Patriarchy Messes With All of Us

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Sasha Pixlee

Sasha was born in the office of a homeopath/chiropractor and was raised Mormon (the second Whitest religion in the world, after Scientology). He reasoned his way out of his intellectually disadvantaged upbringing and has become passionate about feminism, LGBT equality and anti-racism as a reaction against the culture in which he was raised. He likes justice, American whiskies, British gins, and hiding in his west coast liberal fantasyland. Find him at morethanmen.org

Comments

  1. David Byron says:

    Very hard to figure out what that was about. I don’t understand why “girly” LEGO is bad, and GMP appears to have a bunch of stuff on the transgender tag. The web site it came from has a slightly different version of the article that frankly doesn’t make any more sense. I get the impression he is a male feminist of the Hugo type, meaning more interested in sucking up to female feminists and not much interested in actual equality or issues. So.. I am going to guess he is saying it is a shame that GMP isn’t rabidly pro-feminist any more? And he wants Amanda Marcotte to write more here.

    He links to this Marcotte piece.
    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/solution-mra-problems-more-feminism/

    Hilariously awful piece of political writing I thought. Newbie MRAs should be sent there to cut their teeth. Sort of like a bunny slope for learning to ski, only for learning how to spot daft feminist arguments. OTOH it did get 500+ comments so there’s that.

    ……come on Sasha, tell us what you are REALLY thinking. You can’t be that incoherent. Sounds like you were trying to avoid saying what you really wanted to here. Let it all out.

    • I’ve managed to be both incoherent AND completely reveal the super-secret motivation for my feminism? I’m GOOD…

      • Julie Gillis says:

        You are amazing…(reaches for cigarette)…..;)

      • David Byron says:

        Yeah that came across about 40% more insulting that I was aiming for. I was going for just needling you a bit and it came across as snide. Sorry.

        But yeah I have this concept that male feminists go one of two ways. Either they join up thinking feminism is about equality and so they never quite fit in right, or else they are guys who just love protecting women and they are in it to take a whack at other guys for being misogynists and bask in the presence of a lot of hot women (although they are NOT in it to get chicks oddly). Broadly speaking you can tell the latter because they don’t want to call themselves “feminist” but come up with some other phrase. It’s as if they want to atone for “patriarchy” or something.

        I actually don’t have a problem with people who like hot girls, like protecting people, or dislike inequalities, but I do have a problem with the bullying and shaming attacks on men and I also think it’s creepy that in a so-called gender equality movement people can feel their gender is so devalued that they don’t deserve to be an equal part of it and instead are “allies”.

        But I was serious about wondering what you were holding back on.

        • Joanna Schroeder says:

          I’m glad you noted that it came out way more insulting, because I was sorta shocked at the intensity you had going there…

          But I do wonder too what’s wrong with girlie Legos. I am an expert in all things Lego and I think ti’s weird that Legos are so boy-interest-aimed.

          I think we put too much mojo on shit for kids. So a girl likes pink? Who cares? She likes pink, it’s a color. Let’s not shame her for wanting pink any more than we’d shame her for wanting blue. It’s all shame. If she wants Barbie-ish Legos, who cares? No more shame in that than wanting Harry Potter Legos. The only shame in Legos is the Prince of Persia series. That was just beyond weird.

          I do agree with this (below), but I don’t understand what exactly the author is saying about the Trans pieces here…

          “When you have a this-or-that paradigm you inevitably end up with some sense of an adversarial relationship between the two groups. If you are married so strongly to the idea that you have men and you have women and they they are somehow importantly different, you’re creating a conflict. You are laying the foundation for the woman-as-emasculating-nag stereotype and the man-as-insensitive-buffoon role.”

          • Spidaman3 says:

            I like to floss in pink

          • Pretending there are no differences between men and women is just denialism. We can honor and respect these differences without demanding them of each other.

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            On the girly lego front:

            Lego is boy oriented? Does this come from an assumption that girls don’t like castles and star wars? I can’t help but feel that designating a specific line of “female” lego could contribute to unhelpful definitions of femininity (and masculinity).

            As for colour, its not the pink that put me off, its the tone. All those pastel shades are really nauseating. My hypothetical future kids deserve better.

  2. David — It’s an ad. Times are tough. Fortunately, Sasha has agreed to have our baby, just to prove once and for all that there is no validity at all to the alleged “difference” of a a “purportedly male” experience.

  3. There is NOTHING wrong with boys playing with Spongebob Squarepants and Castle LEGOs. I think that’s where this is op piece went sideways. If you’re being ironic, it didn’t work. If you weren’t, then you’re not listening to your own ideas that men and women should have no limits based on gender.

  4. Sasha: “In retrospect it seems obvious that TGMP has been obsessed with masculinity from the start. They are trying to redefine it, and that’s a step in the right direction to be sure, but they are still obsessed with retaining it. ”

    How is giving men a supportive forum to talk about their problems and struggles where other areas would either deride or blame them for their problems retaining masculinity?

    Or are you of the mind that men who talk about their problems but don’t do so in accordance to your standards of addressing male priveledge and the like are retaining masculinity and obsessed over it?

    In which case, there’s no convincing you.

    I came here to share my story of abuse at the hands of both genders. Unfortunatly, in your world, the abuse I got at the hands of females and girls doesn’t count. Right? Since I’m priveldged, all pain doesn’t matter. Right?

  5. I think the bigger question is why Sasha seems to believe that the GMP is all about preserving some specific type of masculinity. There are dozens of articles and sections on here that talk about things that are completely against the stereotypical image of what “masculinity” is.

    Sasha mentions articles about sports…well some men really do like sports and want to talk about sports. Me, I don’t care much about sports and I love good clothes and fashion. If Lisa wants I’ll be glad to contribute articles on clothes and fashion (I also feel like there are a lot of places for that already.) Should they not write about sports because “sports” happens to fall in line with a “stereotypical vision of masculinity?” We also have a lot of men who want to talk about being dads, better husbands, military experiences, being victimized and abused, loneliness, fear, compassion, love, and things they regret having done. Many of these things are completely against the supposed ‘stereotypical’ image of masculinity. As far as not having enough transgendered articles, well we could use more of those and we will welcome them as more transgendered men come forward and share their stories. It has nothing to do with subscribing to a preconceived notion of ‘masculinity.’

    What’s more is I think most of the men here would agree that all of those things discussed are components of being ‘masculine.’ Most men I know don’t describe being masculine in terms of the stereotypical “Masculine man.” When my friends and I talk about masculinity we talk about having values and principles, and living and acting by those principles, being genuine and authentic, being strong willed and assertive about one’s wants, needs, hopes, and ambitions whatever they may be. We talk about masculine as taking care of oneself intellectually and physically. Really, I think your definition of “masculinity” that is outdated.

    The key difference here is also a matter of approach. Most of my feminist friends have a similar approach that sums up as follows (mind you this is my interpretation and experience): if we don’t like something yell, if we’re offended, scream, if man says something that you don’t like because he doesn’t know anything about gender studies and only has his own “heteronormative” background he’s a “chauvinist,” they pat each other on the back in triumph when the man who was asking a question slinks away properly ‘silenced’ and then later on ask “Why don’t men listen to us? Why do you guys think we’re all man-haters.”

    I get it; you want to make people break out of their comfort zones. Loud catches attention. The problem is everyone is loud these days. The pro-choice group is loud, the pro-life group is loud, environmentalists are loud, gay-rights advocates are loud; there are a million advocacy groups, and “isms” out there and they get so loud that no one can hear over the noise so they just stop listening to all of them.

    The approach here (and the approach I take) is different. We’re opening up dialogue and working to expand people’s comfort zones. We open up small ideas little by little. Forcing someone out of his or her comfort zone is uncomfortable. So they need coaxing. They need to be helped and guided gently. So we start small, we open up discussion so people have an outlet, we start to talk about what masculinity is and the definition expands – “Wait you mean I can be masculine and be a stay at home dad, pay attention to fashion, or be homosexual? ” The definition will continue to expand until the word no longer means what it used to…then what’s the use of the word? You may as well get rid of it entirely?

    Personally, I really like the word “masculinity.” It’s such a great word. It sounds like it describes someone who is a rock. Someone you can depend on. Someone who has left their childish ways behind. Someone that you can look up to.

  6. Here’s the deal:

    The theory of patriarchy is a tautological argument: patriarchy is used to describe the state of the world, and the evidence used to “prove” the existence of patriarchy is…the state of the world. It’s just circular reasoning parading as an actual theory.

    Other arguments that are based on tautologies include most major religions and conspiracy theories.

    When someone has bought into the idea of “the patriarchy” they are actually closing their mind to important avenues of social science inquiry.

    The truth of the matter is that “patriarchy” may not exist at all. Consider: if you examined only titles, you would come to believe that the United Kingdom is run by Elizabeth II, as she holds both the title of Queen and Chief of State. Yet even the most cursory examination of the actual goings on will tell you that, at present, David Cameron probably yields a great deal more power.

    Similarly, if you are to examine the population of corporate board members and holders of political office, you could easily come to the conclusion that the US is run by men. Yet if you examine the homeless and incarcerated populations, you could easily reach the conclusion that women actually hold all the privilege in the US.

    The theory of the patriarchy is unhelpful at best, and potentially disastrous if ever used as a basis for public policy. The good news is, at least it doesn’t get traction outside of “Gender Studies.”

    • Posting Ragardless says:

      “The good news is, at least it doesn’t get traction outside of “Gender Studies.”

      The religion does reach outside g/s, into the media, the legal system, into gov….

    • True and sad Mike. Thing is there are certainly patriarchal forces at work. However for some odd reason the fact that these forces favor a small portion of men leads to the entire system being named after something that is associated with men in general?

      If the folks that are so hell bent on calling this system a patriarchy would realize that they wouldn’t have to worry about having to say that they aren’t accusing all men of being patriarchs. And of course there is the lip servicing catchphrase “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” which often comes off as “(Okay Okay Okay) Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (there I acknowledged you, happy now?)”.

      Similarly, if you are to examine the population of corporate board members and holders of political office, you could easily come to the conclusion that the US is run by men. Yet if you examine the homeless and incarcerated populations, you could easily reach the conclusion that women actually hold all the privilege in the US.
      I wouldn’t that women hold all the privilege but they hold a great deal more than a lot of people are willing to admit. That is of course they are willing to admit any of it in the first place.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        THis is why I like the term kyriarchy, a word coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza. It’s much more about class structures and intersections of oppressions. Less about male or female and more about how systems of power shift and people try to keep their place and not lose power, all while having to keep other people down.

        Some great quotes from that piece, “And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom – here’s my advice: don’t bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn.”
        “When you witness woman trying to dominate, define, outline the “movement” or even what an ally should be – that’s the kyriarchal ethos strong at work. “

        • Yes I do think that word is more fitting than claiming to be against all oppressions but then naming the entire system (which is made up of several oppressions) for the numerical minority of one of the many groups of people that make up the population.

        • i don't believe you says:

          Very nice word indeed, but good luck popularizing the term.
          I blame the Kyriarchy isn’t nearly as self congratulating and ball busting as I blame the Patriarchy.

        • DavidByron says:

          Nah.
          There is no war but class war.

        • PursuitAce says:

          Julie to the rescue. Very nice. She is the best.
          At the root of everything is fear. You want to fix things, fix that.

      • “And of course there is the lip servicing catchphrase “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” which often comes off as “(Okay Okay Okay) Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (there I acknowledged you, happy now?)”.”

        Hmmmm – it does have that whiff of “Thought Terminating Cliché” about it.

        …. and it’s easier and more accurate, less specific and gender neutral to actually say “Patriarchy Hurts Us All”.

        It even saves a letter and reduces the risk of RSI! P^)

        Some phrases need to come with a Health Warning!

      • Danny,

        I’m not even sure there are “patriarchal” forces at work in our society.

        The biggest problem I have with the theory of “the patriarchy” and its equally flawed cousin “kyriarchy” is that it imputes the oppressor/oppressed framework without first proving that this framework is truly the best model for describing existing societal outcomes.

        For example, it has been demonstrated by many economists that, as early as the 1980s, the entire male-female wage gap could be explained by the decision to have children: women who remain childless usually out-earn their male counterparts.

        At first blush this seems to suggest that there is privilege running against women: they are penalized for having children. Yet other data confounds this outcome. Near universally, men are actually found to spend MORE time at work after the birth of a child (likely because they fear losing their jobs more now that they have a family to support). The same is not true of women (again, in the aggregate, individuals may vary). This can be verified by the BLS American Time Usage Survey.

        So, if having a child causes men to work more, but does not have the same effect on women, and women who never have children out-earn their male counterparts, we must wonder if companies that pay men-with-children more than women-with-children are actually discriminating, or if they are genuinely responding to differences in post-child work behavior (additionally, there is the question of why men without children do not earn at the level of their childless female counterparts, suggesting an anti-male bias, but that can be investigated another day).

        A similar problem arose in the Berkeley Gender Bias lawsuit that is now used in many statistics textbooks as a demonstration of Simpson’s Paradox: by simply looking at admissions info, without bothering to do any in-depth analysis, it was alleged that UC Berkeley had an anti-female bias in graduate student admissions during the 1970s. What came out at trial was that the female applicants were all applying for the same handful of departments (mostly humanities), resulting in a larger rejection rate for women than for men. There was no actual bias: the choice of women to apply only to a handful of departments created the outcome (there was actually a pro-female bias in admissions when the physics and mathematics departments were analyzed).

        All of this analysis, the relevant statistics, etc. is completely ignored if you just throw up your hands in advance and claim (without proof) “Well, somebody must be oppressed and someone must be the oppressor because that’s how the world works!”

        The fact of the matter is, much of what gets attributed to “the patriarchy” can probably be explained through individual choice. Until those who argue that “the patriarchy” is the best model for analyzing society step up and prove how much of the world can actually be explained through this model, there is little reason to give it credence.

        • At first blush this seems to suggest that there is privilege running against women: they are penalized for having children. Yet other data confounds this outcome. Near universally, men are actually found to spend MORE time at work after the birth of a child (likely because they fear losing their jobs more now that they have a family to support). The same is not true of women (again, in the aggregate, individuals may vary). This can be verified by the BLS American Time Usage Survey.
          I’ll agree this is a good example of a very major distinction that needs to be made when looking at these things. And it really does bother me when someone chimes off that 25 cent difference as if the entire gap exists only because of sexism against women.

          However when it comes to things like hiring biases there is still the fact of things like hiring managers picking men over women for the sole thought of, “she might have a child and leave us hanging”. Now believe me when I say that I think that employers are put in a tough spot (especially ones that are small businesses that really can’t afford to be minus a person for several months) when hiring but at the same time I don’t think its right to just blanketly dismiss a woman applicant just because she might have a baby.

          • Danny,

            I completely agree that if a hiring manager is making a decision not to hire a woman because “she might have a kid” is totally unacceptable. Ideally it should also be unacceptable to the people running the business because it needlessly limits the pool of acceptable applicants so the the business may no longer have access to needed talent.

            But before we can get this far, we need to ask ourselves: is this even a problem?

            Recently, it has been reported that childless urban women in their twenties are significantly out-earning their male counterparts (estimates range from 8-10% more). They also face a significantly lower unemployment rate (~13% vs ~16%) .

            This is the group that is facing the brunt of hiring decisions: they are freshly out of school, and among this group women are outperforming men in both significant categories.

            This reflects different choices made by young men and women: specifically women are attending and graduating from college in greater numbers. It is no surprise that the population with the better education faces better earnings and job prospects (Gary Becker, an economist, wrote about this a few months back).

            And this is my point: the best model to describe the current workforce experience of people in their twenties is one where women are choosing to go to college, and men are not, and this is paying off for women. There is no oppressor, there is no oppressee.

            The idea of “the patriarchy” simply cannot capture this reality. It is based on the presumption of a “dominance” type relationship that is likely inaccurate and unable to describe the actual experiences of Americans today.

            • And this is my point: the best model to describe the current workforce experience of people in their twenties is one where women are choosing to go to college, and men are not, and this is paying off for women. There is no oppressor, there is no oppressee.
              I can dig that. And you also give good reason to why this “End of Men” bit is exaggeration. Demoralized perhaps, but not coming to an end.

              The idea of “the patriarchy” simply cannot capture this reality. It is based on the presumption of a “dominance” type relationship that is likely inaccurate and unable to describe the actual experiences of Americans today.
              Sometimes I think its specifically designed to not capture such parts of reality. About the only time I’ll hear what you say here about emplyment and educaiton is buried under the complaint that “despite making such great strides women still only have _____”. It allows them to ignore the fact that things are actually in their favor while complaining about the things that aren’t.

            • I agree on all fronts. If feminist would take time to differentiate the notion Patrarchy from what seems to be old fashion pig headed chauvinism there wouldn’t be such a backlash on TGMP.

  7. Why do I cling to it? Because it’s been armor to me and a moral compass in tougher times. My own authentic self or whatever isn’t always great (or even good), but I count my personal failings as failings of my masculinity, of my being. Being true to yourself is nonsense; being good is the only thing that matters.

    I’m not sure how many articles you think there ought to be on transgender issues. It’s a subject which directly affects a tiny minority of us. I’m not at all opposed to there being more but, sorry, it’s just not very important to me compared to articles on being honest or courageous or dealing with loss or being a good father or husband or ally to women.

    And, no, we’re really not all exceptional at all. We’re all just people, not special or beautiful snowflakes or whatever. Just people. We have enormous value, of course, but that hardly makes us unique or original.

  8. Gender role has a long history of success as a survival strategy for humans. You see we are over 7 billion now. Masculinity has been the magic talisman which allowed us to thrive.

    • Rapses – I know you have a thing about Evolution and views that are close to Desmond Morris – him of the magic talisman!

      I would recommend (again) that you read “The Descent of Woman: The Classic Study of Evolution” by Elaine Morgan. It is rather an eye opener! P^)

      Page 25 is my favourite – discussing Mrs heavily pregnant Ape-man and her life on the savannah. It’s funny what she turned into most often as evolution grinds forward. As Elaine Morgan points out, the thing Mrs heavily pregnant Ape-man turned into most often was a leopard’s dinner. Mr Ape-man and his Talisman had already run away. P^)

  9. John Sctoll says:

    The problem with the patriarchy is that it is another word that modern feminists have co-oped and changed the definition of to suit their needs. When something doesn’t fit into the current definition of the patriarchy then they change the definition again. Kinda reminds of of the other sacrament in modern feminism, Domestic Violence. It went from physical violence , to emotion violence to ‘calling someone names’ to ‘I am afraid of him, he has never done anything to hurt me, but I am afraid’. Same with patriarchy, apparantly it is the patriarchy that has caused society to pour tons of money to womens health care even though they live on avg 7 years longer than men.

    Yes men you have the privilege of dying 7 years sooner. Hope you are enjoying your priv but of course since you can’t actually see your priv, you actually can’t enjoy it while you are dead.

    BTW, I have read some ‘stat’s / reports that state that womens health is actually worse because of the formulate sickdays divided by days alive and since women live longer they have more sick days. Of course even a little thought put into that should realize that being sick and alive is better than being dead (some exceptions of course)

    • Agreed. If the author wants to “cut the crap,” he can start by dropping the loaded and dishonest term “patriarchy” when describing our culture, and instead talk about gender roles and expectations.

      He could also reconsider why he’s complaining about those awful Project folks who defend masculinity as something good and worthwhile, and reconsider why he and his allies so often treat it as something evil and worthless. How about a reasonable analysis of both good AND points, hmm? That would be a good way to “cut the crap.”

  10. Posting Ragardless says:

    I’m not sure that you can be a skeptic and follow a faith based ideology at the same time. I think that the atheist movement lost a lot of credibility by being co-opted by feminists. Also, Amanda Marcotte making false assertions, misscharacterizing and telling out right lies about us might always be a good thing for you, but that doesn’t mean that its really always a good thing.

  11. Posting Ragardless says:

    Sasha, there is an over lap of male / female brains of 10%- 25%. Society has to acknowledge this but making acknowledging that there are a differences a taboo isn’t the way to go about it.

    As for “Patriarchy being about controlling women”. The suppression of female sexuality is something that women do women http://www.femininebeauty.info/suppression.pdf .

    There is a study that found that religions have mainly female support and the men that are more likely to be involved tend to be less masculine and typical examples of men, I think that’s interesting because here we again with feminism, being told how pure and agancyless women are and how naughty men are by the same people that dominate religions, which tell us a variation of the same thing. Religions also carry the female construct of oppressing female sexuality, now that society has advanced with technology and spacial programs to the point that women are less reliant on men, women are freeing themselves from the sexual shame and oppression that they themselves constructed in the past.

    Yet the whole thing is projected onto men and patriarchy, even though the source is largely women!

  12. I read this piece and was wondering why it was here? – so I clicked the links and read the Original[sic] piece it was derived from, and it sort of became clearer.

    So GMP is not as others think it should be? – and so they are providing Friendly(?), Helpful(?) Constructive Criticism(?) to help the wayward child back onto the straight and narrow!

    “In retrospect it seems obvious that TGMP has been obsessed with masculinity from the start.”

    In retrospect? It seems obvious? Obviously Retrospective to who?

    ” “The Good Men Project is a glimpse of what enlightened masculinity might look like in the 21st century,” the press raved when we launched. Finally, “a cerebral, new media alternative” to glossy men’s magazines. In fact, The Good Men Project is not so much a magazine as a social movement. We are fostering a national discussion centered around modern manhood and the question, “What does it mean to be a good man”?”
    http://goodmenproject.com/about/

    Not sure where and what you have been looking at, but It seems that you missed reading the very large print and cooking instructions on The Tin! If you have been cooking up some other recipe, it says more about your processed views, and not The Organic Label that has been there all along.

    I was stuck by your Paraphrasing “Being a Dude Is a Good Thing” – “Girls are just different from men and should stop being such nagging bitches.”

    This may help you in future! “par·a·phrase – noun – a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.”

    You may find it helpful to look up “allusion” too – so that in future you do not confuse the two terms and know how to use them correctly. As an editor, one would expect you to be able to do that, wouldn’t one?P^/

    You seem to have an issue with content – and with “Tags” – both of which are incorrectly stated. You also see discussion and responses to dialogue as “Strawman” – meaning the Straw Man Fallacy, one where incorrect assertions are made to Derail and Alter Direction. You may benefit from checking how to use that term too. Straw Men often end up alone in fields, as as the most prominent thing in the flat desolated landscape created by fallacy, they are vulnerable when lightening strikes, and are so often found by the flames that result ! P^/

    Now what was that, dear character from Oz and companion of Dorothy, about Paraphrasing and claims on numbers of articles Tagged on specific issues?

    Ca-Boom! P^)

    It seems that some have a real issue with a “Project” that is about dialogue and exploration rather than lectures and poor quality pedagogy. I have noted that some who do lecture believe that people taking part in the project are idiotic, lack the capacity to asses rationally, and as such fail to read and consider other points of view.

    I wonder if you see any issues with opening a piece with a supposedly Rhetorical Question linked to a source that is known to thrive on Systemic Bias – around gender, race, education, language and so many other Binaries? P^/

    How about those who use the term “Privilege” as a Synonym of Cooties? They so often refuse and are incapable of considering their own “Privilege” and how it manifests as a choleric plague upon all others.

    I’m sure that if the Founders of GMP had wanted a cyber lecture hall, that is what they would have built. Instead it seems they believed in having a talking shop – a sort of wilderness camp-fire for story telling after hard days trekking in the wildness created by Post Modern Sophisticated Cyber Lecture Tourists!

    There is also that tiresome issue of having to swallow a Thesaurus and Chew upon others Lexicons to be even given permission to speak.

    I don’t see any sign on the Front Door of GMP which says people shall be silent until they have adopted other’s views, jargon and blinders, and adopted a whole Dictionary, adopted buzz words as well as becoming experts in the uses of “Terms Of Art” – and then having to deal with the artists who can’t keep their own picture frames straight – as they shift from Impressionist to abstract – and then insist they have a valid and life like portrait of others – in the style of Piccaso – after he had been drinking – “Heavily”!

    I see no notice on the front door whcih says only The Privileged may enter and join in – else sit down shut up and be lectured at!

    However, I have seen quite a few who have made one old saying very accurate. “All Guests Bring Joy. Some when they arrive and others when they leave.”.

    As someone who has been dealing with Equality for over 30 years, I am actually impressed with GMP and what is has set out to do. I may not always be impressed with content, but it is nice to know that saying so and even being able to respond and say why is openly allowed – and even welcomed.

    Some say things that are controversial, and they are even allowed to present evidence and provide many ways to view the world and how man is made manifest within it. Of course, there are those who do not consider such evidence and ideas as worthy of consideration – as they have a life time association with their intimate friend Picasso – and show all the hallmarks of Co-dependency.

    At GMP there is that aspect of exploration – looking about and figuring out the road ahead. Some love their well trodden tracks that have been crafted into Multi-directional Highways[sic] and Free-ways[sic] that are so clogged with gas guzzlers there is no air to breath. The Urban and Urbane is how some choose to exist.

    For others, it’s a choice to see if there is not a better way than spending hours on a clogged Freeway[sic] commuting[sic] from one soullessly sophisticated point of view to another[sic][sic][sic].

    That word “Project” scares the pants and panties off so many! Open Roads – Open Skies – and fascinating people to encounter along the way. Stories to be found from people with real lives and points of view that are not limited by lexicon, Urbane points of view at concrete walls and a freedom of spirit and mind that treats all people as equal.

    There are even those who show the courtesy of telling other’s stories because they are voices that are incarcerated by other’s absolute binaries. It’s about everyone having a voice and their story told – free from Lexcion – free from Dogma – and free from association with drunken Artists with a blueness of sight and their Co-dependents.

    Forgive me if I have to make one observation! “Why don’t we all try and cut that shit out?”

    Sage words – and at GMP they go with “Practice What You Preach!” and “Get With The Project!”. P^)

    • M.H., to quote Slim Pickins from ‘Blazing Saddels’ “God dang, you use your mouth prettier than a $10 whore”. Seriously, this is just another ‘hit and run’ attack from a Hugo wannabe that this site seems to be taking since Lisa Hickey stood up to the idealouges (Feministas) who tried to ‘highjack’this site recently. I just love to hear about my “male privilage”. Let’s see , after 36 years or so in construction I have, a replacement knee, screws and a plate holding my right arm togeather, no cartalige left in my right wrist., torn rotator cuff in my left shoulder. You want to talk about spinal disc degeneration? I’m 1 1/2 ” shorter than when I graduated high school. Please stop me and let me know when I get to the “Male Privilage ” part of my life.

  13. I agree completely. I also agree with the first paragraph which is present in the original article but has not been reposted on the TGMP.

  14. i don't believe you says:

    Patriarchy was a word invented by women who had the luxury of not having to worry about class or race. This is the world we live in.. Class>Race>Gender. We don’t live in a patriarchy and what you argue about control can just as easily be said of feminism.

    Look at Clariss Thorn’s lack of acceptance in the feminist community for her BDSM sexuality.

    Look at the attack on Tom’s piece by Marcotte et al.

    And look at you describing the GMP with feminism’s favorite man hating buzz word “creepy”

    Spare me the lecturing!

    • “Patriarchy was a word invented by women who had the luxury of not having to worry about class or race. ”

      Sorry but that is wrong! Do you just invent these ideas? P^/

      Patriarchy as a term/word has it’s origins in the English language from the 15th century – Sir Robert Filmer. I think there was little doubt of his sex. His work PATRIARCHA OR THE NATURAL POWER OF KINGS 1680 deals with the Divine Right of Kings – which of course can even be traced trough the Bible!

      The word also has it’s roots in Ancient Greek and the Latin is PATRIARCHA which translates as Patriarch!

      If you can find a citation from an ancient Greek female lexicographer or philosopher showing they made it up, I will happily stand corrected. P^)

      Given the number of Critiques of both Plato’s and Aristotle’s take on PATRIARCHA, a favourite subject in the field, I do think that most feminists agree that the term was not invented by feminists.

      • i don't believe you says:

        That was knee jerk. Be difficult all you want, but at least give SOME respect to the context in which I chose to use the word “invent”. You are much to smart to play the nitpick game. Care to offer a better word for the meaning I wish to convey?

        • @ i don’t believe you “Care to offer a better word for the meaning I wish to convey?”.

          Suborned – seized upon – hijacked – took over – shanghaied – abducted – appropriated – carried off – cozened – diverted – lifted – looted – made off with – misappropriated – pinched – pirated – plagiarised – plundered – poached – purloined – ran off with – sacked – snitched – spirited away – swiped – took – walked off with. P^)

          Those any use in relation to the context you wish to portray?

          I does not mean I agree with them, just providing a few alternatives as requested.

          My personal choice, should I get into complex discussions on Patriarchy would be “Appropriated” as it allows it to be used positively where positive aspects apply and then used as “Misappropriated” for the negative.

          http://www.dictionary.com

          • i don't believe you says:

            Thank you. Misappropriated is much better, but still not the exact sentiment I’m looking for. Hmm.

            • @ i don’t believe you – I do think that “Suborned” is the closest to your ideas.

              Again, it does not mean I agree with you – but it may well play better across many messages and ideas! P^)

            • i don't believe you says:

              I know you don’t agree. You wanna say why?

            • How about “selectively redefined”?

            • i don't believe you says:

              I like that.

            • “selectively redefined”? Too wishy washy and lacking impact! P^/

              What he needs is a nice way to be nasty – so “Suborned”, with all it’s complexity of meaning, is better.

              sub·orn – verb (used with object) – to bribe or induce (someone) unlawfully or secretly to perform some misdeed or to commit a crime.

              Of course there is no “someone” to induce or bribe, so it implies that the people Suborning are is fact inducing and bribing themselves – and that implies delusion or mendacity. Nice reflexive implied insult with plenty of scope for plausible deniability as well -if you should be asked are you making accusations.

              It nicely implies that the patriarchy, which has always been open to corruption, has been corrupted unlawfully and secretly to be used for misdeeds! I do believe that is the idea he wishes to communicate!

              “Patriarchy was a word “Suborned” by women who had the luxury of not having to worry about class or race. ”

              When you look at it as an alternative to the original disputed word “Invented” it does work so much better! P^)

              Again – I don’t agree with the ideas being expressed, just addressing the question on how to do it better!

      • DavidByron says:

        A swing and a miss.
        The feminist use of the word has nothing to do with the historic use.

    • This is the world we live in.. Class>Race>Gender.
      here in the uk, it is class then gender then ‘race’

      • jameseq – that does depend on age and whether you pre or post date the Midwich Cuckoos – AKA Maggie thatchers Children or the Balire Babes – which of course also depends upon political leanings!

        Oh for the old days, and the three day week! P^)

        • MH i take you point as you are older than i am, and have a greater perspective.
          from my vantage(im 36), my perception is that those under 50 or so,
          see generally class then gender then race.

          • @jameseq – so you are a Child of Thatcher! Where did I leave me garlic and wooden stakes! P^)

            Odd how Mrs T promised an end to class – equal opportunity for all no barriers from race – and she was keeping gender because she liked to do the house-wifey bits and keep he male colleges working late into the early hours whilst she made eggs and bacon to keep them going. P^)

            There is no such things as society she declared – and then went potty for a Global Economy and Multinational power brokers who thrive in a global society.

            “class then gender then race.” – I have to say, it does depend on your news media. BBC Vs Sky – Broadsheet vs Daily Mail … and then you have Home Counties Vs The Rest. P^)

  15. I find it interesting that the first paragraph from the original didn’t get printed here.

    In retrospect it seems obvious that TGMP has been obsessed with masculinity from the start. They are trying to redefine it, and that’s a step in the right direction to be sure, but they are still obsessed with retaining it. They hold masculinity close to them like a magical talisman and that means femininity (or anything non-masculine) is the Other.
    This is an incorrect conclusion. The desire to hold onto masculinity does not mean that feminity (and non-masculine) is the Other. At least now with that capital O you use. It only means that this its a way certain people want to label themselves and live and instead of working from the narrow and limiting script that we have for masculinity now this place is trying to open up what that lable includes.

    The problem isn’t the fact that people want to identify as masculine. The problem is that those who want to identify as such are being unfairly limited to what is included in being masculine.

    Why don’t we all try and cut that shit out?
    Its a noble goal to cut out such shit….problem is that’s not what’s going on here. Sure it does happen and I bet some of the people here may have engaged in that behavior and may even still be engaging in it even as they try not to. But plain and simple you are accusing this place of trying to render femininity and anything non-masculine as Other when that is simply not the case.

    We’re subverting our privilege by using the extra attention it gives us to try and wake people up to the problems of privilege.
    A good plan to be sure but frankly there is more to maleness/manhood than privilege. Yeah it would be nice to pretend that maleness/manhood was nothing but an easy street walk down privilege road but as one can plainly see (or at least one who has actually read this place for more than scanning for anti-woman sentiment to complain about while applauding a feminist that opens pieces about MRAs with insults and attacks) there is a lot more to it than that. I really wish people would quit with the idea that petending that privilege is all there is to being male and working on that is THE way to bring equality for all people.

    I’m reading a bit of More Than Men and its looking more and more like the belief of the writer of this peice is that the GMP should just use its space for nothing but going on and on about how men are oh so privileged.

  16. IMHO, the real toxic gender dynamic is ‘men act/women are acted upon’.

    So before you cast aspersions on men who like sports or the silliness of girly lego, perhaps you should spare a moment to consider how often you focus on women as ‘acted upon’ and promote theories that boil down to ‘women are acted upon/men act.’

  17. Marcus Williams says:

    We need to stop thinking about men who care about fashion and women who care about football as exceptional. We are all exceptions.

    Clearly, you don’t mean “exceptional” in the sense of excellence, but in the sense of being exceptions to the general rule or tendencies. The thing is, we can’t all be exceptions in that latter sense, because then there’d be no general rule or tendency to notice deviations from. (Please don’t nitpick the “rule” part of “general rule” – I’m not talking about regulations, but the kinds of patterns we notice and make sense of our world with.)

    To your specific examples of men who like fashion or women who like football – they’re exceptions! That doesn’t mean they’re freaks, or deserving of scorn or shame or oppression or other negative consequences for being outside the (statistical) norm, but they stand out as uncommon because they are less common. I don’t think that kind of exceptionality should be discouraged or punished, but it seems delusional to me to assert that it’s all an illusion, just some conspiratorial power play to give one gender more power over the other.

    Most statements that start “Men are…” or “Women are…” fail if you interpret them as “All men/women, without exception are…”, but that’s hardly ever what people mean. If you interepret them as “Men are more likely than women to…” or “Women or more likely than men to…”, a lot more of them become true, quite often uncontroversially so. For example:

    Men are physically stronger than women.

    Taken to mean that all men are physically stronger than women, it’s of course blatantly untrue, and trivially easy to find counterexamples of weak men and strong women. If I said that around a bunch of feminists, I would expect that to be the interpretation and have my ass handed to me. Taken as a statement about trends, however, and crediting the speaker with some awareness that there are overlapping distributions so that physical strength is not a uniquely or universally male trait, it’s uncontroversially true. Some of the same feminists who might strenuously object to how the statement makes women sound “weak” and therefore lesser humans, will implicitly acknowledge the same truth when they talk about it being rational for women to treat all men as potential rapists because men are stronger.

    So guess what – men like football and women like fashion. Obviously, counterexamples are not hard to find, but if the tendency weren’t true and confirmed everyday by observable behavior around us, “thinking about men who like fashion and women who like football” would be like saying “thinking about men who walk and women who sleep”. That is, truly non-gendered activities, traits, and interests fail to give rise to noticing when someone bucks the usual trend. Sometimes, patterns are just patterns, and not evidence of oppression.

  18. It’s very usefull information that you share over here. I wanna thank you for sharing this and I wanna visit your website more when you’ll keep up the good work and share more posts like these. http://musica.leggiweb.com

Trackbacks

  1. [...] On Monday I wrote a piece about some problems at The Good Men Project. An editor there asked me if I would let them publish a modified version on their site. I agreed, with the requirement that they link to the original post. They did so. [...]

  2. [...] The Good Men Project shared our critique of them with their readers. The commentors there when nuts. Sasha is now a hipster lady. And now you can share your awesomely stupid anti-diversity comments on a Tumblr! [...]

Speak Your Mind