a black woman, most likely it was a mix all along the spectrum.

    In no instance did I see advocacy for “removing the burden of proof from the state, convicting people of crimes they did not commit, nor police and prosecutor misconduct.”

    Personally, I don’t see any of this as particularly relevant to the “Imagining the POV of someone you’re in conflict with is bare minimum of being a good person” comment in the most recent Twitter exchange; it feels like it’s being shoehorned in. Amanda may, like all of us do from time to time, imagine that point of view incorrectly (I feel that she tends to rely a little too much on a “football players having the run of a Texas high school” model of privilege), and that’s something that can and should be corrected, but it doesn’t invalidate the call for empathy or her criticism of Tom.

    • “Amanda may, like all of us do from time to time, imagine that point of view incorrectly (I feel that she tends to rely a little too much on a “football players having the run of a Texas high school” model of privilege), and that’s something that can and should be corrected, but it doesn’t invalidate the call for empathy or her criticism of Tom.”

      So people should be “Empathetic” because AM get’s it wrong due to using stereotypes and blasting people with them?

      Did I just hear that from the defence?

      Order Order – Silence in Court!

      Quiet Prosecution! – stop laughing! I said “STOP” Laughing – This is the court of public opinion and the defence will be heard!

      If Miss Marcotte deserves empathy she can have it – but only after she surrenders her six shooters and all the Stereotypical Bullets she is so fond of YES

      “Please note failure to close tag question with “?”, thereby not making it a question, but a statement – following AM Posting Style Guide!. P^)

      • jfpbookworm says:

        No, people should be empathic because it’s better than the alternative. But I suppose a tu quoque suffices for most folks.

        I don’t see the cited quotes as directly a failure of empathy, unless you’re redefining empathy as never being harshly critical of anybody. What part of the POV of the folks defending “NO means have aNOther drink” was Amanda failing to imagine?

        • Which alternative would you recommend Ms Marcotte consider employing?

          It is you who stated “Amanda may, like all of us do from time to time, imagine that point of view incorrectly ….”

          So what is the advice “You”, from “Your” point of view, should be tended to Ms Marcotte for future reference concerning points of view?

          I am already on record as wondering why when Tom wrote as he did, no one even asked “Hey Dude You OK?”. I did!

          I also do state that viewing all issues from the content of a computer screen can be a “Terminal View”.P^)

          Maybe if empathy is needed you may wish to suggest to Ms Marcotte that in future before she puts empathy into Neutral Gear and Free Wheels, she may want to check by publicly asking and see if empathy is required and if she has a green light or red?

          Just a Suggestion! P^)

          Given that I knew nothing of Ms M until I was directed to GMP some weeks ago – I do find it quite fascinating that it has taken so little time of reading her extensive Blogista content and checking across multiple net sources to find such a level of “Opprobrium” for one person.

          I have to say – it’s quite note worthy in Internet history.

          I have to say that as a most reasonable man who is not readily provoked – I hope she never crosses my path… but then again when given the opportunity to even consider a different route forward here – she did not take it but ran away. Empathy comes in many forms – including giving people an alternate way forward! I have great empathy for those who lack courage and even more for those who lack the courage of their own convictions. But empathy does mean also correcting error in the right way!

          “Mortality Is Short – Internet Immortality Shorter – Internet Infamy Is Its Own Reward”.

          Some will never learn!

        • Michael Rowe says:

          Do you seriously believe that the defenders of the (innocent) Duke lacrosse players are “rape-loving scum?” That’s a pretty simple question.

        • “No, people should be empathic because it’s better than the alternative. But I suppose a tu quoque suffices for most folks.

          I don’t see the cited quotes as directly a failure of empathy, unless you’re redefining empathy as never being harshly critical of anybody. What part of the POV of the folks defending “NO means have aNOther drink” was Amanda failing to imagine?”

          It is a legitimate use of tu quoque because amanda held herself as a model of empathy and she still has never empathized with the falsely accused at least in written form. Remember she insulted the accused repeatedly over many months. I am not going to say that tom’s article was perfect and he didn’t do anything wrong but the idea that amanda deserves empathy for making a mistake but tom doesn’t is quite absurd.

          • J.G. te Molder says:

            So does Amanda Marcotte and you rail equally at shirts like “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them”? Or do you just laugh at those?

            • “So does Amanda Marcotte and you rail equally at shirts like “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them”? Or do you just laugh at those?”

              You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that amanda marcotte is a hypocrite who lacks empathy. The boys are stupid tshirts was just another example of amanda being wrong and lacking empathy. Amanda argues not to gain knowledge but to annoy and provoke.

              I have so little faith in amandas capacity to comprehend any person who disagrees with her that the best course of action is to be seen to be relentlessly fair. She doesn’t argue well against people who respectfully disagree with her. If you insult her she will insult back and attempt to paint you as irrational. its a trap that is best avoided.

    • “I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course,”

      That is what she said. Basically calling them rapists.and you say:

      “In no instance did I see advocacy for “removing the burden of proof from the state, convicting people of crimes they did not commit, nor police and prosecutor misconduct.””

      She had already treated them as guilty. She didn’t necessarily believe the police should ignore innocent until proven guilty but she still believed we should judge them as guilty regardless and have that hang over their head forever. All you are doing here is moving the goal posts. And after all that she never has apologised. She never saw these innocent people as victims.That is the lack of empathy that is clear here.

    • J.G. te Molder says:

      Sorry, but no,the quote did not come from the shirt-bullshit, or the e-mail. Most notably, the e-mail is presented by the Durham justice system, and Mike Nifong – you know, the corrupt ones! Those who like to fabricate evidence and hide exonerating evidence.

      And with the article that got deleted, Amanda Marcotte says in the removal mention; that the prosecution “fumbled the ball”. Not that they are corrupt assholes and the Duke-Lacrosse players are clearly innocent, no, that only if they had done their corruption better, they would have gotten a conviction! It’s clear in her mind, the Duke-Lacrosse players are guilty, regardless of the reality of the situation.

  26. To the moderators of this site:
    If you’d like I can do an article on some of the misconceptions that linger to this day about what happened in this incident. It wouldn’t be devoted to attacking unfair commentary about the case, but rather showing how easily these type of things can spiral out of control and tying that into the larger theme of false accusations, societal sexual narratives, and how our news sources tend to present things. I know quite a bit about it because I was unemployed in the time frame involved and followed the case nearly every day from when I first heard of it (about three days after the alleged incident) to February or March of 2007.

    • Clarence, write it up dude. GMP are always looking for articles. Plus who knows what interesting newname the marcotte will coin for you after – i think she likes you, lol

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      That would be great Clarence. I would love a post that talks about the *issues* first and foremost. Thanks, you can email it directly to me. lisa at goodmenproject dot com

  27. I do notice that of all the feminists or self-professed feminists that have shown up in this thread to complain about the article or the website :
    A. With one exception they haven’t even bothered to note that what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team, and even more to the point the three defendants was wrong. Apparently complaining about how unfair it is to bring someone’s public past up against a person when this person is one the loudest scolds on the internet is more important than worrying about the lives of 3 innocent young men, a rogue prosecution regime in Durham NC (Nifong wasn’t the only corrupt one as its turned out some cops and judges and the Sane Trainee that conducted the initial exam of Crystal Mangum are also guilty of fabrications in the case), or heck, the probably dozens or hundreds of young , mostly minority men whom the corrupt cops and prosecutors in Durham have almost certainly sent to jail over the past 15 or 20 years.
    B. None of these complainers, to my knowlege, ever so much as meekly suggested to the tons of self-proclaimed feminists attacking Tom that maybe they were too hasty or not being entirely fair, or maybe you , know, calling people names isn’t productive. But here they are to complain that a feminist female who acted in an extremely irresponsible, prejudicial, and downright JERKISH fashion has a thread devoted to one of her biggest snafus. A snafu she never even bothered to acknowledge.

    A question to these people: If you can’t apply your standards of morality to your own side, then why should we listen to you, again?

  28. Andrew James :
    There are plenty of legitimate news sources that dealt with Amanda’s behavior. I’ve linked to some of them personally.
    What do you have to say about the Duke Lacrosse Case and Amanda’s behavior? Do you deny this occurred?
    If not, then why are you complaining? Is someone going to give you a pat on the head?
    Maybe your complaint would have been more legitimate had you criticized the feminists attacking Tom in that thread.

  29. Andrew James says:

    To Whom It Used To Concern;

    Hackneyed anonymous hit pieces (citing Wikipedia) do not a serious site make. I find it funny (note: I’m using “funny” ironically) that the article written by Justin Cascio was prefaced with a passive-aggressive editorial diatribe of such utterly manipulative language so as to diminish and completely make moot his asking the all important question: “Can Founders Be Criticized on The Good Men Project?” Yet, as we see here, this rank and poorly written piece hides behind its own anonymity and your sudden silence in the framing of it. In doing so, The Good Men Project answers Cascio’s question in ways I’m sure Cascio himself could not have envisioned when he asked.

    • Michael Rowe says:

      Ummm…Andrew? Are you sure you’re on the right article? You seem confused. You do, realize, don’t you, that you’re talking about two different pieces?

    • Justin Cascio says:

      Andrew James got here ahead of me; I searched the comments for “anonymous” to see if anyone else here noticed or cared that such a critical* essay was published anonymously. Hugo Schwyzer mentioned this article (though he didn’t provide a link) on Twitter. I disagree with him (see his tweets) that Amanda Marcotte is attacked here; she’s roundly criticized. I’m sorry if Wikipedia isn’t scholarly enough for you, but Andrew, this is the GMP, not an academic site. If you have a problem with the substance of what’s being said here: that Amanda Marcotte may say now that she doesn’t approve of public trial in what is a judicial matter, but the citations suggest that she was a vocal part of that public trial of the Duke lacrosse players. Does she not actually say those things? According to the editors, Marcotte read this piece and had only that short statement at the top to say for it.

      Like you, Andrew, I don’t prefer an anonymously written article, but I don’t see the harm in it here. The criticisms are still “owned” editorially by Lisa and company, and can be responded to, as we have. I don’t think that anonymity is only for life and death situations, as Hugo says on Twitter. We disagree, sometimes on important matters, but I respect his views; I hope he’ll come weigh in.

      * Though not attacking, as far as I can see; I welcome thoughtful disagreement on the difference.

      • Andrew James says:

        With respect (Justin, Michael, and the others that have replied to my comment) there is no place in a serious discussion for anonymously authored red herrings. I’m sorry. There simply is not. I will not seriously address anything pertaining to Duke because WHAT THE HELL does that have to do with anything that has ever come up during this discussion???? If you (anonymous author) want to attack Amanda, have at it. But don’t try and convince me that this in any way has any place in a discussion involving serious people and serious topics. I’m sorry. I will not take you seriously. I’ve been polite and reasoned (I hope) throughout – but this is silly. I will take umbrage with Wikipedia being cited. I will take umbrage with a shoddily written anonymous attack piece. I will take umbrage with Amanda’s well written piece somehow being seen as equivalent to the bile that rests just a few mouse wheel scrolls up from this comment.

        Integrity and anonymity cannot be co-maintained under this setting. I’m sorry folks. Continue to bicker and continue to say whatever the heck feels like it’s relevant to you if you must but, to quote Barney Frank, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to have an argument with a dining room table.”

        I suspect the natural response to this will be another anonymous piece in which it is revealed that I (*gasp*) stole a pack of bubblegum my Freshman year of High School. If someone out there with anything other than Wikipedia and a Ouija board can show me how this post in any way connects to Amanda’s original post (or, more importantly, the discussion we have been having from the onset) then I will be glad to listen. Until then, I refer you back to the quote by Barney Frank.

        • Lisa Hickey says:

          Hi Andrew,

          You might not see the value in a post like this, but I actually had a conversation with Amanda about this post. These are the questions we are trying to answer:
          1) What does empathy look like in real life? 2) Why is it that men get called out for bad behavior in the media more than women? 3) What is the difference between a criticism and an attack? Why is this seen as an attack and your words against Tom and GMP not seen by you as such? 4) What is “privilege” and the balance of male vs. female. Are you looking for systems of society that protect women more? Is that a privilege?

          We’re not perfect here and we know it. We’re looking for systems that actually create change by getting both sides to see things differently. To find common ground and — believe it or not, empathy for all. I’ve was recently called “the most ambitiously altruistic person someone has ever met.” So when things get hard — and when the conversations get difficult and pointed and hurtful for all — that’s the piece of paper I pull out of my pocket and look at.

          If you can’t see that the amount of criticism thrown at Tom over and over for simply not having the language to talk about some of these concepts is not an attack but this is, then I don’t know what to tell you. Is your complaint here really that it is anonymous, or is it that the point we are making more serious?

          These things are difficult to talk about because they are difficult to talk about. And it’s especially difficult to do it publicaly. But who gets to say the conversation is over? You? Amanda? We respectfully appreciate your comments and posts. But sometimes — sometimes — I am not generalizing here — it seems like you are quick to rush to a defense without really considering the other side first.

          And if the way in which we are talking about things is wrong, we’re going to keep on talking about them until we get it right.

          • These are the questions we are trying to answer:
            1) What does empathy look like in real life? 2) Why is it that men get called out for bad behavior in the media more than women? 3) What is the difference between a criticism and an attack? Why is this seen as an attack and your words against Tom and GMP not seen by you as such? 4) What is “privilege” and the balance of male vs. female. Are you looking for systems of society that protect women more? Is that a privilege?

            This post and other similar pieces of character assassination are not going to help anyone answer those questions. Furthermore, this fact ought to be obvious to anyone who is actually concerned about any of those issues.

            • “These are the questions we are trying to answer:
              1) What does empathy look like in real life? 2) Why is it that men get called out for bad behavior in the media more than women? 3) What is the difference between a criticism and an attack? Why is this seen as an attack and your words against Tom and GMP not seen by you as such? 4) What is “privilege” and the balance of male vs. female. Are you looking for systems of society that protect women more? Is that a privilege?”

              “This post and other similar pieces of character assassination are not going to help anyone answer those questions. Furthermore, this fact ought to be obvious to anyone who is actually concerned about any of those issues.”

              Why?
              Is holding amanda to the same standard she demands of tom suddenly going to make empathy etc impossible?
              The outcome of this article being published is hopefully to show that amanda’s side of the argument and amandas standards are not perfect. Her demands that tom hold himself to a standard that she does not makes any good faith argument or debate impossible.

              How can discussion happen if we aren’t treating each other as equals?

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          Describing the supporters of the duke lacrosse team as “rape loving scum” isn’t in any way equivalent to stealing a packet of gum. Like it or not, Amanda has power and an audiance. She demonstrably misused both and never apologised or even retracted her comments. This isn’t sectarian, I’d be just as critical of a masculist who assumed the guilt of any rape accuser and innocence of any accused. If you can’t see the relevance of the comments she made, and the fact that she seems to stand by them, then theres nothing I can really do to convince you.

    • @ Andrew James

      Andrew James says:
      December 31, 2011 at 1:22 pm
      “To Whom It Used To Concern;

      Hackneyed anonymous hit pieces (citing Wikipedia) do not a serious site make. I find it funny (note: I’m using “funny” ironically) that the article written by Justin Cascio was prefaced with a passive-aggressive editorial diatribe of such utterly manipulative language so as to diminish and completely make moot his asking the all important question: “Can Founders Be Criticized on The Good Men Project?” Yet, as we see here, this rank and poorly written piece hides behind its own anonymity and your sudden silence in the framing of it. In doing so, The Good Men Project answers Cascio’s question in ways I’m sure Cascio himself could not have envisioned when he asked.”

      – I do find it fascinating the “Frames Of Reference” that people “Choose” to use.

      “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
      Albert Einstein

      For example Twittergate. Some date it from one set of Twits, and yet it is easy to find and study many elements of it which predate the twittering itself. It was brewing for months. It all depends of your frame of reference and your interest and will to read publicly available sources.

      Using “Jargon” such as “Passive-Aggressive” (a rather nice “Red Flag”) does not make what has happened “Passive-Aggressive” – it just shows a chosen “Frame Of Reference”.

      “Can Founders Be Criticized on The Good Men Project?”

      I can answer that question in One Word – “YES”!

      I have done it myself. Some even respond to such criticism and acknowledge it. They even thank you for it. There is an air of courtesy around such things – and if you should be critical in private, you are also acknowledged and receive responses. I do know this as I have been critical and there has been NO issue. I have even been thanked for being “pernickity” over how specific language is used and even misused – and how it creates Frames Of Reference that can cause issues that have not been intended.

      It seem though that some wish to be ever so Critical of Founders, or as they have made clear in their own writings and blogs “The Founder”. Of course I refer to one H Schwyzer.

      It’s very revealing how H Schwyzer responded to criticism. Even when he has been factually incorrect – used that error to attack others – inferred that people are dishonest – prone to repeated error – he has had “His” errors pointed out and he has been asked “Publicly” here on GMP to address them. He has chosen not to.

      Mr Schwyzer can of course still respond here and answer questions put to him directly – he can address matters point by point – he can agree with points made or disagree – he can provide counter points and counter arguments….. and yet he has “Most Conspicuously Failed” to do so.

      I do find it so odd that Mr S operates a gross double standard, supported by so many uncritical supporters.

      One has to wonder why Twittergate is being used to create a Frame Of Reference whilst Schwzwergate is so openly ignored and not addressed?

      The details are very public here on GMP!

      http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/women-rape-boys-too/comment-page-2/#comment-69443

      Andrew, You seem to see “Anonymity” as an issue which implies hiding and less than ethical standards.

      It is quite possible to Hide in Plain Sight and be highly unethical – you simply ignore your own errors and misconduct – gloss over them – fail to take ownership – even simply fail to address them as so many others have short memories and constantly change “Frames Of Reference”.

      I find it highly amusing that an OP addressing Privilege Frames of Reference by one person fails to have others considering who also has displayed the traits that have been met with such wide spread

      So I find it odd that this question of “Can Founders Be Criticized on The Good Men Project?” is so polarised and frankly ill considered by those who really should know better!

      It is fascinating that the Frame of Reference Of Multiple Founders is embed in the question – and yet Mr Schwyzer in his Resignation blog so carefully uses the term “The Founder” to focus attention where he wants it!

      “The Good Men Project was founded in 2009 by Tom Matlack and James Houghton” – a fact that is well known to Mr Schwyzer – so why would he use the definitive article “The” to indicate there is only One Person?

      It is an old Rhetorical Device – used to create a Frame Of Reference for the reader – and as they say “The Old One’s Are The Best!”.

      Perhaps you Andrew will look at some Criticism that remains unanswered and undressed?

      You may even be in a position to encourage A Response?

      Mr S Can not claim lack of knowledge of the issue, as he was communicated with privately on the same date and at the same time as the GMP post above. I am not surprised that there has been no response either Publicly or Privately.

      It is fascinating that the frames of reference being used all seem to focus on Tom – maybe that is caused by some jumping out of certain “Frames Of Reference” in the hope, and even desire, that it would cause so many to not look at the failures to act whilst within that older frame?

      As an Editor of GMP Mr Schwyzer would of course have been responsible for verifying accuracy of content submitted for publication, and yet in his own content and comments there is a lack of accuracy and even incorrect content that would call into question any Role he may have had as Editor, Columnist and even as a person who commented. Maybe that is why he is so polarised as to where he wants people to look and his Frames of Reference expressing in polarised language are but a means to an end?

      Rapid changing and polarisation of “Frames Of Reference” is a known issue and even has the common name of “Smoke An Mirrors”, linking to those carnival side show tents of old. It’s also linked to “Slight Of Hand”, Conjuring, prestidigitation and legerdemain.

      Maybe some Frames Of Reference Myths need to be Shattered with a little Historical Study, and even some Academic Rigour?

      Or, maybe the Old Trick of Jumping Out Of A Frame Of Reference When you see issues ahead, when in private you have been asked to address personal errors and then refused to do so, has already been tried in the hope that so many would become lost in the Cracked Fun House Mirrors that get left behind with smoke abounding?

      To Whom It Used To Concern? Well there are some who remain concerned enough to wonder when some will answer most Public Questions, and there is concern that failure to respond should be accepted to have most negative inferences!

      The repeating of errors such as “Who Coined the Phrase “Gaslighting”” also brings into question the frames of reference some use and prefer. It shows a lack of Rigour in so many areas, where professional standing would require a different standard and even basic consideration of facts.

      I do look forward to your response – and even more to any response to the Public Criticism, November 24, 2011 at 8:14 am, which some know exists and which they have so Conspicuously Chosen to ignore.

  30. The Bad Man says:

    Seems clear that Amanda Marcotte doesn’t have any empathy for men or any sense of law and justice.

  31. Richard Aubrey says:

    Morgaine Pendragon.
    You were speaking about the huge response to the rape of Dukie Katie Rouse, right? And the Frank Lombard (Duke) case…?

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      Good LORDE, no, Richard, I just looked those up, I had no idea.

      As I just posted in response to some comments to my earlier post, I was in Durham in the early 90s.

      It seems Duke (and also Durham?) STILL haven’t addressed these gender-race tensions.

      It’s such a shame. As much as I dislike many elements of Duke, it is an excellent university with an internationally renowned reputation. And Durham is one of the most diverse and dynamic cities in the USA.

      But if they don’t do something to resolve these still-festering social wounds, no one will want to go there any more.

      • Go heels indeed! Ahh…the tranquility of agreement. 🙂

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Morgaine.
        You missed the point. It’s not merely that Katie Rouse was raped. She is white, was raped by a black man at a black fraternity house and the best the university could say was that people experiment with their social lives and sometimes they have difficulties. IOW, bitch had it coming. No sisterly concern from the feminists, no potbangers, no outraged faculty, no media firestorm.

        With Lombard, it appears that the gay-marriage-adoption thing is even more powerful than the no-molest-child thing, with the no-white-guy-molest-black-child thing in there someplace. But no outraged faculty or huge campus demonstrations.

        IOW, in these two cases, the narrative was wrong–see the Knoxville Horror, if you can find it–and so nobody cared.

        So it’s not about rape or the racist actions of privileged white guys–even if they have to be faked up and the usual suspects have to pretend to believe them–it’s about the proper lineup of Accredited Victim Groups. And nothing else. As ought to be obvious. Really, really obvious.

        If there is anything festering, it’s the festering vile morality of people who care for the narrative rather than the victim. Speaking of which, if you’ve looked recently, you’ll note the so-called vic in the lax case is up for murder.

  32. So now that Amanda’s defenders have rushed in to pretend she has never done anything to contradicts the standard she is hold Tom to (and as Amanda’s critics we have had the chance to blow off some steam) I do wonder something about the mob mentality.

    Just as when that story broke and when this post was submitted (and a lot of posts that have popped up here in the last few weeks) people immediately took sides and starting firing all phaser banks and photon torpedoes. Ah the allure of battle.

    But I wonder though how did we come to this point? How have we (and I’m talking damn near all of us) come to this point where even at the slightest hint of a battle we quick draw and don’t ask question sometimes? Are we harboring pain that we have not yet been able to (or don’t know how to) deal with?

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      This is a really important question Danny. I remember a turning point came for me when reading a story on this site, when a guy was talking about the problems he was having with his fiance, and he said “when I’m hurting I sometimes want her to hurt too”. He was clear that he meant emotionally and not physically — but he was also being honest and insightful, and I never had heard it really expressed that way. So then I took that POV to heart when dealing with a teenage child of mine who would lash out at me. I went into every altercation with her saying to myself “find out why she’s hurting”. And then before responding I would say “the action you need to take is to love her. just love her.” And honestly — just by those simply steps — empathy with understanding that she must be hurting, trying to understand why, and acting with love before responding — it changed everything around in our relationship. Everything.

      One of the things I’ve been trying really hard to do — here, in the comments section, over the past few weeks/months is similar — treat every commenter as a human. An individual, with a different POV than everyone else. Even if I don’t agree with the POV. But *know* them, hear them. That’s also why I encourage anyone who can to post their own story — any slice of it they want. So we can all get to know them.

      We’re all so human. To me, the marginalization of people we feel uncomfortable with is one of the things I am trying to change the most. I simply hate marginalizing people for things they can’t control — gender, race, where they were born, age, physical attractiveness — the list goes on and on. And really speaking and listening to individuals as individuals instead of lumping people into groups — “angry commenters”, “MRA’s”, “feminists” — whatever. I don’t always succeed. I too, am human. But if we can get to the humaness, perhaps we can help with the pain.

      • Lisa, you’re too damn nice and you’re too damn fair. That’s what makes you perfect for this job you have.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        Well said, trouble is that when someone (male or female) has been so badly hurt time and time again that they become filled with sexist vitriol theres really nothing you can do for them. They need a professional therapist, not reason.

    • You make a good point Danny. All of my life I have “watched over” the women in it. My 2 younger sisters, my 7 female cousins, my wife/girlfriend , my 3 daughters and my grand daughter. so I take it VERY PERSONALLY when S**THEELS like Marcotte start with their “all men are rapist” B****HIT!!!!

  33. I’m an alum of unc (needless to say, I despise those dookies). The former Durham resident makes an accurate description of the dynamics of Durham in regards to race, class and privilege. However should snot nosed rich kids from new jersey be sacrificial lambs to an agenda? Yes! hehe…I’m kidding. If they are innocent they are innocent. Plain and simple. If you are wrong, admit you are wrong. You just look foolish holding on for prides sake.

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      I really don’t think that I suggested or even implied that innocent people should be sacrificed. I heard about the case years later (I lived there in the early 90s) — I was only trying to point out that those tensions were obviously going to come to a head, and someone was going to get burned. I don’t know the DA or the prosecutors or anyone involved. I’m just not surprised that it happened.

      And I guess I should’ve been clearer, that these were two very disparate points I was trying to make: the one I just tried to clarify; and the one that it doesn’t seem to me to do anyone or the GMP any good to post a piece bashing Amanda Marcotte for something that happened many years ago.

      I guess the connection would be that (and I have no way of knowing this, I hadn’t heard of Marcotte til recently) that perhaps she was getting her information (or misinformation) from people who knew about the dynamic in Durham and at Duke.

      That’s all. Sorry for any confusion.

      • MorgainePendragon says:

        PS: jefeocho, GO HEELS! 😉

      • The issue discussed here is much bigger than Miss Marcotte and the Duke Lacrosse players. It is about false rape accusations and the feminist bigotry of assuming a man guilty of rape just because some woman says so. It is a classic case of feminist hypocrisy. BTW, while discussing hypocrisy and injustices even hundred year old cases are referred. This case is relatively new. Or, may be there exists a period of limitation for discussing cases of feminist hypocrisy.

      • This reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live chracter of the late great Gilda Radner. She would be this chracter “Ms. Emily Latella” and give this firey commentary about something. Then Chevy Chase would point out that she had the facts wrong. She would sweetly look at the camera and say “Never Mind”. (Marcotte didn’t even do that much though)

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        If she’d publicly distanced herself from her remarks or, gasp, actually apologised rather than chucking them down the memory hole there would be no point in dredging up old mud. As it stands, her comments are a perfect example of her hypocracy and are absolutely worth exploring.

  34. MorgainePendragon says:

    I don’t see how this overt bashing and then piling on by comments of pure nastiness on one of GMP’s most loyal (and best) contributors helps anyone or achieves any of the goals of the GMP.

    As someone who lived in Durham and saw the white male entitlement first hand for years (indeed, it was part of the reason I left the US permanently), I’m quite sure that the true story of the Duke lacrosse player vs the black sex workers will never be made completely clear. I DO know, however, that the rich entitled Dukies (who, BTW, drove away Henry Louis Gates, one of the US’s great 20th century intellectuals) often treat “locals” (from established black intellectual class at NCCU to poor POCs living in slums side by side with rich students to just plain working folks of all ethnicities– of which I was one) as so much fodder for their own personal service and abuse.

    I know that all of my friends from and living in Durham had witnessed or been victims of some sort of sexual assault and/or abuse, OFTEN from the privileged white Dukies (William Kennedy Smith, anyone)?

    I know that when I lived there, neither the city nor Duke University was doing anything to try to alleviate the tensions between ethnic groups, between poverty vs obscene wealth, between cultural differences.

    Durham was (and I hope still is) a wonderfully multicultural city with deep Southern roots and a long history of intellectual pursuits in both the black and white communities. What the Lacrosse scandal showed was that it had still not made inroads into resolving some of the deep tensions and resentments.

    I fail to see how attacking Amanda Marcotte or indeed rehashing a 5 year old case that I doubt anyone here has any first hand experience of, contributes to the goals of the Good Men Project.

    • I live in North Carolina as well and can attest to the tensions you speak of.

      What part of those tensions make it okay to just presume that those entitled rich kids were guilty when the vast majority of the evidence shows otherwise?

      I fail to see how attacking Amanda Marcotte or indeed rehashing a 5 year old case that I doubt anyone here has any first hand experience of, contributes to the goals of the Good Men Project.
      It speaks to the hypocrisy of a person who supposedly wants to hold Tom to a standard of being a good human that she can’t even hold herself to.

    • Uh , maybe because it was all BOGUS! Look’ I’m not saying that “privilaged soceity” doesn’t have it’s way on occasion with the underclass. And I’m certainly not CONDONING it! I’m just saying that in this case, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN! The “Just don’t confuse me with the facts” apolgist don’t get it! If it’s wrong to unjustly imprision a man because he’s “poor” How can it be OK to unjustly imprision a man because his parents are “guilty” of the crime of being “upper middle class”?

    • “I’m quite sure that the true story of the Duke lacrosse player vs the black sex workers will never be made completely clear.”

      May I ask, what exactly you think still needs clearing up?

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      Loyal to what? Best by whose standards? Yours?

      It would have been a bit more honest to say something like “Amanda Marcotte is one of the strongest pro-female voices on the GMP and, in my opinion, one of the best.”

  35. Jean Valjean says:

    If Amanda Marcotte feels this article is a cheap shot then all I can say to her is, “Take it like a man”.

  36. The epic thrashing of Nancy Grace by Jon Stewart about her Marcotte-like handling of the Duke story:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-12-2007/duke–non–rape-case

  37. Oh my! Doesn’t being a good person mean treating others as you want to be treated with dignity, respect courtesy and occasional kindness even if you can’t see their point of view or agree with it even if you do see their perspective.

  38. Rapses says:
    December 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    Leaving aside the double standards of Miss Marcotte, the Duke Lacrosse case is a perfect example of the feminist presumption of male guilt till proven innocent.
    ——————————————————————————–

    I also think so. It is said the entire case was solved only because the accused and their families were able to show up with about USD 5 million for aggressive defense and experts.
    What to do if you are innocent, but you do not have so much money?

    It is also interesting to look up, what happened with this ‘victim’. As far as I know Crystal Mangum had already a criminal record, was known to be violent, did accuse innocent men several times and is now in jail again, facing murder charges in a totally unrelated case. stabbing her boyfriend to death.

    It’s not only about Marcotte and her accusations, it’s much more about Marcotte and her reaction when it turned out, these accusations are wrong. But I see no reason to single out Marcotte, as many feminists share her biased presumption of men=guilty, women=victim under any circumstances from the very beginning on without investigating properly.

    While the Duke LaCrosse case might be a very special case, false rape allegations are not rare. Take a look to the Innocence Project, or just use the search utilities of any news-publisher, plenty of cases.

    And what happens to the malicious woman who sent innocent men to jail solely out of her bad mood?
    Usually nothing… sometimes a few hours community service for filing a fale police report… that’s all?

    Deliberate false rape allegations against innocent men should be a crime, a felony, and these malicious women should be sentenced to a long jail-term, pictures and address should be published. There should be a public registry, similar to the sex-offender registry.

    Feminists should support innocent men in such cases of false accusations, but they do not.

    It’s not good for the image of feminism to act protective to women who are obviously criminals solely because they are women and the victim are men.

    • This might be appropriate for a totally legal-system approach to sexual violence, but kind of like the war on drugs approach to that problem, I don’t think it’s working well at all.

      The alternatives are more sex education, treatment instead of punishment, openness to learning instead of punishment of error….

  39. I will say something controversial, play the devil’s advocate for a bit here….

    When people get mad at critiques of someone like Amanda Marcotte, it almost seems to me as if people expect her to be handled with the “kid gloves” because she is a “girl” but when a man does or says something controversial, no one minds him being thrown to the wolves. Also, many don’t seem to mind when “certain” women are thrown to the wolves such as Madonna or Katy Perry, maybe because they are from the “wrong side of the tracks” so to speak….

  40. Well, I don’t want to keep going on and on about Amanda Marcotte, so this will be my l last post to this thread unless -possibly- she comes on and answers herself in which case I’d still let the bloggers have first dibs at commenting before I say anything. Here’s two posts that contain the record for AM’s misbehavior in the Duke case. It was not one or two isolated comments, it was truly dispicable, at least in my opinion.

    http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/02/edwards-fiasco.html

    http://overlawyered.com/2007/02/meet-john-edwardss-new-blogger-in-chief/
    One can go to the Internet WayBack machine and get older posts of hers on Pandagon, as well as the fact that she left comments on the case all over the blogosphere.

  41. On the calling to account vs personal attack debate: would it be easier to work through disagreements if we distinguished between the behaviour and and person? We all do bad things. We’re all just people. What we want to talk about and change is ideas about what behaviour is OK and what’s not, whoever is doing it.
    Maybe how we differ most is not in how bad we are but in how successful we are at convincing ourselves that we are righteous and good and that other people (esp other categories of people) are not. English novelist Ivy Compton-Burnett once said ‘people are morally the same and intellectually different’. I like the idea. It might not be true (and how could we know?) but it creates good ground for cultivating empathy.
    Just a thought

    • I don’t believe this to be the case…

      anyone who has read any psychology has probably read about sociopath’s–those who may have an intellectual understanding of right and wrong but seem lacking in internal conscience/empathy…..

  42. I refuse to believe matters like this are as complex as portrayed. Excuse my regular guy input,but right is right and wrong is wrong. If someone is falsely accused, that is wrong. If common sense examples like this can’t be acknowledged, we are all in deep trouble.

  43. Wirbelwind says:

    Yes, I am quite interested how (or if at all) she will respond to this. I am also thankful for this piece because it shows a BIG double standard.

  44. It’s like I’ve said before and at other places:
    People who are willing to sacrifice other unwilling and unwitting people for their ideology and without any nod to Justice are not good people.

  45. jfpbookworm says:

    An anonymous hit piece with the usual suspects piling on. This is really what you want your “project” to be about?

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      What would you have the project be about?

      • jfpbookworm says:

        Good men, maybe? Just a thought.

        • +1

          • Lisa Hickey says:

            Actually — that’s exactly what we’re about. We’re just diving very deep into *how* goodness gets perceived and why men, as a group tend to NOT be perceived as good. In this case, you are perceiving people as “bad” for “the usual suspects piling on”. Your tone is accusatory right there — the “usual suspects” — are they not people worthy of a conversation with? And you are assuming that somehow we are not looking at the “good” of someone like Amanda, instead of looking at the “good” of people like the Duke Lacrosse players and how it happened that they got falsely accused. It’s that that we are interested in discussing here — deeply, and not just with one sentence snarks. How does such a thing happen, and why, and how can we collectively talk about it in a way that is interesting and moves us all forward.

            To the people here trying to figure it out, that is “good”. You may respectfully disagree.

            • Damn Woman, I love the way you write when someone gets your dander up!

            • jfpbookworm says:

              I don’t feel this article does that at all. It’s just quoting Cathy Young quoting Amanda Marcotte to say the latter is a bad person; it’s not actually a discussion of the Duke lacrosse case except insofar as what it says about the person the article is actually about.

              And when the “usual suspects” are saying the same things they say in every post remotely touching on gender issues – i.e., general ramblings about what feminists purportedly believe and why that makes them evil – yeah, there’s nothing especially dialogue-worthy there.

              • Peter Houlihan says:

                Its not a discussion of the Duke Lacrosse case and never pretended to be. Its a discussion around how one feminist felt perfectly free to write numerous hit pieces and pile on the manbeating bandwagon before any facts worth repeating were in. We need more articles exposing this kind of duplicity, not less. Then perhaps extremist voices like those of Amanda Marcotte will be relegated to the sidelines where they belong and equality campaigners can take center stage.

    • So says the person posting anonymously. Ahhhhh…. the irony.

      Everything in the piece is factual. AM called TM out on doing something she has done herself, and never even tried to apologize for. She’s a hypocrite. But don’t let that stop a good narrative.

      • jfpbookworm says:

        I’m not anonymous. If anything, my use of a handle makes it easier to look up all the other things I’ve said.

        The tie-in to the Duke lacrosse case seems spurious to me, and the elevation of this comment to article status by the editors seems petty.

        • So jfpbookworm is your real name? Of course it seems spurious to you. It points directly to the lack of integrity AM has in saying that ” Imagining the POV of someone you’re in conflict with is bare minimum of being a good person, yes.” when she has done exactly that. Sorry, but I believe the adage is “Those who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.”

        • Jfp:
          Whining about a gross injustice that Amanda Marcotte did to 3 innocent young men (and actually the whole team since none of the DNA recovered was from a team member) being brought to light of day is disgusting.
          Can you tell me why you don’t hold Amanda Marcotte accountable for acting like a decent human being? Because she agrees with you?

          And what’s this crap about “Good Men” ignoring anything wrong that a feminist or female does?
          Far as I am concerned you can crawl back to your hole near your books.

          • I don’t know if anybody was aware of it, but that”poor ,confused woman of color” who claimed she was raped , recently was arrested for attempted murder. Seems she shot somebody. Oh well, if it was some “white male of privelege” I’m sure he deserved it!

            • It was her boyfriend. He’s dead now, so she’s being held on murder charges currently, not attempted murder. She had been previously charged with attempted murder, arson, identity theft, child abuse, and I’m sure the list goes on. IIRC the Duke Lacrosse scandal wasn’t even her first false rape accusation. Of course the ‘Rape Shield’ prevented her character issues (such as repeated abusing the justice system) from coming to light.

        • @jfpbookworm: I don’t think the tie in is spurious. Its not like Amanda has done this only once and its completely out character. The Duke Lacrosse case is one example. Lets find a few more:

          Calls her extremely mild-mannered opponent self-absorbed narcissist and asshole.
          http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/seriously_theres_nothing_nice_about_nice_guysreg/

          Call her opponent disingenuous or daft and disgustingly judgemental
          http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/when-feminism-flames-a-twitter-conversation-gone-wrong/

          I followed her blog at one point and this type of behaviour is typical both for her and her commenters. She also tends to engage in an enormous amount of mind-reading where she somehow figures out here opponents motives which end up being the worst possible ones and then calls them names for being horrible people.

          • It sort of reminds me of the Jack Nicholson line in the movie ‘As Good as it Gets’. He plays a famous author, and when a female admirer asks him how he seems to write the female chracters so accuratly , he says”Well , I write the chracter as a man , and then remove all logic and accountability.

        • Jeff

          you said “The tie-in to the Duke lacrosse case seems spurious to me, and the elevation of this comment to article status by the editors seems petty.”

          Perhaps you can help out a hapless none American Resident who is still reading about this matter. I have to say that I see no spurious connection between what has been posted and what appears an evident pattern of conduct and evasion.

          Of course, I am only going on Mrs/Mr Anonymous post and the other sources I have come across, including archived copies of certain removed net content – so I’m interested in knowing what other sources I need to look at to see what exists that makes you say the content is “spurious”.

          Can you supply any missing references from already listed sources? I will happily log a dispute with Wikipedia and have the matter addressed.

          As for the idea that The Editors have elevated to “article status”, I do believe that the editors have stated at top of page, that the text was received by email – and that the only way for it to be published is as an article. Is there a channel on GMP that I have missed? Is there somewhere that content you and others may see as less worthy of article status gets published – a less worthy section?

          So could you explain your concerns as to petty activity and where the OP content should be published on GMP. Lisa has been asking for ways to improve the site and content! Perhaps you missed all that over on another thread?

          Maybe you should suggest a place to publish petty and less worthy content so Lisa and the other Editors can consider your ideas and views?

        • Jean Valjean says:

          Once again AM and JFP are exercising their female privilege to be blameless in all things.

          It’s as if they were virgins all over again (and again, and again, and again).

          Clearly, it’s the fault of all men and probably John Edwards that AM wrote all those nasty things about Duke LaCrosse. It’s the PATRIARCHY!!!

    • And the information is just as on point as the people who were firing shots at Tom, Hugo, and everyone in between, anonymouse or not.

      Or let me guess calling people on their bad behavior is only okay when Marcotte herself is doing it? If she is big enough to make statements like, ” Imagining the POV of someone you’re in conflict with is bare minimum of being a good person, yes.” then she should be big enough to held to them herself. No one told her to come out guns blazing when the case broke and then slink away in silence when it came to light that she backed the wrong horse.

      So do you want to end all the firing fighting or do are you just insterested in making sure the people that are calling out the angry feminists (no scare quotes because I mean that for real) are shut out?

    • @ jfpbookworm: I agree. The posting of this email looks to me to be little more than a very personal attack against one particular person. Will we be seeing more such postings as GMP goes forward?

      I can honestly say that I am very disappointed. I was thrilled that something called “The Good Men Project” came into existence. I just don’t agree that posts such as this one shine any light on the goodness of men (by shining a light on the “badness” of one specific woman?)

      (I imagine that this comment is unlikely to see the light of day, as my words will likely be regarded as being critical of the GMP as a whole.)

      • Leaving aside the double standards of Miss Marcotte, the Duke Lacrosse case is a perfect example of the feminist presumption of male guilt till proven innocent.

        • DavidByron says:

          Did she change her mind after they were proven innocent? I thought she did not?

          • If she did, she’s never said a word. Or apologized to the Duke players. And that’s the hypocrisy of her getting on TM about being a “good” person.

            • Feminism is basically a religion based on the belief that being born as male is the original sin for which we must suffer and would be redeemed by our saviors (feminist) if we follow their path.

              • If feminism is a religion, then it should be acknowledged that there are different sects that believe different things. Being a feminist, like being a Christian can mean a lot of different things that even those who identify as such don’t realize

                • Whatever else the different sects believe, the central theme is same.

                  • Kirsten (in MT) says:

                    If the central theme in all feminist sects is the same, I can tell you right now you don’t know what the central theme is because that “original sin” thing is opposed by more than one variant of feminism.

                    • J.G. te Molder says:

                      Funny.

                      Where were all those other variants of feminism when the variant of feminism helped create the Violence Against Women Act as opposed to the Violence Against People Act?

                      I believe the only thing we got from them was chirping crickets.

                      Where were all those other variants of feminism when the feminism helped reduce women to pathetic, whiny little children who can’t handle a sexual joke, or a picture of a beautiful women in the workplace?

                      Once again, chirping crickets.

                      Where all those variants of feminism when the “evil variant” of feminism hung up posters depicted boys and even baby boys as future potential rapists that only proper raising of can keep them from being so in schools?

                      :crickets chirping:

                      Where are all those other variants of feminism when the “evil variant” of feminism are allowed to hold stage adoptions of the SCUM manifesto calling on women to murder men in front of young teens in school classes in Sweden?

                      :crickets chirping:

                      Where are all those other variants of feminism when the “evil variant” of feminism enacted women-only train wagons in India, where men beaten than thrown off of the still moving train for accidentally stepping foot in one? Or when the government decided to give a monetary reward for women to torture their spousing that they merely accused of abuse, that goes up the worse she abuses him? Or when a judge ruled that a defendant in rape cases is cannot challenge the female accuser’s testimony at all because of her emotions it is beyond reproach?

                      :crickets chirping:

                      Where were all those variants of feminism when the “evil variant” of feminism claimed that a man using logic in an argument with his female partner is domestic abuse in a blatant attempt to stretch the definition further so they can get even more money, and paint men with even greater demonic brush?

                      :crickets chirping:

                      I can go on and on, but, eh, one more: where are all those variants of feminism when right here on this sight a divorce lawyer described the corruption of the family courts where a single claim of raising voice and that she felt afraid is enough to start the machine rolling to separate the man from his children and money?

                      :crick:… Oh, no, wait, they came to attack the piece claiming that because of all the abuse on women (which is false) innocent men should just accept having their rights, children and money taken away.

                      Show me even one instance where those other variants of feminism actually attacked the bad variant and stood up against them taking away more rights for men. You won’t be able to, because it never happened.

                      The only thing those other variants of feminism do is provide plausible dependability to the evil “variant”.

                • Jean Valjean says:

                  If those differing sects didn’t believe that men are the wellspring of all female problems then I might agree.

                  If those differing sects actively repudiated the hate filled propaganda of the more extreme sects then I might agree.

                  If those differing sects didn’t happily enjoy the ill gotten gains of the more extreme sects while watching their sons grow up in a world that hated them before they were born then I might agree.

                  If those differing sects didn’t call themselves by the same name thus making themselves indistinguishable from the more extreme sects then I might agree.

                  If those different sects did not continue to exclusively promote the interests of women to the exclusion of rights for men then I might agree.

                  But they don’t. And because they don’t they rightly deserved to be lumped into the same category as bigots and hatemongers.

                  • +1

                  • Amen brother. It’s like I said if you identify with an organization or movement’ you represent the positions or”planks’ of that organization or movement

                  • Kirsten (in MT) says:

                    Jean, Eric, and bobbt, if you think that all feminist sects are anti-male, you need to educate yourselves about the diversity in feminism. That’s simply false, and promoting that false idea doesn’t help men. It’s just a way to promote victimhood. Let’s move beyond victimhood and promote what is good for us all.

                    • Lisa Hickey says:

                      Kirsten (in MT) [and others] — I think it would be *great* if you could help us find find a clearly pro-male feminist. That would go leaps and bounds towards solving the problem quite frankly — much more so than telling people to go off and “educate themselves”. Can I consider you volunteering for the job? Ask them to contact me at lisa at goodmenproject dot com or feel free to email me yourself.

      • DavidByron says:

        Well I didn’t see it as a personal attack on her. If she was the only feminist to take this view that is under criticism then I doubt anyone would have any interest in what she said. Someone said she is now considered a leader of the feminist movement. I guess that means I am getting old…. but this stuff is a political criticism of a political position that she took extremely publicly.

        Perhaps you could describe how someone would go about criticising Marcotte’s publicly stated political positions while making sure it was NOT seen as personal? That might be a very constructive point of view to bring here.

      • Lisa Hickey says:

        Ms. Mo — You actually prove a very big point here — that you are seeing this *only* as “a very personal attack against one particular person.” You don’t see it at all as an attack on the men of the Duke Lacrosse team. How is it not a story about *that*. The fact that you might see this as an attack on someone like Amanda Marcotte — someone you either know or have heard of, so you have some sort of connection to — but NOT as an wrongful attack against men — that’s what we are trying to collectively understand here.

        There’s also a post called “the moral dilemma of the drowning girl” which I found to be a similar look at this type of situation.

        • assman said: “Its not like Amanda has done this only once and its completely out character. The Duke Lacrosse case is one example. Lets find a few more:”

          *This* is why I see the posting of this email as a personal attack against one person. Much of the commentary is leaning in the direction of Things We Don’t Like About Amanda, rather than Things We Don’t Like About Men Being Falsely Accused of Rape.

          If this “article” were truly addressing the issue of false rape accusation, the use of one person’s name would have been unnecessary. Likewise, if it were focused on a general perception of the feminist response to false rape accusations, the use of one particular person’s name would have served only as a distraction.

          In my view, to post this email, which repeatedly calls out a particular person by name (and certainly not in a positive light), while somehow maintaining that it was not meant as a personal attack, is a bit disingenuous.

          Lisa, I simply don’t see how posting this email has helped in the quest for collective understanding.

          • Lisa Hickey says:

            Because Amanda is one person, but she collectively represents a group (feminists) as well as the fact that sometimes men get called out, attacked and blamed for things. In fact, Amanda wrote an article about Tom Matlack, calling him out point for point on things he said. That led to a whole bunch of posts on *her* blog that were “things we don’t like about Tom”. When he called that an attack he was told “You can’t take criticism.” How is this an attack and that not? Honestly, I am not being difficult here. I really want to know the answer to that. I want to understand. If you could shed some light on that, it would be really helpful.

            And that is why this whole discussion has been raging on our site for a week now. Because we question why these things happen, and we explore the dynamics about the causes. This was just one post in about 20 different takes on how and why these issues of such importance (rape, false accusations, public criticisms, attacks) happen. How does that not help in a quest for collective understanding?

            • First, Lisa, be careful when you say things like “she collectively represents a group (feminists.)” I consider myself a feminist, but I would not at all say that Amanda Marcotte speaks for me. Nor does any other person who claims the label feminist. (If you think that feminists speak with one collective voice, you are in for a surprise! But I’m sure you are aware that there is more than one feminist “voice.”)

              Also, please be aware that you do not know my feelings about the personal attacks on Tom Matlack. Frankly, I hate seeing the internet used to flog ANY one person. Spending time focused on the words and actions of one person becomes an energy-draining distraction from the work we *should* be doing. It’s easy to instigate a “flame war,” and plenty of people are more than eager to participate. At the end of it all, what have we gained? Some people are bruised from the battle, some feel victorious (“I sure showed him/her!”), but what evidence is there that anything has really been improved?

              One way personal attacks get started is demonstrated here quite clearly: post an email by one (anonymous) person about a deeply disliked individual. Then sit back and wait for the missiles to fire. Mission accomplished.

              If what you *actually* want is to see *fewer* personal attacks launched against specific people, I would suggest that there is probably a more productive way than posting this piece. Perhaps an editorial policy that includes NOT publishing personal attacks, and rejects comments that are seen as personal attacks. That would have to be a 100% policy. NO personal attacks, no matter WHO they were launched against. I suppose that sounds like rampant censorship. Maybe it’s a request for each of us to do our OWN personal censorship. We could each ask ourselves, “Does this come across as a personal attack on one individual? Is there another way to make my point without resorting to personal attack here?”

              Just a thought.

              One last thing, Lisa. In the best of all possible worlds, what do you see as a positive outcome of posting this particular piece?

              • Ms. Mo:

                I’m not Lisa, but I will say that by reading this information from this thread people should be able to put sexual criticism by Amanda Marcotte in its proper context in the future. It’s kind of hard for such a hateful hypocrite to play moral censor.

                The other thing I will say is that Amanda Marcotte has more feminist cred than you and clearly has a louder and more influential voice within feminism. I consider there are two types of problematic feminism: gynocentric (focusing only on women’s problems in the sexual system) feminism -arguably the most “popular” type despite the protestations its a sexual egalitarian movement – and radical (you know the “all het sex is rape” brigade. Unfortunately, they too have some real world power and influence in the feminist movement though there numbers are much smaller) feminism. Amanda Marcotte is one of the loudest and most well-known mouthpieces of gynocentric feminism which she conflates with “egalitarian” feminism. She , in other words, represents feminism far more than you do. You could try to do something about that , or you could just let her continue to represent your movement until she blunders into some scandal you can’t ignore.

                • Interesting, Clarence. Saying that Amanda Marcotte (or any other well-known feminist) “represents feminism far more than [I] do” is like saying the guys who flew the airplanes on 9/11 represent Islam more than all the other Muslims in the world put together, or that people who bomb abortion clinics and protest at the funerals of gay men and soldiers represent Christianity far more than all the other Christians in the world. These people are more representative of their collective group because they are the “loudest” via their representation in the media and via their extreme words and actions.

                  I would argue that the *better* representation comes from the people who are quietly living more-or-less according to the principles of the group with which they are affiliated. It is not unusual to find that in the “rank and file” of a particular group, the figures who have emerged as “mouthpieces” are considered controversial (and sometimes downright objectionable) by the “masses.”

                  I do not aspire to be The Voice of Feminism. My views are my own.

                  I imagine you likewise speak for yourself and not for the masses of people with whom you share a common trait. And I am guessing that you do not allow anyone else’s words to be mistaken as summing up your personal philosophy if they are words you do not agree with.

                  • I think a better analogy to what Clarence was hinting woulf be Amanda is the Iman, the pastor or the rabbi. You attend the mosque, the church or the synagogoue. i am sure that is what he meant by the differences in credibility

                  • That would assume that Marcotte is controversial among ‘the masses’. That doesn’t appear to be the case. In what way is Marcotte the equivalent of Atta (and to what extent does the Muslim world actually repudiate what Atta et al perpetrated? The numbers on that front aren’t that great looking.)

                    So if your quiet feminists repudiation comes in the form of “I wouldn’t say that myself…but I will applaud it and hope for more” than that isn’t saying much. If you want to separate Marcotte from feminism then that is going to take the coordinated effort of other established feminists who essentially own the ideology.

                    As of yet I haven’t even seen anyone say that Marcotte is ‘No True Feminist’, so clearly the level of separation between membership in the ingroup of feminists isn’t even large enough to not want to portray yourselves and Marcotte underneath the same banner.

              • Ms. Mo
                I wish to offer my two cents on the issue discussed. Miss Marcotte writes a blog on feminist issues where she offers her opinion on various issues. A blog is a public forum. On her blog she acted like judge and convicted the innocent lacrosse players who were falsely accused and even after they were declared innocent, she never offered any apology for her poor judgment. She tries to hold Tom Mattlock to a standard which she herself completely failed. All this took place on her blog and twitter and public forum. When somebody is publicly scrutinized for their stance on public forum, it cannot be construed as personal attack. So calling this post and comments as personal attack on Miss Marcotte is unfair. Nobody is discussing about her personal life or preferences here. The point discussed here is that she slandered innocent men at public forum.

              • Ms. Mo,

                I don’t see how this is a personal attack, this is a critique of a writer who is posting things in public.

                I have seen things posted at Feministe harshly critisizng artists such as Katy Perry. I believe they would refer to that as the Feminist Critique. Why shouldn’t Amanda Marcotte be as responsible for her words as we would hold Tom Matlock or others?

                In fact, I realize talking about gender is a very hot issue, part of why I post under a pseudonym… I have had David Futrellle, who considers himself a Feminist misquote me and then put a caption under is saying SARCASM to create any plausible deniability should I fire back….

                You may consider yourself a Feminsit and disagree with Amanda Marcotte or you may agree. I persoanally do not identify as an MRA, though I have read thoughtful articles by Paul Elam. (again don’t agree with him on everything….)

              • Lisa Hickey says:

                Ms. Mo,

                In response to this –>> “One last thing, Lisa. In the best of all possible worlds, what do you see as a positive outcome of posting this particular piece?”

                Thanks for asking this — it’s a great question.

                1) I’d like people to realize just how important the discussion of “good” is. I want to understand it, and I know a lot of others here do as well. Good is hard. Good is not an inherent quality in someone, but a series of moment to moment decisions and actions. We don’t define “good” on this website, nor do we want to. But we do want to understand it so that we ALL can make better decisions and take better actions — individually and collectively.

                2) Think about how great it would be if Amanda Marcotte came out now and said “I’d like to tell you the story of what happened here. How it got to that place, why I did what I did, what I think now.” I wouldn’t even be looking to her for an apology, necessarily, but an explanation. Tom and I had responded on every post she wrote about us — from the ones that we saw as attacking Tom to the one here that was attacking GMP as a whole http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/the_good_men_project_i_used_to_know We responded because we wanted to make our intentions clear.

                But, for example, when Amanda says — in that article I just mentioned — “The bare minimum of a good man is striving not to be sexist.” — this is what I would say to her now: “Amanda, would you consider what you did in the Duke case sexist?” Because I think it is. I think it’s sexist against men. But if she is has a different view, I would like to hear it. We all would. I think we really don’t understand. How can we, as a group, strive to be “non-sexist” if we don’t even know what the word means? She’s got our attention now. We would listen.

                3) We’ve been talking a lot internally about this: That the best way to open and honest communication is if we ALL give up our privilege. Male AND female. Wouldn’t that be equality? So in one of the articles Amanda wrote, she said the “the only thing she can think of is that Tom was fighting the “erosion of privilege”. There’s also a lot of talk of “giving up your privilege” that — quite frankly — some of us just don’t understand. Yes, there have been systems that have favored upper class white men. No doubt. But if I’m poor male and black, or middleclass male, white, with 3 kids and 4 part time jobs — what the heck does “giving up my privilege mean?” But with someone like Amanda — she obviously has privileges that some of us don’t have because she’s vocal, public, and has a following of people that believe in her. So getting people to understand — “hey — we’re not just asking ALL MEN to give up their privilege. It means that I, Amanda Marcotte, can come into a conversation believing you have good intentions. Even when you are posting something that seems like the truth. ESPECIALLY when you post something that other people see the truth. Because now, it gives Amanda to talk about these issues in a real, concrete way. From her own experience. If she would care to.

                • *Applause*
                  I hope she considers replying.

                • In the particular strain of feminism that Marcotte subscribes to, I’m not sure it’s possible for women to be sexist against men. If you don’t belong to a ‘privileged’ group it is impossible for you to oppress someone else that does belong to that group, so therefore women can’t be sexist except towards other women.

                  • There’s the questionable assumoption. You assume women cannot be a privielged group, privielged over men. Or mkae it maes and females.

                    But in educational settings, women are clearly privileged over males for 12 during ther formative growth. that is privielge.

                    Furthermore, a group is never simply privileged or not. The name for this is intersectionality. So Woman A may very well be privileged over Man B becaue of race – and it is completely idle to parse this as a matter of race versus gender – what matters is which individual human being in any given situation is privileged and which is oppressed.

              • Lisa Hickey says:

                I also wanted to address your suggestions about the comments / attacks — thank you for those. We are actively looking to improve the commenting experience for everyone. We are getting more moderators involved who will be able to flag personal attacks and inappropriate comments. And I’ve talked with some people on this thread about it — how we can make this a place that encourages lively, provocative debate — and isn’t scared to touch the topics others might not — but also make it a safe enough place for those who view arguments and assertive debate as hostility. One solution might be to tag certain posts with a “no hostility” tag. Another might be to have a message board / forum so that if comments get off topic, or argumentative, or derailed we can say “take it to the forum.”

                We want to encourage as much civilized discussion as possible without singling out people.

                I would still like your opinion — did you think what went on with Tom Matlack was also attacks and therefore unwarranted?

            • Kirsten (in MT) says:

              “Because Amanda is one person, but she collectively represents a group (feminists)”

              No, she doesn’t. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t try and force your stereotypes on me.

              • Lisa Hickey says:

                I apologize. I did not mean to imply that she represents all feminists, but I can see how it would be taken that way.

                If that is the perception, however — and it doesn’t seem to me like I am the only one with that perception — can you help us change that? Can you write about your own beliefs, and maybe why they differ from Amanda’s and how what you believe will move us towards greater equality and ultimately help both women and men?

              • Michael Rowe says:

                Actually, she does represent feminists. She’s an articulate feminist voice and a professional writer and lecturer on feminist issues. So whether you like it or not, those are not Ms. Hickey’s “stereotypes.” If you don’t like that she represents feminists and feminism, take it up with Ms. Marcotte, not Ms. Hickey.

                • Michael Rowe says:

                  This is exactly like Christians saying that the Christian right doesn’t represent Christians. They do. If mainstream Christians have a problem with that, they need to speak louder than the people who are representing them, and stop blaming the audience. Blaming the audience–whether in the matter of Evangelical Christians representing Christianity, or writers like Ms. Marcotte representing feminism–is a cheap dodge, and a way to avoid dealing with one’s own inactivity when these people speak as loudly as they do, then avoid taking responsibility for that inactivity later by blaming the audience instead of speaking louder.

                • Kirsten (in MT) says:

                  What you are arguing against is something different from what Lisa stated. Actually, what Lisa said of Amanda that “she collectively represents a group (feminists)”. That is simply not true.

                  Amanda represents herself as a feminist. She may also represent SOME feminists who choose to be represented by her. She does NOT collectively represent feminists as a group.

                  • This is really not how group identity works no matter how much you want it to. Especially entirely voluntary group membership such as feminism.

              • “No, she doesn’t. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t try and force your stereotypes on me.”

                Lisa didn’t force any stereotype on you. it’s not about you, is it? You are one feminist, not “feminists”. Amanda represents feminist enough to make a living at posting articles in well-known publications as a feminist.

          • “One last thing, Lisa. In the best of all possible worlds, what do you see as a positive outcome of posting this particular piece?”
            “Lisa, I simply don’t see how posting this email has helped in the quest for collective understanding.”
            “I just don’t agree that posts such as this one shine any light on the goodness of men (by shining a light on the “badness” of one specific woman?)”

            Why? A bad example could be considered as good as a good example. Something that one should not do.

            Surely a debate is better if the debaters are debating in good will. I would say if that isn’t the case than any arguments or debates will tend to hinder the quest for collective understanding rather than advance it. In this case it makes sense to call out those who aren’t arguing honestly or are hypocritical. Namely Amanda Marcotte.

            “Also, please be aware that you do not know my feelings about the personal attacks on Tom Matlack”

            Then spend your time criticizing the feminists who criticized him. I would say it would be more effective for you to criticize feminists for their personal attacks on Tom then critique TGMP for this article. You would be in a better position due to your sympathy for their worldview than you are here. I can’t help feeling that the only reason your arguing about this article is that it is a feminist being attacked. This charge however could not be levelled at you if you were disagreeing with feminists since you are one. So why spend time criticizing this article?

            • Michael Rowe says:

              The irony of “Ms. Mo” wailing about this “attacks” on Amanda Marcotte (which basically amount to a series of documented facts, and Ms. Marcotte’s own quotes on the Duke lacrosse scandal) after her dead silence on the drubbing Tom Matlack took for having the temerity to author a first-person piece on his own experience as a man, on his own website) is priceless, as is the caveat that no one knows her “personal feelings.”
              Well, there’s a reason for that.

              We all, however, know her “personal feelings” on this piece, because something made her want to keep quiet whenTom Matlack was raked over the coals here and on Twitter, but shout to the rooftops about this piece, and these alleged “personal attacks” on Ms. Marcotte.

              The stench of dishonesty, hypocrisy, manipulation, and agenda-driving surrounding this entire issue defies description. And honestly, people, if you’re going to use handles, or pseudonyms, shut up about other people not using their real names.

      • Well what do you knonw 3 hr. later and it still here play as day.

        But speaking of that there are a good number of people who have experiences who commented on stuff posted by feminists here that suddenly vanished (I don’t know if Marcotte was involved in this but I know Hugo had a bit of a rep for it).

    • Jeff

      I’m not sure which you are objecting to – the Anonymity – Usual Suspects – or the future of GMP.

      I’ll address anonymity first. You may note I use a Nome De Plume. I do so because I am deliberately keeping one area of my life disperate from another. I have very good reasons to do so, primarily because I have suffered high Level Cyber Harassment, including death threats for having reported facts via the net.

      I also note that a certain Twitter #Tag has been doing the rounds #mensaythingstome which was part of a viral campaign which highlighted Hate Speech and Harassment of certain Feminist Bloggers by such routes as email and messaging services. Given that there is a well known and extraordinarily well developed pattern of cyber harassment, I wonder why you would see some one person posting anonymously as an issue? Is it only certain people who are to be seen as rational in preventing unwarranted and even warranted cyber abuse?

      I am aware of too many people, myself included, who have been subjected to such cyber abuse and know all too well how distressing it can be. Are you of the view that people should not take reasonable and rational steps to address personal security and welfare on line?

      If you should be of that view, you actually are out of step with the advice of such groups as the FBI and Law Enforcement Agencies world wide.

      Usual Suspects – such an interesting term, linked in fact to poor quality law enforcement and institutional discrimination. I’m sorry to see that such views are still alive and seen as a cultural norm and acceptable.

      I suspect the phrase is being used as “Shamming Language” and as a Thought Terminating Cliché so as to make light of matters and individual experiences. I do find that odd given that you report yourself publicly as “Feminist.” The people who use that term most publicly and who I am proud to associate with would never be so lax and dismissive as yourself.

      As for the Future of GMP, I believe many are wondering about that. Some wish to Prophesy Doom And Gloom. Others see a different future. Some are actively working to create a future and build in ways that others seem to object to.

      So just wondering – could you clarify what you mean when you say;

      “An anonymous hit piece with the usual suspects piling on. This is really what you want your “project” to be about?”

      Who is hitting who and for what reasons?

      I have noted in you twitter archive that you seem unhappy with what you GMP when you say

      “I wish I could say that this implosion surprised me, but @goodmenproject has promoted sketchy definitions of “good men” for a while now.”
      http://twitter.com/#!/jfpbookworm/status/148124632837406720

      I have looked for any contributions by yourself to GMP, but not been able to find any. It’s not clear if you have in fact been clear in your concerns and addressed them, or if you have simply kept them to yourself seeking a self fulfilling prophecy of your own?

      So, could you provide a none sketchy definition of “good men” so that we can all understand where you are coming from?

      I’m sure that GMP would also love to see any contributions you would like to make as to the definition of “good men” so that others can learn for you.

  46. I have to say that I was unfamiliar with a great deal until this post. There is a US centric nature of this site that leaves others outside the US at a marked disadvantage.

    In light of the addition info provided here, I have to say that It is clearer than ever that there is a massive back catalogue behind Twittergate – and Ms Marcotte is even more exploitive than she first appeared.

    Her use of the Tag Question – “AmandaMarcotte: Imagining the POV of someone you’re in conflict with is bare minimum of being a good person, yes.” – statement turned into an integrative – was odd and quite out of place.

    That I am now aware of her own past conduct – it is not odd – It’s Duplicitous to a staggering degree.

    Tom I salute you for your reserve under gross provocation!

    I am well known for being pernickety over the use of words, semantics and how words are used to frame other’s view points and perceptions. I had considered a full deconstruction of her Piece “As Friends and As Equals”.

    Now I know I don’t need to – her banner shows that she flies under false colours and is no friend and does not consider equality. It is evident that notoriety is more important than content or subject.

    Ms Marcotte should note “Mortality is Short, Internet Immortality Shorter” – to that I add “Internet Infamy Is Its Own Reward.”.

  47. Some say the feminist attitude to justice for men is “guilty until proven innocent” but Marcotte proves that it is really “guilty until proven female”. I’ve seen feminists unironically talk about how “acquitted rapists” have “got off too easy” because their punishment (yes they were punished despite being proven innocent) was too light.

    In fact I’ve often wondered if the feminist attack on civil rights of men in cases where they are charged with attacking a woman somehow, was not a precursor to the attack on civil rights represented by terrorist laws.

    • Bingo!

    • Kirsten (in MT) says:

      Sorry, but there isn’t a single “the feminist attitude”. Generalization FAIL. Let’s take the Duke case as an example. Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy used her Fox News website column as well as the http://www.ifeminists.com website to advocate on behalf of the falsely accused men numerous times during the legal proceedings and during the aftermath.

      • That,s why she works on Fox news and not MSNBC.

      • And that’s why real feminists say Wendy McElroy isn’t one.
        That and working for Fox news obviously.

        She was also the only person claiming to be a feminist I could ever find who didn’t support the Violence Against Women Act (an act which discriminated against men by law).

        I used to comment there and I am familiar with her stuff, have a few of her books. Might even have a signed copy of one…. but yeah, not really a feminist. You can point to a handful of people who are dissident feminists but they are always kicked out of the movement. Most quit even calling themselves feminist. Does Wendy still do so?

        As for your own FAIL if feminist don’t have anything in common then why would you call yourself one? Shall we call that a common sense fail?

        • Kirsten (in MT) says:

          Your characterization of “real feminists” to exclude individualist feminists is ignorant of history. The individualist feminist tradition goes back to the 19th century anti-slavery movement and continued on into the 20th century. See Gertrude B. Kelly and Voltairine De Cleyre, for just a couple of many more historical examples. Today individualist feminists preserve much of the original character of the feminist movement that other types of feminism have in many ways moved away from. If you don’t think that’s a good reason to call myself a feminist, that’s your own failure.

          You cannot get “kicked out” of the feminist movement. This is also just plain ignorant. Nobody owns or is in charge of the feminist movement.

          And if Wendy is the only person you are aware of who has claimed to be a feminist who has opposed VAWA, then that is again your own ignorance at work. Fortunately, we have the internet now, and that is easily corrected if you choose to use it.

          The Independent Women’s Forum (conservative feminists) has at least one article in opposition to VAWA on their website, filed under the category Feminism. The late Joan Kennedy Taylor (libertarian feminist) has written against VAWA has published feminist opposition to VAWA in her role as national coordinator of the Association of Libertarian Feminists. Christina Hoff Sommers (who describes herself as an equity feminist) has publicly opposed VAWA, including in at least one of her books. And so on.

          There are many others who don’t fit with your stereotype. You just have to do a little homework to challenge your own prejudice. Possibly the reason you haven’t noticed any feminists other than Wendy McElroy speaking out on VAWA and other similar issues is that you have decided that anyone whose behavior doesn’t meet your collectivist idea of what constitutes feminism isn’t a “real feminist”. A little chicken and egg issue there. This is a selective observation problem on your part- not a lack of diversity of thought in the feminist movement.

          • Plus, I get so sick and tired of the generalizations because they get us nowhere. Can we not make this about freaking feminism but about Marcotte’s character? She is a feminist, but this outright denial to believe the accused could be innocent is part of HER character and not every single woman who is a feminist.

      • “Sorry, but there isn’t a single “the feminist attitude”.”

        In which case there is no feminism.

        • Kirsten (in MT) says:

          What a silly thing to say. 🙂 I suppose there’s no Christianity, Judaism, or Islam either?

          • What a silly thing to say, completely ignorant of the history of Christianity. The Church and various churches most certainly has insisted on a set of common beliefs, called the creeds – that’s the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican Churches – the overwhelming majority of Christians – and insisted that acceptance of those core beliefs was necessary to being in full communion with all other Christians. If you dissented you either won people over to your interpretation or were expelled as a heretic. That’s what feminism fails to do and why it gets tarred with accusations of gender bigotry, transphobia and homophobia – because feminism as a whole has no whole and as a whole fails to reject those bigotries.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        Well said. But unfortunately the extreme feminists, such as Mme Marcotte, are either more common, vocal, or afforded more of a voice.

  48. Ironic how she will make fun of guys with poor social skills and call the “nice Guys TM.”

    Well, since we are going to make things cute for “teh interwebz” lets call some people “Bully’s TM.”

  49. ….when that incident got brought up in the threads-she responded by calling the poster a “creep.”

  50. Great article RF.

    Once again we see the sky-high benchmark for good behavior that feminists call for is reserved exclusively for men, rarely for women and never for feminists themselves who set the rules for “good” conduct.

  51. Yeah that did come to mind when I read that tweet from AM to Tom.

    (And also if I’m not mistaken didn’t AM, upon learning of the innocence of those kids, write one last post declaring she was done with the issue, deleted all previous posts on the issue, and then just went silent about the whole thing? You would think that a good person would at least be able to admit to being wrong instead of just dropping from the conversation after being so loud in calling for blood…..)

Speak Your Mind

*