Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband

Guy Code, Hugo Schwyzer writes, attempts to give men a free pass from being emotionally understanding in their relationships.

It was with a familiar sense of frustration that I read Lisa Hickey’s piece on straight men’s views of their wives: “Are Husbands Really Assholes?”  Hickey, who heard from a number of men and women in lasting marriages, paints a grim picture. The husbands report being married to wives who are relentlessly critical and nit-picky. Despite what they universally claim are their best efforts, these men (at least the ones who shared with Hickey) lament that their wives remain perennially dissatisfied. As one husband put it:

Men want to be good husbands but they honestly don’t know how. And the women they truly adore pound them as a result. Rather than talking it through, they ultimately get to the point where they give up on dialogue and just take the punishment as part of what they have to endure.

 I don’t think that the anonymous married man who shared that was wrong about the two statements in his first sentence. Most men, as far as I can tell, do want to be good husbands. And most of them really don’t know what that entails. But that inability to figure out how to be the good husbands we dream of being is not our wives’ problem to solve. The source of our frustrated inability to connect with our spouses and long-term girlfriends isn’t their elevated expectations or some innate male biological trait that serves as an impediment to self-awareness. The problem is that most men are raised with what is often called the “Guy Code.”

The Guy Code, which boys learn from their male peers and older men, prizes action rather than words. It teaches boys, as the sociologists Deborah David and Robert Brannon pointed out decades ago, to be highly competitive “sturdy oaks” with little vocabulary for anything other than ambition or anger. The Guy Code teaches men how to pursue women, how to court, and how to charm; it teaches us nothing about how to be in an actual relationship with a woman once we’ve succeeded in catching her.   (If you’re getting an image of a dog who looks bewildered and helpless when he’s finally managed to catch the cat he’s been chasing, you’re not far off the mark.)

Once in a relationship (much less a marriage) with a real-honest-to-goodness human being who didn’t grow up with the Guy Code (and thus wasn’t shamed out of her ability to articulate her feelings, as most of us were as boys), we’re often in awe of what seem like her “naturally” superior emotional abilities. Women seem to have this extraordinary capacity to describe their feelings with precision; they seem to be so much better at remembering the nuances of conversations we’ve long since forgotten.

Many young—and not-so-young—men feel overwhelmed by what seem to be the superior verbal and emotional skills of female romantic partners. When a man has grown up learning not to display feelings, or to talk about them, he may end up feeling as if he’s a first-year French student suddenly plunged into a conversation with fluent native speakers. He hasn’t got—or he feels he hasn’t got—the vocabulary with which to keep up. This isn’t because of testosterone, of course, or some inherent aspect of the human brain; it’s the hangover from growing up with the “guy code.” And the guy code, followed rigidly, leads to a kind of learned emotional helplessness.

♦◊♦

Make no mistake: I don’t think women are blameless. Women are acculturated to take charge of the emotional health of the marriage; women are taught to confuse being controlling with being nurturing. Women, as well as men, buy into the male myth, the one that says we are physiologically incapable of being as emotionally complex, intuitive, or articulate as our wives and girlfriends. Some women take a certain satisfaction in the mistaken belief that they “know their husbands better than they know themselves.” Women play at least a small part in the maintenance of the male myth.

They sound petulant and resentful; they sound defeated. Two guaranteed-to-fail tactics are all they have in their arsenals: “submarining” and pre-emptive self-deprecation.

But the majority of the men in Lisa Hickey’s piece don’t sound like men who are actively trying to resolve a problem with a partner whom they regard as an equal. They sound petulant and resentful; they sound defeated. Two guaranteed-to-fail tactics are all they have in their arsenals: “submarining” and pre-emptive self-deprecation.

Submarining is what it sounds like: diving deep to avoid a tempest that must eventually blow over. By viewing your wife’s rage as a temporary storm to be avoided, you will, like a sub, dive inward, remaining as impassive as possible, waiting patiently (or, more accurately, anxiously but with an outer veneer of tranquility) for the tempest to cease. This is passive-aggressive conflict avoidance; I did a lot of “submarining” in my first two marriages.

Other men will pull out the infamous pre-emptive apology strategy (I’m sorry, I’m sorry, whatever I did, I’m sorry. Please stop being mad.) Still others, of course, will retreat to self-deprecation, figuring that if they say truly awful things about themselves, they’ll force their lovers to cease the search for legitimate discussion and turn to the more traditionally feminine role of soothing male anxiety. (I’m such a piece of shit, I don’t know why you stay with me. Batterers use that line a lot in the remorse stage, following an episode of abuse.) It often works, particularly on a younger woman who fancies herself capable of showing a man a side of himself he has never seen. And so a lot of women, torn between exasperation and compassion, give in at this point and say, “Oh Theodore, you’re not a bad person. I really do love and admire you.” She temporarily breaks off the attempt to push through to him and to create change; the status quo is preserved.

♦◊♦

It’s tempting—oh, so tempting—to attribute our own comparative inarticulateness to our testosterone, or to our Y chromosome, to God’s plan for marriage, or anything that is sufficiently immutable so as to excuse us from having to engage with these heavily-armed wordsmiths as equals. Thanks to the Guy Code, we confuse what we weren’t given with what we can never learn. It’s an alluring mistake; if we buy into it, we can lapse into the grim satisfactions of martyrdom (I’m such a heroic knight, why can’t she appreciate me?) or we stray into emotional or physical affairs with women who seem so much more understanding (My secretary really gets me. She makes me feel like a man. Not like my shrew of a wife who cut my balls off and keeps them in her underwear drawer). And all the while, we submarine, self-deprecate, and endure.

When men are raised with little sense of how to “fight fair,” particularly with romantic partners, they often lack the discernment to determine a legitimate criticism that ought to be taken to heart from an unfair attack. Women aren’t the only ones who fall for the myth that wives, girlfriends, and sisters know the guys they love better than they know themselves; for different reasons, men and women alike are attached to that sexist conceit. This assumption that men are a mystery to themselves can function, for some men, to legitimize anything a woman says in anger. And sometimes in anger, we—men and women alike—say unfair things to our romantic partners. We speak from a place of pain, frustration, and rage, and we say what we know will wound. Women do this, men do this. The difference is that many men, thanks to their “learned obtuseness,” are particularly unlikely to be able to differentiate between the legitimate criticism uttered in a healthy fight and the unjust accusation blurted out in a moment of wrath.

It’s not news to report that wives are gonna say some things that are hurtful and unfair. But they’re also gonna say some things that are hurtful but fair—and the real problem is that most men still need to do the hard work of learning how to discern between the two. I won’t pretend that’s easy. And I also won’t buy the lie that it’s impossible.

♦◊♦

Are Husbands Really Assholes? Or Do Their Wives Just Think They Are? Lisa Hickey
Being the Man Does Not Automatically Make Everything Your Fault, Jackie Summers

♦◊♦

—Photo CarbonNYC/Flickr

About Hugo Schwyzer

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

Comments

  1. Isn’t it funny that when people complain about marriage, whether they’re male or female, the complaints sound remarkably similar? He/She always has to be right. He/She just doesn’t get how much I do for her/him! I just want to be appreciated!

    It’s almost like it’s not a gender issue at all, but a human one… hmmmm… naw, couldn’t be.

    Anyway, I found this article refreshing. In my marriage, I did a lot submarining, and always assumed that if my wife criticized me, that she must be right. I listened, but I did it the wrong way, by not speaking for myself. I aided and abetted that instead of risking some wounds to get down to the heart of the problem. And unfortunately, I rolled over, played martyr and resented.

    For me, it was because I was afraid that I really *was* an asshole husband, and overcompensated. I put the health of my marriage on the back-burner to avoid feeling like a jerk, even when I knew I wasn’t. It was not a worthwhile bargain and cost us dearly.

    For some reason, we guys get to thinking that setting boundaries and asserting ourselves in relationships makes us entitled assholes. We think that if we tell them “no,” we’ll somehow transform into a beer-gutted misogynist. So we let ourselves get walked on. Then, we get all pissy and passive-aggressive about it. After all, if women are our equals, and if setting boundaries makes US entitled assholes, isn’t our wives’ boundary-setting and criticism the same thing? Is *SHE* the asshole? The subconscious fills our minds with this garbage, and thus begins the illusion of martyrdom and the onset of resentment.

    It really should go without saying though, that women do the exact same thing in their marriages too.

    • This is the best comment I’ve seen on this article. After all, isn’t a real relationship where both people are respected and valued what we’re after?

  2. Alright, going along with Hugo’s views here: But if women are brought up with the idea (imposed by society, of course…) that she has natural superior emotional and communicational abilities. How are we ever going to get to the point were we actually listen to EACH OTHER?? If both parties all the time have this underlying notion that whatever they disagrre about, she has the power of the veto…

  3. Remember, this guy tried to light himself and his girlfriend on fire during a drunken drug binge. He’s also slept with several of his students. Take everything he says with a grain of salt.

  4. Richard Aubrey says:

    Hugo’s been around long enough to know what the guy code is, but he never fails to misrepresent it.
    The guy code is; as long as something needs to be done, control your grief, fear, annoyance, pain, fatigue, etc. Get whatever it is done. When it’s done, then knock yourself out with whatever reaction you like. Problem is, if the post-event self-knockingout isn’t done precisely as women do it, you’re wrong.
    What this has to do with marital relationships is unclear.

  5. You all need to read Allen Johnson book titles The Gender Knot; Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. In it he explains our male centered, male dominated and male oriented society. Instead of getting offended or defensive, men should realize how the idea of men emotional helplessness serves male privilege by not holding them accountable and therefore allowing them to be out of touch with human capabilities such as intimacy and communication. In the end it benefits men because the women who are always in service to men (I.E. second class and reinforcing male centeredness) end up resorting to comforting them and reinforcing the status quo. This accomplishes nothing and allows to keep living the same sad patterns under the guise of “natural” and therefore normal. As for misandry- sure on the surface to the uneducated individual its seems true but in actuality is a false parallel (see below). Way to Hugo- You hit on the head!
    From The Gender Knot (page 107):
    “The accusation of man hating and male bashing also shifts attention away from women and onto men in a sympathetic way that reinforces patriarchal male centeredness while putting women on the defensive for criticizing it ( in this case a man). In the process, it portrays men as victims of a gender prejudice that on the surface seems comparable to the sexism directed at women. Like many such false parallels, this ignores the fact that anti-female and anti-male prejudices have different social bases and produce very different consequences. Resentment and and hatred of women are grounded in a misogynist CULTURE that devalues femaleness itself as part of male privilege and female oppression. FOR WOMEN, HOWEVER, MAINSTREAM PATRIARCHAL CULTURE OFFERS NO COMPARABLE ANTIMALE IDEOLOGY, AND SO THEIR RESENTMENT IS BASED ON EXPERIENCE AS A SUBORDINATE GROUP AND MEN’S PART IN IT.” There is probably no more effective weapon against feminism than to accuse them of hating men and to characterize feminist criticism of patriarchy and male privilege as “male bashing”. So congratulations to those of you who said this- Are you invested in protecting a society that is harmful and downright dangerous? you must be… Where did you lean such value for hate and ignorance? The patriarchal culture you’re so willing to protect I imagine.

    • Mr Supertypo says:

      TM, this site is about men, not feminism. This site is not built around FEMINISM and other bogus ideologies. So please take your vomit to another place.

    • Untamed Shrew says:

      BAM! Someone, and I don’t need to know the commenter’s gender, gets it. Why we even believe that feminism, or gender-bashing from either side, is useful at this stage I don’t know. If we just honestly looked at our cultural history, and how little things have really changed under the surface, we would know that there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding on both sides that keeps us from breaking new ground. The old ground has served well to sustain a sense of power for some. I don’t understand the insistence on referring to women’s rights and men’s rights. Can we not consider human rights, and do our best to bridge the communication gaps that prevent us from evolving, without assuming “rights” and placing blame on one side or the other? Approaching relationships with an empty cup is not easy, but seems a worthy goal if we are to nurture and grow a new appreciation and ways of behaving.

  6. Man, I wish i had a man that tried. Mine just beats the shit out of me instead. There is only one code. His. And all on his terms… else its discipline for the wifey. And silence is treated just the same.

    Some woman, dont have things quite so great. Unfortunetly, society consists of a large amount of arseholes.

    Be thankful, you at least have pyshical strength, that cant be matched in the end.

  7. Hibernia86 says:

    Yeah, Hugo does like to write the “It’s always the man’s fault” articles, which can start to get sexist after a while.

    But to answer the question of article: the problem is that society teaches men “Don’t argue with your wives, they’ll always win.” Men should be able to speak up for themselves. Both partner’s opinions need to expressed, not just the wife’s. His view deserves to be heard as well.

  8. Come read “The Good Men Project.” Where, according to us, men are never good and women are always right regardless of the circumstances. Seriously, is this a website for men or rabid, man-hating feminists? It’s rare to see so much misandry in men’s magazines, after all.

  9. Excerpt of the first few paragraphs:

    There is a conversation that started with some guys in The Good Men Project—in person, by phone, via email—where men were asked to talk deeply and honestly about their marriage. What came out was startling: there is despair in the voices of married men. The refrain heard over and over is some variation of “I want to have a good marriage. I love my wife. But sometimes, all I feel is resentment—from my wife, toward my wife, toward the marriage. I believe my wife thinks I am an asshole, and she treats me as such.”
    My first thought was: If an alien came to earth and read this, it would think marriages are a form of torture chambers. My second thought? Wives should know about this. I don’t think they do.
    ==========================

    If you can point to me where you see the anti-woman smear I’d appreciate it.
    If your point is that any article which collects the personal stories of men who have complaints about their wives as anti-woman, then you must mean their complaints are hollow and all women must be perfect.

    I am sure that is not what you are stating ?

    • pillowinhell says:

      Perhaps one of the problems here is that we don’t know the back story and context to this story

      However, the picture and caption at the top speak very clearly. What also speaks volumes is that a man said it strikes him as emotional abuse. Instead of asking why that popped into his mind, what his experiences have been, why a man might choose to shut down many of the women here essentially told him to shut up. I’m still waiting for the ” what about the menz?”. We aren’t even listening so there’s no discussion about why they shut down or why nagging occurs. We’ve been defensive and derailing (how many times has mysogynist been said?) Instead of listening respectfully on a MENs site for men. If you want to vent or read about feminist thought with people who agree with you I suggest you go to the feminist sites for women.

  10. @ Eric M September 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    I have never seen ANY article written by Hugo, which was clearly on the side of a good man, who was badly cheated by malicious women and by the legal system in Western countries. Never.

    If anybody knows about such an article, let me know.

    It is true, not all articles are extreme like this one on the GoodMenProject.

    However this is a website, which is pro-feminist orientated, created by feminists. There is not much space left over here to talk about Men’s Rights.

    • @ Rhyth7

      The article’s picture is a guy with a doofus look on his face with a sign on his head saying “does not work.” That is the article that sums up his opinion of men and tells you what to expect in the article. The article delivers that message lout and clear.

      You don’t even have to read the article to see that this it pure, unadulterated man-bashing. Just look at the picture. If you do read the article and can’t see that this article states, in essence, “women are good, men are bad”, there is nothing I can do or say to help you.

    • @ Yohan,

      You are correct. Hugo’s articles are pure unadulterated male-bashing/misandry. Just look at the picture associated with this article, as just one example.

      On the other hand, Jackie Summers wrote a rebuttal to this one. I would love to hear Hugo’s response to it. Jackie’s comments are so rational, reasonable, balanced, factual, and don’
      t reflect hatred of women or men that I doubt Hugo would even try to comment on it. It would expose him even further.

      • Jackie Summers wrote a straw man rebuttal. Hugo never said that being a man automatically made things your fault, also Hugo wasn’t talking about abusive relationships. Jackie wrote a good article about his experience, but it had nothing to do with what Hugo wrote about.

        • What would Hugo or the feminists over at Ms. Magazine say about an article that stated that women’s brains don’t work?  They would call it misogyny, because that’s what it would be. 

          Now, look at the picture Hugo selected to represent men.  According to him, men’s brains don’t work.  That shows that his message here, as always is fueled by misandry.

          His articles are all the predictable and always say the same thing.

          1)       Whatever the problem is, it’s always a man’s fault; and
          2)      The only good men are (essentially) women.

          • The article is not the same as the picture. I don’t like the picture, and I don’t know what hugo or whoever chose the pic (authors don’t always chose the titles or artwork for their work) was thinking when they chose it. Complain about the picture, but don’t pretend you read the article when you just looked at the picture.

            • The purpose of an articles picture and caption is to represent the thoughts expressed in the article, which I did read.  The picture was obviously chosen intentionally to represent the writer’s opinion of men, that men’s brains “don’t work.” 

              This is wholly consistent with this article’s contents  and consistent with all of his other articles that I have read.   That is: men (in general, not “some” men) are bad human beings, clueless (e.g. “brain doesn’t work”), refuse to be understanding, won’t communicate, and won’t do their part to maintain a relationship (read the caption to the picture).

              This article and picture are just more of the usual misandry/man-bashing we are used to from him and his supporters/defenders.

              • Hugo actually argues AGAINST the idea that ‘men’s brains don’t work’ and they just can’t handle the emotional work of dealing with the problems their wives (rightly or wrongly) bring up. He thinks that it is hard work for men to learn how to navigate emotional problems in relationships because the ‘guy code’ tells them they just aren’t built for that kind of thing, but he thinks they certainly can do it! He is encouraging men here, not putting them down. I’d give more credit to your claim that you read the article if you didn’t attribute to Hugo the opposite of what he argues.

      • Hugo is like the “bad guy/girl” on reality tv shows: he boosts the ratings with his incendia.
        I think the editors at TGMP need to understand that there are other measures of the merit of an article besides the number of posts and views it attracts.
        Look at what happened to Sally Jessy Rapheal and Don Imus when they sought ratings to the exclusions of everything else.

        The fact that an article based in supremacy and gender bigotry condemning men for lack of emotional range as progressive is a huge take-down to the quality of the good men project.

        This is just as harmful and bigoted as the 1950’s view that “women are too emotional to be good __________” fill in the blank.
        At that time many scientists politicians, and even women themselves thought women would not make good judges, politicians, pilots, soldiers, firefighters, researchers, astronauts, etc.. etc.. because they were too emotional.

        This is a huge step backwards for equality. If you substituted the word “women” or “black” into any of Hugo’s articles and tried to publish them, even a pullitzer prize winning author would be suddenly black-listed.

        It’s time to start wondering why we still accept bigoted statements about men that wouldn’t be accepted against any other group.

        This is just so sad and pathetic an attempt by the TGMP editor’s to chase ratings.

        • The article that Hugo’s replying to is actually worse to women than this article is to men. The article that said that husbands aren’t assholes paints women as irrational and unpleaseable, and the solution is just for women to shut up and stop having needs in a relationship. Hugo takes that article and points out two things the men are doing and explains why that doesn’t help. He makes a point to say where women aren’t perfect, but it’s clear that this article is aimed to men so it focuses on things that men can do. Being that it’s on a site called “the good men project”, that’s appropriate. If you’ve in a relationship like this article describes, just try his advice. It’s gotta be better than maintaining the status quo and having your wife continue to think you’re an asshole.

          • A) I don’t know where you get the concept that Lisa Hickey’s comment was a smear on women.
            B) You offer as a defense of Hugo’s bigotry, a different author’s bigotry? REally?

            I’ve known since 8y/o that two wrongs don’t make a right.

            However, three rights will get you back on the freeway.

  11. Hugo is just blaming and shaming the victims here. Verbal and emotional abuse directed at your partner or child is considered domestic violence these days – at least when it emanates from men. This is not to say that in all cases the disapproval and denigration by the wife goes as far as to be domestic violence, but in many cases it does. Just because women may feel powerless doesn’t mean they are powerless and just because men may appear to be in a position of power doesn’t mean they are willing or capable of exercising it.

    We live in a world that tells female victims of domestic violence that it is never her fault. Now we have Professor Hugo, expert on gender relations, telling male victims of domestic violence that it is probably their fault and they do deserve it.

    I don’t know about Hugo’s “Guy Code” – I was brought up by feminist women, but two themes most men I know try to adhere to are; never hit a woman and make you wife happy. It is the man’s desire to make his woman happy that makes her disapproval such a potent weapon.

    This is an appalling article. In contrast, Lisa Hickey’s article is very good and Jackie Summers article is excellent.

    • This isn’t about abusive relationships at all. Also, having been on the woman’s side of this situation, the woman does NOT have control in these situations. The guy might really want to just make her happy, but if he keeps “submarining” – ignoring her when she’s upset – or just apologizing without listening to her just to stop the fight he never, ever will make her happy. Eventually, after having the same fight again and again with your boyfriend/husband because he won’t listen to what you say, you begin to believe that he doesn’t actually care at all about what you want or what will make you happy. And that’s when women start thinking of their male partners as assholes. It’s not to control them, it’s because that’s how they seem to us. Advice that says just stop thinking of him as an asshole don’t help. No one wants to date an asshole, so trust me, those women have tried convincing themselves that he’s not. But in these situations there’s something wrong with the relationship that can’t just be ignored, but needs to be talked out. Submarining or over-apologizing shut down that conversation and prevent things from actually being fixed. That’s what Hugo’s talking about here. He’s not talking about abusive relationships.

      • Of course the woman has control in these situations. She controls the goal posts. Having been the man in this arrangement, the submarining/over apologizing is a last ditch effort to find something, anything, that will work. You try to talk things out eight different ways, change behaviors according to the results of those talks, all of which lead back to the same place of your actions being inadequate in some way, and eventually you come to the conclusion that you are powerless to affect the cycle. There is something that drives the woman in your life to put you down, nit pick your every move, and generally judge you inadequate, and there’s not a damn thing in this world you can do about it.

        Under those circumstances, why would you continue to expose yourself for nothing but abuse and ever-moving targets?

        But I’ve whined too much. Time to man up I suppose…

  12. As a tangential note. Am I the only one waiting for Hugo to deliver on his promise (made on his own website) to help the men that can’t get dates? He obviously has time to write articles such as the above, so it is not the case that he is to buried in work to actually deliver.

  13. Anonymous Male says:

    I think there is something to the idea of a “Guy Code” about keeping your feelings to yourself. It’s overstating it to say that it’s some kind of universal male legal system, but I think it’s pretty valid to say that in American society it’s generally more socially acceptable for women to cry in public than men, for example. Just as a general phenomenon.

    What I think Hugo’s article overlooks is the fact that, if there is a code against men expressing their feelings, women often play a role in reinforcing that code, not just men. I’m guessing most women at one point in their lives have dismissed a man’s emotional state as “fragile male ego,” a phrase that women use much more often than men do. Many women have told a man to “stop being such a baby.” Many women have at one point told a man expressing his true inner feelings, “that’s not the right answer. What you should say is ____.” These are hardly words of encouragement for expressing emotional vulnerability.

    I’m not letting men off the hook for failing to express their feelings. I just think communicating is a two-way street, and it’s not always entirely the men’s fault for being cautious about expressing a fuller range of emotions. When your feelings are often dismissed or seldom recognized by the people who are supposed to listen to you, then you stop talking about them so much. Often it’s a simple as that.

    I hope Hugo is not assuming that all women in relationships are simply waiting patiently, encouraging a free and honest emotional dialogue, respectfully listening to everything that a man might say about how he is feeling, ready to validate his experience, etc. I had the great fortune in my twenties of being in a few long-term relationships with women who were convinced that they were good listeners just because they were women. If I felt reluctant to share my feelings with them, of course it could only mean that I was defective, not that I was reluctant to share feeling with people who failed to validate my feelings. Unfortunately, I was immature enough to assume that they were right and it must have been all my fault for being closed off.

  14. I am not surprised to see that the Up-and Down-Voting option has been removed.

    • After spending a few weeks here, I can see why.

      When I came to this site I thought the tone of the site might be “men good, women bad”, but was hoping it would be “men good, women good”. Imagine my shock that the running narrative throughout this site is “men bad, women good”.

      Why type of men’s site devotes the vast majority of its content portraying men in a negative light?

      • Correction –

        The last line should read – What type of men’s…

      • Not all articles are as extreme as this one though. Some of us are trying to expose and combat that unfortunate pattern.

        • I feel really sad that a lot of the men who comment on this site feel as if they are being attacked, and that the message is ‘women are good, men are bad’, which is not at all what this site is trying to achieve. I assume that the men who read this blog are already great human beings or are looking for ideas in which they can improve themselves. This blog is an exchange of ideas and perspectives, articles are colored by the author’s experiences. Don’t take it as an attack on you or on all men. The authors don’t know you or everyone else in your gender. Their job isn’t to mesh with your views. Their job is to make you think and reflect on your views and to consider the point of view of others. Take things with a grain of salt. Take what you like but don’t dismiss what you dislike. Instead look at why it bothers you and write about it. This is your space and your views should be heard, at least if they’re constructive. Complaining accomplishes nothing.

          • If this site was about construtive dialouge Hugo Schwyzer and Amanda Marcotte would never be alowed to post or comment on anything here. These two persons have broken every moral principle they teach themselves, they have abused every position of power they have ever held. and they claim to listen to other people’s opinion but they only ever listen to the ones that tell them what they want to hear.

      • Alis Kashkayan says:

        He’s not portraying men at a negative light. If you actually read the article without any preconceived bias, you’d realize he’s fairly explaining how unfair SOCIETY is. There IS no “men bad, women good” or vice versa. I don’t think he needs to stroke anyone’s ego here, he’s merely speaking the truth. I’m sure you’d be more than delighted if he put women down in the article, but of course since he said it how it was and didn’t necessarily boost men up and some superior gods, it was surprising. A man NOT trying to claim men are superior. Holy cow. All you did was prove that his claim on how society raises men is absolutely, 100% true. Now go toot your own horn because no one here is going to do it for you.

  15. The Bad Man says:

    Hey GMP, I’d love to read an article on Poor, Poor, Pitiful Women: The Martyr Complex of the American Wife.

    That would make the womynz heads explode.

    • The GoodMenProject is not a project against women, it is feminist.

      Articles in general are against all men, who insist they should not only have obligations but also have rights.

      Hugo is teaching us a lesson (after 4 marriages), why men are not supposed to be suffer of a Martyr Complex…

  16. Stephen Koch says:

    I hope that most readers recognize that these musings about the emotional and verbal inadequacies of the male sex are nothing but a stream the standard misandrous insults to which we have been subject for at least a generation, albeit softened to sound somehow less toxic than they really are. There is no point in debating with an author like this. The real question is why a magazine that purports to be devoted to men and their welfare is prepared to spit in the face of its constituency with this demeaning trash. Gentlemen, drop this publication. Try—say—The Art of Manliness. Much more intelligent. Not demagogic. They have manners. They are decent people. They are capable of liking and admiring you as men, instead of maundering on about what is —be it, in their worthless opinion, cultural or genetic—wrong with us. They are not morally dishonest over there. Skip this stuff.

    • stephen,

      umm I’ve just checked that site out…why are all the images in black and white and from the 1930s? Really, I don’t want to be taken back to that era; it makes me want to puke. Whoever designed that site has poor taste. If you’re looking to instill modern notions of maniliness and bring men into the future, that website look is counter productive.

      GMP deals with many issues, one being GENDER, a popular topic…you can’t deal with the issue of gender fairly if you’re unwilling discuss the other gender – women – as these two are intertwined; and you can’t learn to be a better man or human if you’re unwilling to discuss the other half – women, unless you live on an island. It sounds as though your site discourages deep discussion on gender and frown on mixing male and female audiences?

      The debates here are actually healthy to have despite the mud slinging you see, lol… and this site attracts both male and female readers, presenting both sides of the story.

    • pillowinhell says:

      That site is awesome!
      sadly, that’s where I heard the straight talk I needed, until I found some heartless bitches who ripped me a new one for my stupidity. The No Mistress and others sure know how to get a person to answer the clue phone!

      • The Bad Man says:

        Lots of heartless bitches on this site. It’s too bad they don’t clean it up.

        • pillowinhell says:

          Ever been to the heartless bitches website? The women are the direct descendants of the furies. Their detectors for bullshit,stupidity and pity parties are set on clairvoyant. Whether you are male or female they will rip you to pieces, no mercy no quarter. Failure to own your bad behaviour is NOT tolerated.

          Straightened me out right quick.

          I shudder to think of what they’d do to the OP here. Panty panderer is hardly an insult, what they have to say about Nice Guys (TM) is something else.

  17. Men’s sites/blogs do frequently seem to devolve into women-haters vs. panty-panderers. Where are the balanced men who actually like women (being sexually attracted to women doesn’t mean actually like them – value them, enjoy their company, respect them, etc.) AND express genuine thoughts and opinions without thinking about virtual high-fives and panties being thrown their way?

    • The Bad Man says:

      I think you got that wrong, Hugo is a man-hater and your kinda guy.

      • No- Hugo would be a panty-panderer, according to you. You, however, are very clearly a woman-hater. Enjoy that! 😉

        • The Bad Man says:

          When I disagree with Hugo, does that make me a man-hater too?

          Go back to your feminist site cupcake, this is for men.

    • Where is the woman hating here?

      Feminists tend to define woman hating as anything that they don’t agree with or talking about women talking responsibility, so I find your claim a little suspect.

      • I find you assumption that any woman expressing an opinion you don’t agree with self-identifies as a feminist. Tuck that paranoia back in. Clearly, any piece that doesn’t bash women is suspect to you and all about man-hating.. which leads me to believe you don’t like women. If you want every article, regardless of the article’s actual topic, to be about women “taking responsibility”… you’re insane.

        I think it’s HILARIOUS when folks complain about an article not being about everything under the sun. This article is about the messages he’s received about manhood (specifically, not being visibly emotional) and how that may affect husband-wife relationships. Now, a problem with him assuming that most men feel like they received the same situation is maybe valid… stupid, but maybe valid. I think we all know that there are message boys and girls receive about gender-appropriate behavior. But complaining because it’s not about women taking responsibility.. that isn’t what this article is about! Lol. Y’all are nuts.

        • Sassy, Ill ask you again, where is the evidence of the woman hating?

        • Oh it’s Ron, you’re talking to. Your points are right on Sassy…every article he’s blaming women on not taking responsibility, regardless of topic…and every female who posts is automatically a man-hating feminist. lol.

  18. I do not know the ages of most of the comments, but as someone in his 20s, I find most of the comments here sound as though they are suspiciously outdated.

    Hugo Schwyzer has been hawking the “Guy Code” in his classes and on his blog for years, and he gets it from a book that was published in 1976. He then tells his class to read writers like Michael Kimmel, simply because they continue to argue that the “Guy Code” is alive and well, while ignoring writers like Warren Farrell, who have a very different opinion.

    The whole trope about “women do housework and are unappreciated, etc.” seems silly and outdated. I am part of a generation where the majority of college graduates are women. I have never had a relationship, nor had personal knowledge of a relationship, where it was assumed that the woman would stay at home and raise the children. On the otherhand, discussions of how great a significant other’s career is going are very common, regardless of the gender.

    Furthermore, in the last 10 years the rise of the “metrosexual” or “hipster” or “emo” or whatever you want to call them men, has truly challenged the idea that any kind of a “guy code” even exists today. Is a man who gets manicures really following a “guy code” from 1976? What about one who open diets? This is to say nothing of the men who sell themselves to women as “sensitive, creative” types.

    I want to be clear: I have nothing against any of these men. My point is that this has not been 1976 for almost 40 years now. I very much doubt the existance of a man code, much less an ageless one. I very much doubt that the current generation is engaging in traditional men’s and women’s spheres thinking. I very much doubt that today’s men expect women to take on a traditional gender role.

    But I am very certain that some people in the women’s studies profession may be so busy yelling into their own echo chamber that they have failed to notice how the world has changed…

    • Great comment Mike. I agree whole-heartedly. But as someone born in 1976 I want to emphasize that it was only 35 years ago… nowhere near 40!!!

    • Mike, it’s really nice and positive all the things you’re saying of your generation. But the thing is people fall into old habits, people fall into old comfortable roles (set out by their parents and major parts of society), there may be pressure to conform to what is thought tried and true. Your story is encouraging…I have no doubt the world is changing…but depending on many factors, the changes are seen as very slow or fast.

      But on a broader scale, most parts of the world (and not to sound negative) are are not nearly where western countries are at in comparison, in the areas of equality and human rights. Tradition and conformity are very strong and upheld very religiously by most.

      Emo, metrosexual and hipster are all describing a certain look…I don’t think the “guy code” is about a look or certain way of dress. The guy code is more nuanced than that.

      • pillowinhell says:

        I’m glad to hear that the next generation is changing. There are a lot of women AND men out there who individually took something away from what feminism has to say. These people don’t necessarily identify as feminists but they absorbed the best parts of equality and passed it on to their kids. I think feminists would do well to ask the new generation where it wants to go and how to get there.
        We’re still fighting here because in our own age group (I’m thirty seven) these issues are profoundly relevant to how relationships, laws, media relations and religion are formed or maintained. As such, your generation better start chiming in because its my generation that’s creating the silent and invisible mechanisms through which this society runs. (Part of the definition of patriarchy)

        Did you get that ladies? We may not be 50 percent of everything but we are creating a part of those mechanisms.

      • Michelle, I definitely agree with what you have to say about non-Western countries. There is no question that, globally, there is a lot of room for improvement.

        I think the point I was trying to make is that I am no longer sure about people falling into “old ways” because they are “comfortable.”

        Looking at my own family, every single member of my grandparents’ generation was a pack-a-day (if not more) smoker at one point in their lives. My parents’ generation (mostly) gave that up, and to the best of my knowledge, my cousins and siblings have not taken the habit back up again.

        I am unsure that the idea of “separate spheres” of home and work are somehow more likely to come back than a behavior like tobacco consumption. My parents never took up smoking because they watched their parents’ health give out. Similarly, if we have seen our female relatives (or male for that matter) get crushed under the weight of traditional roles, I am unsure about why we would want to go back to that. It seems like we would be better off by focusing on moving forward (addressing ongoing gender gaps in math and science classes, ensuring that paternity leave is taken seriously, etc.) rather than harping on behaviors that are on their way out (which seems to be all that Hugo Schwyser is interested in doing).

        Finally, on the “Guy Code.” According to Hugo, the first “rule” of the “Guy Code” is “no sissy stuff.” With the rise of “looks” that are clearly designed to challenge what is “sissy” I believe it’s fair to say that this part of the “code” is being challenged in many quarters. Hugo also stipulates that the “code” only has 4 rules (this is already approaching blog-post length, so I won’t go into all of them), and if 1 of the 4 is openly in question, it seems likely the others are as well. So, is there a “Guy Code?” Maybe, but certainly not the one that Hugo so often describes.

        • Mike, there definitely is a guy code, but you’re just too contemporary to understand it…lol; you sound like someone who plays fair, got a good head on his shoulder and is self-aware, plus was raised in a grounded and fair family environment, and that’s why all this guy code sound so bizarre and unreal to you.

          When Hugo says “no sissy stuff” in the guy code, I don’t believe he meant “looks” because that would be too obvious. Yes looks and gender are evolving and challenging the definition of what is male and what is female, definitely true. But my interpretation, and what I think Hugo really means by sissy stuff is how in society we put and socialize women into gender roles and the characteristics that are associated with them, such as: crying is for women, housework is for women, child-rearing/changing diapers are women’s duties, cooking/making kids’ lunches, grocery shopping, cleaning; bathing, feeding and getting the children dressed entertaining, sending X-mas cards, making the beds, laundry, buying clothes for kids/walking them to school, and so on. So with the Guy Code, if you do any of this “sissy stuff” it’ll make you less than a man, this is the belief of some men who obey this Guy Code commandments.

  19. I couldn’t read all the comments, but I enjoyed the discussion between Aaron and Hugo. Aaron, I think you’re right here, but you don’t have to be so angry. Hugo, please accept that your fellow editors may have differing opinions and try not to be so patronizing (I know it’s hard your an academic in the liberal arts!).

    More to the point, Hugo I think you are wrong to say that there is no innate difference in the ability to verbalize emotions. Anecdotally, my 2 year old (25 month) daughter tells her brother to “stop – you make me feel sad.” My 5 year old son can’t for the life of him verbalize his emotions – determining how he feels requires a lot of questions and prompting (when this happens, I think you feel this, right?). I don’t think he’s been shut down by the man code… and they both speak very well and did so from a young age (~ 16 and 20 months, respectively).

    Anyway, communication requires both (all) partners to want to understand in addition to be understood. How many of us emphasize the latter at the expense of the former?

    • Then you need to teach your son to verbalize his emotions. Also, if your daughter becomes a novelist, I hope she wins as many awards as men win.

  20. I started reading GMP at first because it was the only place I could find, that gave and honest account of what it’s like to be a man now in 2011; and as a woman, a single woman, any insight into the opposite sex, I felt would make me a better more compassionate woman, and hopefully one day a good spouse. All that said, I find the comments pages here increasingly polarised, and no real discussion going on… and to be honest, all that’s going on here is just vitriol, it’s depressing, if this is what marriage is… then let me be single forever!
    Maybe I’m just very naive – but should the aim of a “good marriage” by that of equals? If I pick up your socks then you pick up my bra, if I cook you wash up, where both parties try and see and argument from both sides, where emotional support is provided by both parties for both parties. Wining an argument or giving up on one before it starts is exactly what we shouldn’t aspire to.

    I don’t know if I’m totally off the mark or if the point of the GMP is just being lost in the battle of wills between the sexes here, either way, should I just stop reading or is this as good as it’s going to get… if it is then call me spinster!

    • Nicky, I think you’re confusing the arguments in the comments for some kind of “real world” battle of the sexes.

      The reality is that the articles by Hugo Schwyzer are infamous for analyzing all societal problems through the unthinking lense of “Somehow it must solely be the fault of men.” He has actually gone so far as to state that, in his opinion, men should always be “called out” before any sort of comment is made about women.

      Most of the men on this site agree with your position, that in any relationship, men and women should be equal partners.

      But the flip side of equal partners is that, when something isn’t working, then the blame (and responsibility for fixing it) must be shared.

      Hugo’s writing attracts vitriol because he will never advocate shared blame, and thus it’s hard to believe he’s advocating truly equal relationships in the first place. The anger and posturing is all going to flow from this basic breakdown, and it is rarely found in the articles by any of the other contributors.

    • Hi Nicky,

      I also read GMP because I think it addresses a lot of issues from a “male” perspective that I generally only see from a “female” one. Just to warn you, Hugo’s articles tend to draw a lot of criticism and seem to quickly get sidetracked into pointless accusations and counter accusations of misandry and misogyny.

      It confused me as well at first, but I’ve decided to take it as a sign that a lot of what he writes about touches very deeply on gendered expectations of behavior. At this point I think a lot of regular commenters are especially sensitive to what he write and are inclined to get very defensive very quickly.

      Take this case, not just ‘being a good husband’ in the abstract, but what reads to me as a critical examination of the types of communication and ways of communicating that both men and women are taught are ‘appropriate’ for their gender. I think he is absolutely correct that we encourage girls to communicate much more intimately in their friendships than boys, and that as a result I’m sure a lot of men are indeed overwhelmed in some ways by the type of communication that is required for a healthy relationship.

      As for the accusation giving women a “free pass”, if you read the article you will see that that is not the case. He is definitely talking as a man to other men about the challenges that men may face is marriage. Perhaps because he doesn’t spend as much time on the shortcomings of the expectations of “womanly” behavior in a marriage some people think he isn’t being critical.

  21. You know what bothers me about this? All these men complain about nagging women…well you married her. And you are still with her. There has got to be something said for the friction that drives a relationship. Here is what I mean: I consider myself a very smart, attractive, reasonable and level headed woman. I have done my therapy. I enjoy sex. (A lot.) And I thought that all this would be extremely attractive to men. However, it’s not. “Men like a challenge.” Women are told that in order to get a man, “play hard to get, be mysterious, otherwise he will lose interest.” In other words, all these guys can complain about their nagging girlfriends and wives, but they are with them for a reason. What is one of the worst things you can call a woman? “Easy?” And I’m not talking about simple sexuality. Just like women like bad boys, some men like nags and shrews. They do. It keeps them on their toes. As for me, I have absolutely zero desire to bitch and moan about inconsequential nonsense. Personally I’d really like to meet a man who can really wrap his mind around the fact that I truly have no desire to control him, I want him to be happy and have his freedom, as I want the same for me. Man, wouldn’t that be cool? Sigh…

    • Hi tina

      Does it bother you when women complain about their husbands being controlling?

      Let me guess, when the wife turns out the be abusive, its the husbands fault, when the husband turns out to be abusive, its his fault too.

      When are feminists going to develop an adult psychology?

  22. The Bad Man says:

    Psychologist John Gottman, the marriage therapy guru, has stated that “the biggest revelation we’ve had about how conflicts are best resolved in successful marriages” is if husbands yield to their wives. That is, the key factor in whether a relationship will be happy and successful is whether the husband listens to and obeys his wife. In a statement that shows women’s demanding nature, Gottman also says that women bring up over 80% of marital conflicts while men tend to avoid these stressful discussions.

    As reported in Ms. Magazine, Dec 2010:

    Women, according to the JEC report, control 73 percent of spending within their households, which is equivalent to approximately $4 trillion in yearly discretionary spending. Furthermore, women are more likely than men to control daily expenditures in more than half of middle and upper-class households.

  23. Hugo, you shouldn’t really be talking about men in general.

    You can buy into the myth of the moral and emotional superiority of the female, the feminists here will cheer you on and you will feel validated but their white knight reward system, but don’t expect the rest of us to play along with your archaic gender role playing.

  24. Unsurprisingly, Hugo’s article does not reflect any of the statements made by husbands in Lisa’s articles. Lisa’s article suggests that there is a general lack of communication stemming from men who do not express their feelings because they do not think their wives will listen to them and women who do not clarify their intentions when they speak to their husbands. Nothing in any of the interview statements remotely suggested that men are incapable of expressing emotions. Indeed, the very fact that they expressed their frustrations implies they have little to no trouble expressing emotions.

    Ironically, just like those men’s wives, Hugo did not listen to them. Communication is not a one-way street. It is not “woman talks, man listens”. Yet that is how Hugo responded to the men, and it is often how some wives respond to their husbands. If men are constantly told that they are always wrong, like Hugo did in his article, then eventually they will shut down, bow out, and either keep quiet or take it out on someone else or themselves.

    And as much Hugo may not like it, plenty of studies show that men express themselves through actions rather than words. It is just what males do, and it does not make us bad communicators because of it.

    • But women also express themselves through words.

      And in the workplace, men express themselves through both words and actions. (Women do too.)

      When smart men are always told they are wrong, they will seek help and get the training they need to become more egalitarian husbands.

      • The Bad Man says:

        I don’t really know what your point is but it seems like you are just accusing men of being wrong and not egalitarian. Do you know how hard it is to find a woman to pay her own way, mow my lawn, fix my car, clean my pool and till my garden?

      • pillowinhell says:

        When smart men are always told they are wrong…they wise up and walk away. Get it through your head…no one can be wrong all the time. No one wants to be somewhere with someone constantly telling them they are wrong. If yourr man isn’t big on communication that’s why you have friends and family. So you can meet yours social needs. One person can’t be everything, all the time for years on end perfect match.

        • what about communication for marital needs, pillowinhell?

          Too often, men are bought into the notion that, they shouldn’t be social with their wives or gfs and “that’s why you have friends and family”. I actually have read dating advice columns to men, that dish out this kind of bull. No wonder miscommunication and communication problems run rampant in relationships. Men are programmed by other men to behave and act a certain way and have been told this is how to be a man in a relationship. Really terrible!

          If you can socialize with your buddies hours on end at a bar, but toss your SO aside when she wants to talk to you, then you are the PROBLEM.

          Women really need to hold out and marry a man who actually can communicate as a lot of problems lie in poor communication. Most men asks women to be their “best friends” when dating, but when actually in a relationship or marriage, the same men don’t want that type of set-up. As best friends that would mean being somewhat equal in everything, and most men don’t want that…they want to be at a different status, a higher status than their women. They probably think “too much” communication would bring them back to that “best friends” status and men don’t want to be stuck there, they see themselves as head of the table so to speak.

          • I think some men lack communication skills on purpose…it’s a form of control the way I see it, but they hide behind the guise of the “guy code” so that it appears more acceptable and that is “just the way men are” and with a take it or leave attitude. There are men who genuinely want to improve their relationships with improved communication skills and then I believe there are ones who don’t care because they feel not communicating too much gives them an advantage over the relationship.

            Just think of the “silent treatment” or “stonewalling”…the less you talk, means less negotiating, the more “in control” of the situation you think you feel…the more respect you think you earn from your partner. But it’s all false!!! And that is one UNequitable relationship a woman or man needs to get out of.

            • pillowinhell says:

              PEOPLE who use non communication as a means of control and dominance often have other areas in their lives where that tendency shows as well. They can be very rigid and judgmental which will show up everywhere. They only talk about surface issues. They steadfastly refuse to listen to or consider any opinion that does not match their own. They may openly show contempt towards others. They may not ask what you think or feel. They may use guilt trips. They frequently expect that others can read their minds or intentions. Someone with a need to control will show that behaviour everywhere they go. Sometimes its subtle, sometimes not.

              Nothing takes the wind out of their sails like inviting them to speak when they are ready, but in the meantime you have to take care of the situation and you have chosen this option as the best way to help you move on. When they see you carring on in life quite happily they have no choice but to talk, walk or stew.

          • pillowinhell says:

            Oh so immediately before the knot is tied they stop communicating? Yes there are men who use non communication as a means of control and plenty of women too. But if the couple was dating, there were probably a few red flags that there were things he doesn’t like to discuss. Or that there were things that should have been thought about by both sides and negotiated.

            In my experience (which has dealt extensively with non communicating men I’ve dated) there were all kinds of issues that should have been talked about but were scrupulously avoided. And there were plenty of times I’ve nagged (to no avail) for them to open up or do something that I wanted. Nagging over a long period of time is caustic to him and feeds the negative thinking the woman has until it spills out into the entire relationship and everything to do with the guy. I’ve been there and done it. To tell the truth, it also came at a cost to me in anger at someone I cared about,( who was smart and left) and in anger with myself for the suddenly helpless and nasty person I became. I used feminism as a prop to justify some of those behaviours and attitudes. And a few old stereotypes about men.

            That’s when I decided (finally, I’m a slow learner) that what was missing in my relationships was an honest appraisal of who I am and what I want, and more importantly the profound need to own my own shit. So..what am I nagging about and why? If its dreadfully important to me I have every right to speak to my partner about it. But it doesn’t come with nagging. It comes with a clear description of what situation is bothering me, it comes with an invitation for my partners thoughts,feelings and possible solutions he thinks will work. If something is an ongoing problem that doesn’t interest my partner to fix because he doesn’t see it as an issue then I tell him I will work out a solution for myself. I tell him which solutions will work best in my opinion and he’s free to chime in. Then I do what I said I would. I make myself happy for removing the stress and him happy because I’m accepting who he is and I’m happy. It makes it far easier for him to talk to me because he isn’t burdened with judgement and a constant need to please to keep the peace. He gives what he’s willing to give in happiness. Its a sustainable thing.

            To answer your first question. Yes communication is extremely important in any good relationship. My parents have been very happily married for almost forty years in large part due to this. My mother was no fool,she wouldn’t describe herself a feminist but she sure as hell knew what she wanted in her husband, what she needed what she could comprimise on and what were her deal breakers. Same for my dad. And that’s the second ingredient in the strength of their relationship. They both also know that some things you have to do for yourself because if your partner isn’t happily and willingly giving it breeds resentment and nagging, which begets people who shut down and won’t talk.

            • So basically you’re saying who ever has better communication skills should take the lead and try to work things out with their SO…by that, offering suggestions, solutions and options, so he/she does not need to think or get involve deeply, and provide you with answer A,B, or C? If that works for you and your partner, good on you both. Your method may come in handy every now and then…but to rely on one partner to always be the negotiator or solutions expert doesn’t sound right. Most women aren’t looking to parent their husband, as though they’re children, in the manner you’ve described.

              • pillowinhell says:

                Hell no ! If I wanted another child I’d have another child!

                If your partner is uncommunicative as a means of manipulation, that will show up when you’re dating. I suggest you run.

                If your partner used to be a good communicator, then what I wrote above takes some pressure off your partner. In the meantime you keep your emotional balance by taking care of your needs, without building up anger and resentments which fuel nagging and judgement. If you have a better balance, you can hear what your partner has to say without knee jerk reactions and accusations. Which means that he may decide its safe to speak and that since you’ve respectfully requested his opinions and input, you actually are interested in mutually resolving the problem.
                People can shut down for a variety of reasons, not all of them have anything to do with you. Some do it to manipulate, some do it because they don’t know how to resolve marital conflicts, others may shut down for a while to sort things out in their own minds or maybe their past relationships have taught them to stuff everything inside because they weren’t listened to or treated with respect.
                Its not parenting a partner to adopt a healthier way of working through conflict and staying balanced. I expect my partners to communicate and I have confidence that they will if I show them that they are respected and will be heard.

                • pillowinhell says:

                  Besides, this is what we negotiated together for the eventual arguments at the very beginning of our relationship. And somehow I don’t see how having the partner with the worst conflict skills lead the show all the time benefits either of us. Truth to tell my SO and I are roughly equivalent in relationship skills.

                • Okay, I got what you’re saying 😀

      • You may need to seek professional help for that unadulterated man-hate festering in you.

      • Michelle, why do you assume the problem with communication lies with men? Read Lisa’s article. The women she interviewed lack proper communication skills. Instead of being direct with their husbands, they expect their husbands to just know their intent. That is piss poor communication. This “when in doubt, blame men” nonsense does not help anyone. It just creates resentment because men are constantly told that their feelings and opinions do not matter. I cannot blame men who walk away or shut down when it is clear that their wives will not listen to them and fault them for everything. That kind of abusive treatment would take its toll on anyone. And while I am not surprised to see feminists supporting that kind of psychological abuse, I am surprised by their pretending not to see it.

        • And did you read Hugo’s article? How men lack emotional skills to communicate with their partners? Women shouldn’t have to talk to their husbands like children like “Honey, we need a new carton of eggs soon, OKAY?” , “Darling, I can’t pick up the kids today, can you do that please, OKAY?”, “Look, my leg is sore, we can’t have sex tonight, OKAY? You get the picture.

          Women would like to think men are more emotionally skilled than children, yes there are times when people need to speak in a direct manner, but there are lots of times when you know it would be nice for people to be thoughtful and initiate communication and say “I cooked up the last eggs for breakfast this morning, after work, let me pick up some”, “Right! You have your doctor’s appointment tonight, I can’t pick up the kids either, but can ask my sister to pick them up”, and “I’m sorry you tripped on that rug. I’m going to treat you to a nice massage tonight to help you feel better. How do you feel about that tonight?”

          • Yes, I unfortunately did read Hugo’s article. What he wrote fits the general feminist perspective on men, but it does not match what actual men state or experience. If I have choose between bigoted rhetoric and real-life experiences, I will go with the latter.

            Many women think men lack emotional skills, yet that tends not to be true. What tends to be true is that men do not value verbal expression as much as women do. Likewise, women tend to consider their wants, desires, and requests as reasonable, clear, and fair, when to many men and some women they come across as unreasonable, vague, and one-sided.

            It easy to fall into the “men don’t get it” trap. It is much harder to take a critical look at oneself and ask how you are coming across. The reality is that women can be and often are demanding of men. Plenty of women project their problems onto their husbands, and treat them as if they are talking pets rather than equal partners in a relationship.

            All this turns back to communication. It is not a one-way street where women are right and men are wrong or women talk and men listen. Sometimes women need to listen to what the men in their lives have to say. What you and Hugo appear to say is that women do not have to listen because they know all there is to know and they are emotionally superior to men. That kind of narcissistic misandry may feel satisfying, but it only creates resentment in the long run.

            • Like I said before, people need to be sure who they marry and communication styles should match, and know how much verbal communication and contact you want from a partner.

              “Many women think men lack emotional skills, yet that tends not to be true. What tends to be true is that men do not value verbal expression as much as women do.”

              You’re using the Guy Code to excuse men.

              I think it’s both. Men who don’t value verbal expression start so in their younger years; so overtime and as they become adults, they have trained themselves to lack emotional skills and become underdeveloped in this area. I have men in my family who are like talking to a brick wall…can’t even get answers to a few simple questions…maybe a mumble here and there. They are like their father. I wish they would talk more, because I would love to do my share of listening. There’s real-life experience for you.

              No, I did not suggest women do not have to listen or know all there is to know or we are superior…haha…maybe we are emotionally superior though, genetically are we not, isn’t that what the testosterone thing about?

              Some men lack, not street smarts, but similar, what I’ll call “common sense and household smarts”. I have aunts and even my own mother, nag on their husbands on occasions. And I hate hearing nagging and quarreling as much as any male counterpart, but when they explain to me the reasons for chastising them…these women actually make sense, and as much as I don’t want to take sides, the men often lack common sense or forethought. And the chastising mostly got nothing to do with something the guy did because he’s not a woman…not at all – just lack of common sense/critical thinking, like cause and effect situations.

          • pillowinhell says:

            I think you get what you expect. If you think that men are emotionless jerks who can’t communicate then that’s the kind of men you’ll pick. If, however, you believe men are responsible caring people capable of telling you what they need and want and giving you what you need and want then those are the men you find. Unless you shut them down, won’t listen to what they say if it isn’t phrased correctly and generally disrespect them by nagging to get something they don’t willingly wish to give. They may stay in the relationship but they certainly won’t chew their arm off to please you.
            There are a lot of good men in the world, if as an adult you keep finding the jerks then you need to sit down and figure out what YOU are doing that enables this problem. You are the common denominator in those relationships.

            • I am the common denominator? How non-accusing is that?

              You forget the most crucial denominator – in men: testosterone, and HIGH levels of it

              And what did studies say about that male hormone? The less you have of it, the more empathetic, emotional one is? If that is the case, women have a lot of kissing frogs in order to find the ones with lower testosterone.

              You are right with “I think you get what you expect”. People who have certain expectations don’t settle and will get what they expect.

              The way you are speaking of men, such as shutting down, not wishing to give, not trying to please you, require simple language – pretty much that meets the “GUY CODE”. You’ve just described the Guy Code. You are enabling the guy code; you are perpetuating the myth that it’s acceptable for men to be emotionally detached and not emotionally understanding.

              • pillowinhell says:

                Sorry Michelle, I think you and I have similar lines of thinking but its not getting through.

                As far as the common denominator goes….I spent years dating the so called guy code men. It has nothing to do with guys being guys. If the only men I date are jerks or wont talk does that mean that’s the only guys out there? Or does it mean that the way I view men predisposes me to choose the guys who behave this way? Well, there are plenty of men in my family who do not live by the “guy code”, so chances are excellent that its my thinking creating the problem. This is good, because no sooner did I change my thinking about men, men who were communicative, caring, responsible and responsive started showing up everywhere.
                As it stands, because I know what I want and need in the relationship, I can clearly ask for it and my SO is very happy oblige. He woulld rather chew his arm off than see me unhappy.
                My partner does not require simple language, he is more than intelligent enough to understand.
                I don’t think men are emotional retards. And I refuse to enable that thinking by dating men who have shut down. Showing the parts that hurt the most is hard and scary. Sometimes, it takes a little time to summon the courage to do it. I respect his feelings and his needs.
                Quite frankly, I’ve never been happier because my partner meets my needs, works hard to please me and does many little things every day to remind me that he cares. When I need emotional support he’s absolutely there any time I need him,

                Realizing sometimes that its yourself that created a problem ( you chose a guy who exhibits behaviours you don’t agree with) isn’t letting him off the hook, its seeing you have the primary responsibility to fix your problem. Watching the hockey game is not a bad thing no matter how much I don’t like it.

                I cry bullshit on testosterone theory, is it that the testosterone dropped that made him more nurturing? Or is it that he behaved more nurturing and the t level dropped? No proof of cause and effect.

                • Not too sure what you’re saying…you don’t even know me…

                  I hate hockey games…I rather poke my eyes out than watch them. And on the same note, I’d rather be single than stuck with someone who’s not social or communicative. Men are always saying they don’t want to be changed, they want to be accepted as they are. So if they go by the GUY CODE, they want to be accepted for that too. If they have a porn addiction, or do drugs…they wanted to be accepted for them too. I refuse to date men with bad habits.

                  But you’re telling me to FIX/change the guy? If the problem lies with me choosing the wrong guy, you think I should stick around and try to change the dude or put up with him? Listen i’m not married…I have choices…I can date and find someone compatible…i’m not stuck in a relationship like you, where you were forced to take charge, basically whip his ass to get what you want out of the relationship and make it work despite his reluctance and uninterested in your needs.

                  • pillowinhell says:

                    Okay. We seem to be laboring under some miscommunication here. So maybe some background from me will help…

                    The guys who weren’t communicative were men I dated in the past. At the time, taking charge of my own happiness helped me avoid resentment while we tried to negotiate a compromise. It took a few rounds for me to realize what you already know. Uncommunicative men aren’t worth the time because I value a man who willing and able to speak for himself. In my books, they have every right to live and operate in any way they please, so no I’m not into changing anyone but myself. When I thought I could make men change through nagging I learned its a lost cause.

                    I’m not married. So I can leave at any time. I have however, lived in a couple long term relationships. I’m currently in a long term relationship now, but we decided that neither of us is ready to live together. That was a discussion which took three months. My current partner is absolutely wonderful but we’ve been together long enough to encounter some problems.

                    We both have children, I have one and he has two daughters. They live with him every other week. They are teens so between social events and all the after school stuff they do its a pretty busy week for him. Factor in the extra work his career brings him those weeks are so packed we don’t see each other much. I also have duties that sometimes prevent us from getting together. So one day I brought up the fact that we needed to find a way to spend a little more time together because I wasn’t entirely happy with the situation. He agrees that the time spent apart isn’t ideal..but right now he’s stretched thin and it would pass in a few months time. His boundary is that his obligations to his daughters is his highest priority. I entirely respect him as a father, but I know that feeling like I’ve been put on the backburner two weeks out of the month is going to piss me off. Well, my happiness is my responsibility so what are my options. Nagging is counter productive, my feelings aren’t going to go away so maybe I should find something else to look forward to. I decide to take some courses on sewing but realize that at least for a while it will cut into together time on a day my partner comes over. So…I explain what I’ve been thinking to him and his response?” That’s a great idea! I’m busy earlier but I could pick you up when your classes are done and we can get some coffee on the way home. That way we can at least spend a little time together”
                    I’m not asking for permission here, but I’m checking in with him so he doesn’t feel punished or fear that I’m going to leave him. He’s made a commitment to pick me up after my classes despite his crazy schedule.
                    Does this sound to you like a man not willing to put effort into the relationship? Does it sound like I’m trying to fix him or make him what I want? Does he sound disinterested in my needs? Is he not offering reasonable solutions to our problem?

                    • Okay I understand your situation better. In summary, if I read your post correctly: He acknowledges that you two haven’t been spending much time together and tells you why, and you accepted his response; he realizes he needs make up for this somehow to let you know you’re still on his radar, so he compromises and offers to pick you up after your sewing classes, which you’ve been taking to pass time when he is not available. His unavailability is not long-term, so you decided to stick it out with him and it worked for you and him. Great story!

                    • pillowinhell says:

                      Thank you Taylor! You have it bang on. I apologize for the length of my post, but really I couldn’t think of how to write it more succinctly.

                      The other point is that I knew going into the relationship that his daughters and job would affect how much time we spend together. So when I found myself unhappy, it wasn’t right to expect him to change.

                      Sometimes we forget that taking charge of our own lives is liberating. Nagging is frustrating, and it makes us feel helpless and angry.

          • These are not rhetoric. They are examples of real life experiences which have been revised a bit, so it’s cleaner for here and shorter to read. lol. Do you want long-winded examples and explanations?

            Replace the sore leg with menstruation…so it becomes “Look, I’m menstruating, we can’t have sex tonight, OKAY? Now that’s a little too much information you say, a little too real? lol. Well, don’t nit-pick and question my examples for next time because I can always give you the dirty and long version of things 😉

            • pillowinhell says:

              Lol michelle! Caught you implying that (a) menstruation is dirty and shouldn’t be talked about, and (b) that despite living with women, men can’t handle a simply fact of biology.

              So who is letting whom off the hook now?

  25. The Bad Man says:

    For the sake of argument, let’s blame the “man code” for men not sharing their feelings.

    Is that men’s own fault that they are affected by external factors? Is that men’s own fault that when they try to share their feelings it is invalidated? No, it’s societies fault and that includes women too.

    • It is not men’s own fault that they are affected by external factors. Everyone is affected by external factors. Yes, it is society’s fault and that includes women.

      But overall, women have done much more work than men in trying to make society abolish the “guy/man code.” And it is very demeaning to hear people denigrate the great work these women and men have done, especially when they’re benefitting so much from it.

      I don’t blame men for being affected by the guy/man code (or women for being affected by the subservient woman code).. However, I get very irritated when they get defensive about it, refuse to do anything about it and demonize feminists.

      I know it is difficult to work for cultural and personal change. But getting defensive will pull us backward. It won’t move us forward.

      • The Bad Man says:

        I have a different perception of what feminists like Hugo are doing about abolishing the man-code.

        I don’t really like the word man-code and I don’t like much about traditional forms of masculinity. Society exerts pressure on both men and women to conform to a certain standard based on the societal values of the time. I liken this to a box where people are limited. Women have made great strides in opening the box and giving themselves options and choices.

        Some men are still restricted to that old box and there still are societal pressures. Feminists (like Hugo) are not attempting to open that box for men, but rather offer men a shiny new box that they have to conform to..

        • “Some men are still restricted to that old box and there still are societal pressures. Feminists (like Hugo) are not attempting to open that box for men, but rather offer men a shiny new box that they have to conform to..”

          Well if something isn’t working…why would you re-use something that is broken or band-aid it? Hugo is offering alternatives ways of thinking and doing for men (if you want to call it “shiny new box”). Men have been using archaic and patriarchal rules to live by since cavemen times…it’s time to move away from the traditional model as it’s not working for the modern age. People are looking for change…people are looking for new ways of living life…people want to live in harmony, just as nature is with the earth.

  26. How many people did Ms. Hickey interviewed to gather the materials on her article? I will agree that both women & men grow up with a lot of exposure to preconceived notions of marriage (portrayals on TV, magazine article, etc.) You can see definite stereotypes in TV portrayals – wife is always the naggy one, husband always complain about getting nagged, etc. As we grow up we hear certain “rules” for marriage and relationship. I think unless you have people around you who actually teaches you about relationship or provides you with an example of a happy marriage, chances area we will grow up with these manufactured notions of marriage. The challenge is to break away from the idea that there is a set prescription for a happy marriage and to adapt a more realistic set of policies for you. And it’s not hard to figure out a start – treat your mate the way you would like to be treated. If you want to be respected & appreciated & treated well, then treat your mate that way, and if they are worth your time they will reciprocate. Granted, there are different expectations as to what being “treated well” entails…but this is why you should get to know the person well before you married them in the first place. As for me, I am happily married for 14 years, and I will say with confidence that my husband is just as happy as I am.

  27. If i was given a choice between “good” husband or “great” husband…let’s aim for “best” husband while I’m at it – which do you think I would choose?

    Maybe at the typical end of good husband, he is loyal; hard working; funny; takes out the garbage; puts the toilet seat down etc. AND at the other end with “the best husband”, he is all that PLUS he is mentally, physically and emotionally connected with you.

    The best husband may feel embarrassed, but he’ll drive to the store to buy that box of sanitary pads for you because you’ve run out and you’re sick in bed. He’ll remember birthdays and anniversaries and have made plans in advance because you’ve done the same for him, and he knows these dates have special meaning his wife. He offers to take care of the children and asks you to have a night out with your girlfriends because he recognizes that you’ve been a great hostess and Betty Crocker for thanksgiving and other holiday events, and that you’re simply the best mother to his kids. The best husband I think is is a man who has honed their intuition and communication skills — emotional IQ, on top of all the other general traits.

    • I love this. Perfect!

    • Sorry, but when a man offers to take care of the children, that means that he really doesn’t do the daily work of caring for them. Also, a good husband never says a woman is the best mother to his kids. He says a woman is the best mother to their kids. Children are not the property of men.

      If a woman is a great hostess for thanksgiving, the man should be a great host. He should do an equal amount of planning, housework, making everyone feel welcome, and cleanup. It’s pretty irritating if he just pitches in.

      • pillowinhell says:

        Gee, I don’t know Maria…sounds like the lady is very happy in her marriage. I wasn’t aware that marriages were made to uphold feminist politics. Considering that this is a couple that have been happily married for fourteen years, I guess we feminists have every right to demand that what works for them be changed to meet our ideals. Wouldn’t want the guy too happy right? I thought feminism was about opening up choices for women so we could balance our lives to reach our full potential and find greater contentment.

      • “He says”??? you’re talking about me??? I’m FEMALE, Michelle…it’s not french. Are you putting it down because you think I’m a man and wrote that to pat myself on the back? lol. You’re mistaken.

        I wrote that post to illustrate the need to be in tune with your relationship (example with wife) and what’s going on in your environment, and then to have the emotional IQ (wisdom/intuition) to quickly assess and respond appropriately through communication and action.

        I figured that someone would misinterpret and take things the wrong angle…I didn’t want to write too much though.

        Maria, you’re just assuming things. How do you know he doesn’t take part in caring for them? Did I say that? Most women take care of their children MOST of the time though…so when a husband offers to take care of the children and TELLS you to go have fun with your friends, why is that not welcomed? It is a thoughtful gesture and tell him afterward how that meant so much to you.

        “He says a woman is the best mother to their kids.” Ummm. where did i say this? I said “and that you’re simply the best mother to his kids”… read it again…it means the wife is a great mother, of his kids. So that makes “children are not the property of men” irrelevant here.

        Who says he doesn’t do planning, some hosting… he could have been putting up the halloween decorations outside and putting up early Christmas lights!

        Ideally work should be all equal, whether it’s domestic, child rearing or paid work…but that’s nearly impossible in most households; people may have negotiated what works best for them. The bottom line is to remember to be thoughtful to each other, understanding, communicate and show appreciation through meaningful gestures (don’t have to be grandiose or material things) and don’t take people for granted.

        • EDIT: maria says: “Also, a good husband never says a woman is the best mother to his kids.” I said that he recognizes (“and that you’re simply the best mother to his kids”), and not told his kids that.

    • This ideal of a good husband who gives, gives, and gives getting nothing in return would make any man miserable. The entire marriage is focused on him doing what she wants, and her getting what she wants forget about him. He’s the servant, she’s the master.

      It’s no wonder men married to women who think that way check out emotionally. Any man who has to deal with that would sooner or later get fed up with such an entitled self-centered outlook on life.

      • This is not a criticism. That is an interesting observation and what occured to me as I read it, was that is what women have complained about since time began; that they have been subservient in the relationship. And it just won’t work whether it is a man or a woman having to squash their souls to be in a relationship. And what it happening in society is that no one wants to commit, because less and less people are willing to play out this old paradigm. It’s time for men and women to really figure out how to have an equitable relationship.

      • Eric,

        You’ve got things so twisted…nice try. There’s always these people on GMP who are so negative and turn something positive to something that meets their agenda.

        In my post, it’s the wife who is giving, gives and gives; however from my examples the husband shows he can also reciprocate, that he is emotionally in tune with his wife and surroundings; he recognizes and values what she does and he make efforts to reciprocate. He evens out the playing field so that no one feels being taken for granted. Sorry, but no one is the master or servant here.

        I think too many people are afraid of being taken advantage of and afraid of losing CONTROL to someone else, usually men (women are naturally more giving) feel this way…so then the relationship becomes a one way street…and someone is bound to feel frustrated and taken for granted and the nagging follows. People forget that in relationships, you’re supposed to give! That’s how relationships grow and flourish…withholding being nice to someone isn’t going to do anything for you, but will make you look like an ass. A relationship requires re-evaluation and work if it’s not equitable…and when i say equitable, it doesn’t necessarily mean 50/50 of every aspect of your relationship or life…it means each person must negotiate and be comfortable and happy with one another’s roles and expectations.

        • Once you’ve been happily married (once) for over a decade with a couple happy kids come back and tell me how much you know about how to make a marriage work first had.  Unlike the writer of this article, I have done it right, with one woman, for a long time.

          I can tell you first hand that all of this selfish score keeping you seem to think is the key is why so many marriages end in misery and/or divorce.  Keeping score and realizing you have been doing 51.5% for 3 days creates resentment.  Selfishness is what will land you in misery and divorce court.  Think about what you can do for your spouse, not what s/he can do for you.

          If you love your spouse and you have to do 60 or 90 for a period of time, for whatever reason, you do it because of love.  You don’t keep score.  If you marry well, s/he will have the same outlook.   And, none of this has anything to do with patriarchy, society or anything else.  It’s between two people.  Period.

          If you marry well, none of this is even a major issue.

          • typical…guy keeping score. That didn’t even occur to me when I wrote that post. Men watch too much sports…they keep score on everything.

            Your thinking is so rigid, you don’t grasp the big picture….People can show love but still have resentment if they feel pressured to hold up certain expectations. Because of traditional roles, women refrain from speaking up or asking for help…as women are expected to be subservient by her husband and do her duties independently without his involvement.

            For example. my aunt and uncle have very traditional roles. They both work full time, they have two kids…yet she does SO MUCH MORE WORK…there’s no doubt she loves him. But she is expected to do all the cooking at home, rear the children herself and take care of their needs, she is expected to cook up all the dozens of plates of food for parties, which they throw fairly often and wash all the dishes by hand and clean up.

            I see how hard she works preparing and cooking for these parties and still looking after the kids…the husband doesn’t offer to lend a hand in any of this “sissy stuff”. Despite this, they have a happy marriage…perhaps it’s because she knows “her place” and he is the boss. She refrains from saying or doing anything that would “upset” him, and anything that would make him feel less than a man. But when she’s doing all this work, I can see that she is exhausted and resentful underneath, but as a traditional woman she holds it inside. But I know all that anger comes out later on, she verbally abuses her kids often…lashing out at them for no reason or spank them. It’s really bad. I know that if her husband were to help out with chores and kids, she would be less stressed out. But as a subservient woman she doesn’t dare “nag” him, asking a man to do anything will be deemed as nagging and “sissy work” by controlling men.

            Obviously her husband lives by the Guy Code to a T, and many of the men on here still support the Guy Code, it’s very selfish men. The Guy Code ruins souls, demeans the people you meant to love, creates new problems (kids getting abused)…and it is a pattern for the next generation.

            • “typical…guy keeping score”.
              Sexist misandristic stereotype.
              Don’t ever accuse anyone of using sexist misogynistic stereotypes.
              “Men watch too much sports…they keep score on everything.”
              More stereotypes, based on your own prejudice.

              Your thinking is so shallow that you don’t see the obvious.

              If you want a happy relationship, marry someone who agrees with your thinking. If you don’t like the way your uncle lives, don’t marry someone like him.

              Your aunt is obviously satisfied or she made a poor choice. Either way, it was her choice to make. She wasn’t forced to marry him.

              • sexist attitude. stereotypical. You attitude is so arrogant with huge whippings of condescension. Your tunnel vision is so narrow you fail to get the lessons of this story of my aunt and uncle, as it relates to Hugo’s article. Pathetic. Upholding the GUY CODE, the “brotherhood”.

                Who said this story is about me? This story is more than about my uncle, it is about you…this story is about men…about men’s emotional detachment, lack of emotional understanding, it’s about men prizing themselves above women. And most of all about men’s complacency to do nothing, NOT A THING, to make a relationship more balanced, more loving, more fair. They wait to be nagged and threaten with divorce to shift their attitudes. (My other aunt was ready to divorce her husband many times).

                Some men ought to not marry. Just go buy a dog – they’re men’s best friend anyway.

                • Sorry, your uncle is not ALL men. He is one man. He lives how he chooses. Your aunt chose him. That has nothing whatsoever to do with all men, as if you know all 3.5 billion men.

                  What else but misandry could drive a person to negatively generalize 3.5 billion total strangers (e.g. “men’s emotional detachment, lack of emotional understanding, it’s about men prizing themselves above women.”)

                  I agree that some men should not marry. Likewise, some women should not marry. But, who should or should not marry is none of your (or my) business. That choice is theirs and theirs alone.

                • pillowinhell says:

                  Wow…thought my screen would melt from the vitriol and rage. You’re angry, very angry about how your aunt is being treated and the inequalities you see. I get that.
                  However, that kind of anger will get you nowhere. And you’re making your aunt out as a victim. What does she, herself have to say about all this? She has options and a voice.
                  Listen to yourself, if that kind of commentary were leveled at a woman what would you conclude? I’m tired of having super angry women use feminist views to spout vitriol and hatred. This is not what feminism is about. Its not a weapon.

              • Michelle-Georgia says:

                The common things between my two aunts is that they both do all the housework and cooking and taking care of the kids, but the difference that sets them apart is the one aunt is outspoken and will tell her husband what he needs to hear (yes, if you want to call it NAG) while the other aunt simmers, won’t take up issues with her husband, and turns her emotions towards her young kids with verbal abuse and hitting. The outspoken aunt is the one who has brought up divorce to her husband a few times, and pretty much gave him an ultimatum – she works two full time jobs and expect her husband to help out around the house, she expects him to cook real food – not fried eggs or instant noodles everyday and wants him to help clean the house.

            • pillowinhell says:

              I like the part where you excuse her verbal abuse of the kids and make it his fault. She may be overwhelmed, but that is no excuse. She chooses the words, sho she is choosing to be abusive.
              It may well be that she values the marriage enough to hold her nose while taking care of things she would rather not do. But she is an adult woman. This is not the turn of the century. What you are doing here is painting her a martyr, and excusing her unwillingness to speak up for herself. I like the part where you list all the work she does, without listing even one task her husband performs in his daily work or at home. A little one sided in perspective don’t you think?

    • pillowinhell says:

      Exactly. But hey guys? What’s the good or ideal wife? I here what men are supposed to be but not what good women are. Any thoughts?

  28. pillowinhell says:

    Wow. This post is so out of line its not even funny. As a feminist I’m asking that you strongly reconsider post as a feminist supporter. I see nothing in this article that represents feminism in a positive light, let alone men.
    Women and men don’t necessarily know how to be good husbands and wives. Why? Because being a good partner to someone is about learning about another person and that particular persons needs, hopes, dreams and flaws. What men and women should know BEFORE they get married is how to be good people capable of integrity, self reflection, the four cardinal virtues, and kindness. They also need to know how to own their own shit.
    Nagging does not get things done. If you’re a clean freak and you’ve shacked up with someone that does not meet your high standards…own the fact that you did not carefully consider what the consequences would be. Expecting your partner to change who they are and what makes them happy after you’ve married them breaks the most fundemental aspect of marriage and family. That would be the part where you accept the person for who they are and learn to work WITH them. Your article reeks strongly of giving women a free pass to emotionally abuse a man because she did not carefully consider what her needs, priorities and expectations were in every area of her life. Nor did she clearly state them to her mate, nor did she carefully look at how her mate handles certain situations or customarily lives before the wedding.
    Men are not clueless dumb apes incapable of expressing themselves. PEOPLE act that way when suddenly they discover that their mate has changed the rules, can’t accept who they really are or are using them as a punching bag for frustrations that really have nothing to do with them.
    Arguments and things that drive a mate nuts happen in any long term relationship. But if its you that has a problem with it, than its you who is best able to come up with a creative solution that eases your resentment. Then you present those solutions to your mate and you both decide what’s best for both of you. Own your shit. Women are quite capable of it as are men. Using tired excuses and stereotypes holds everyone back and generates a lot of misery. I am a woman, not sugar and light. I’m capable of solving problems that make me upset without dumping on my mate. I as a woman am also quite capable of abusing my partner, especially when men and women alike perpetuate a woman can do no wrong stereotype that let’s me get away with it.
    Its called personal responsibility, also known here as manning up.

    • I might love you.

      Seriously though, well said.

    • If every feminist thought like you, almost all women would identify as feminists.

      Very unfortunately, as shown from many of the comments here, most or at least many so-called feminists view men as the writer does.

      If you are so inclined, I suggest that you use this comment as the basis of an article for submission.

      • pillowinhell says:

        I have so much to say about some of the problems I see with certain aspects of feminism I could probably write several articles. I do not like the divisiveness feminism has created both within and without the movement. Ideals are great and we’ll get there eventually provided we don’t drive off all the people who aren’t upper middle class white female and completely ignorant of the concept of social and personal responsibility.

      • Suzana Alves says:

        Most feminists, just like most people, view men as humans capable of bad and good, just like women.
        The reason most women/men do not identify themselves as feminists is because of some rotten apples and many, many misogynist assholes who keep defaming and harassing women (mostly feminists, as hey are the ones most focused on women’s issues). They say so much lies and are so violent no one really want to put themselves there.

    • Personal responsibility is also womaning up.

      And personal and political responsibility is definitely WOMANING up. 🙂

    • The Bad Man says:

      I’m not one to brand “all feminists” because I know a few good ones that are true humanists and scientists. However, Hugo is more representative of the majority of gender feminists that have hijacked the movement.

  29. I would like to thank the OP of this post. As a relatively new reader to your site, it is plain to see that we as a nation (U.S.) have a Loooooooooong way to go to heal the divide of Patriarchy among other isms. Some men simply refuse to GET IT.

    • Here we go again. Any man who disagrees with everything feminists say are idiots who don’t “get it.” Right. Because it couldn’t possibly be that rational, intelligent people disagree and have a different yet perfectly valid viewpoint on such matters. Right? Because anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong.

      Getting really tired of this.

      • What is so insulting is that you paint feminists as inherently evil.

        Without feminism, women wouldn’t be able to vote, birth control would be illegal, most of the high paying professions would be closed to them, they would be strongly discouraged from developing their athletic abilities, they wouldn’t be able to pursue higher education, husbands would be viewed as meal tickets instead of equal partners, they would have to tolerate sexual harassment at work . . . the list goes on and on.

        Feminism has done an enormous amount of good in the world and in the best marriages, most of the husbands will admit that the feminist movement made them better men.

        Feminists made enormous sacrifices and endured tremendous ridicule so that women and men could live fuller lives.

        • MB: I agree. I’m not against feminism per se. I’m against the types of feminists (such as many of the people I see on this site) who can’t seem to talk about making things better for women without putting down men in the process.

          Technically a feminist is someone who is for equal rights for both genders. I’m certainly in that camp. But as in any group, there are some feminists who take things WAY too far. I see a lot of that on this site. Whether it’s the ridiculousness of wanting to spell women as “womyn” or reaching to the point of absurdity to find gender conflicts and supposed sexism in every little thing even when it’s not there, it’s ludicrous and frustrating to put up with.

    • and some of us (progressive, egalitarian, well educated, non-MRA, happily married to a happy and equal partner) reject patriarchy theory and the current forms of feminism out there….

      • Please explain patriarchy theory to us. Also, I want hear your definitions of current forms of feminism.

        Before you talk about rejecting patriarchy theory, you should explain what you mean by it.

    • pillowinhell says:

      Seems to me that a lot of feminists don’t get it either. How is it that we can demand our voices and concerns be heard, but the men aren’t given the same privilege? Men have a great many issues and concerns that we would do well to hear. Men are a feminist concern too. They are our sons, fathers, brothers and mentors. In short we love them too. Second wave. Feminism has its time and place and I honor what its brought us. However, I’m very angry with how its set us against the very people we care about and some of the more extreme stuff damages everyone. No social movement that goes on to perpetuate the very wrongs it sought to overcome can last.
      Why is it that some feminists expect any one man to overcome the patriarchy in every aspect of his life? They may have certain privileges, but many men did not ask for them and would happily give it away if they could. They also suffer from it too. Because unless you’re the wealthiest,whitest,straightest and most powerful and athletic man in the room, the system is set to grind you down too. Usually in direct proportion to how much below the ideal you fall.

    • I agree that some men refuse to get it. Unfortunately, most of the men who refuse to get it love to post on this website.

  30. My question is: how does this play in gay relationships? By this definition, no gay men can stay together and all lesbians never fight.

    Coincidentally, by chance, I googled an ex last week. Turns out she was arrested in June for plunging a knife into her current boyfriend’s chest. I’d say that was hurtful and unfair on her part.

    JFB

  31. The Bad Man says:

    I think the issue being discussed here is about abusive and controlling women.

    Women don’t have superior emotional abilities. Sure they may use their emotions to manipulate men more often then men do, but that is not better, it’s just manipulation.

    Yes, women are really good at remembering old arguments and throwing it at you when she’s in the wrong. That’s just bad communication.

    • You can’t use your own emotions to manipulate others, I hate that myth. I suppose you could fake having emotions, but tha’s not what you said and how many people can (or would want to) fake their emotions with the person they’re closest to? requires a lot of foresight and planning, and you can’t plan anything when you’re crying your eyes out. Besides, if you’re so smart you can manipulate people, then why on earth would you want to plan a situation that would leave you crying and upset?

      I dated a guy who told me that I just cried to make him feel guilty. I told him no, I was crying because I was upset and I just wanted him to stop yelling at me. There’s a reason I’m not dating him anymore.

      • The Bad Man says:

        I like how you spun that around to make yourself a victim. Every wonder why men don’t share their emotions as much as women? It’s because of the backlash they receive for not being sensitive to HER needs. So many men just box it all up and don’t talk about it because MEN’s feelings are not validated.

        Let me repeat that…MEN’s feelings are not validated. That is my experience with this site.

        • The Bad Man says:

          MEN’s feelings are not validated. That is my experience with this site.

          Hugo is one of the better examples.

          “Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men”

          Ya sure, that attitude is really going to get men talking about their feelings!

        • How did Marie make herself a victim? Please be specific. For instance, do you think it’s not okay to be upset when your partner is yelling at you?

          Hugo’s title may be inflammatory, but he does, in fact, validate men’s feelings: “When men are raised with little sense of how to “fight fair,” particularly with romantic partners, they often lack the discernment to determine a legitimate criticism that ought to be taken to heart from an unfair attack.” That’s empathy with a big, heaping side of validation.

          • The Bad Man says:

            Lets use that example. Why was he yelling? Obviously he was being emotional for some reason but that never registers as important. He was just yelling and thats bad, but she was upset that he was yelling. So, he was upset, which made her upset, QED, it’s all his fault.

            I don’t feel that Hugo validates men’s feelings, I feel like Hugo places men in a little box and treats men like lab rats. Lisa Hickey, on the other hand, did validate men’s feelings.

            • Suzana Alves says:

              Man, stop that. Yelling is seen as abusive by many people. And she didn’t mention why he was angry because that was not the point, that is all. YOU have to stop being the victim, seeing men being vilified and abused when it is clearly not the case. You are not dumb, just obsessed.

              Godamnit.

        • Pommodore 94 says:

          “MEN’s feelings are not validated”

          The Bad Man, I agree, you have a point. I never understood why women’s feelings has to be nurtured and protected, while men’s has to be painted as ‘ fragile male ego’ why? Since I was a child I saw this repeated over and over in tv-shows, movies-sitcoms and even news paper articles.
          Now I tell you how I feel, men’s feelings have the same value of women’s, no more no less. The fragile ego, it’s a myth. A myth that lots of women, men and feminist (Hugo included) keep propagating. This need to stop.

          • Suzana Alves says:

            “A myth that lots of women, men and feminists…”
            Feminists are a third gender now or something? lol 😀

      • I don’t believe women are inherently masters of emotional manipulation (my wife doesn’t do this at all) but if you read the experiences of men and women married to personality disordered people (BPD and NPD in particular) you wouldnt be dismissing emotional manipulation so cavalierly.

    • They remember old arguments because they haven’t been resolved fairly.

  32. Let’s start with the good news.  In yesterday’s posting, the writer shows (apparently inadvertently) that men and women are wired differently – right from the factory.  Men simply have more testosterone than women, even with a house full of kids.  Women simply have more estrogen than men, even having borne nary a child.  And those chemical/hormonal differences affect behavior.  We just are different –as the study showed.  

    Despite the incessant male feminist psychobabble (e.g. “Guy Code”; men are emotionally helpless, etc.), the fact remains it takes two adults to have marital troubles, just as it takes two adults to choose to get married.   However, women (for whatever reason) have far less tolerance for lack of complete marital satisfaction and are far more likely to give up on the marriage, despite vowing not to.

    In the West, there are few if any arranged marriages.  So, women are marrying men who they established a sufficient emotional connection with and had an enduring relationship prior to marriage.  So, it is simply not true that suddenly this same man can’t relate emotionally.

    If the writer genuinely wants to advance the quality of marriages and not just spew more man hate, he should spend more time considering why women (especially, since they initiate the vast majority of divorce) so easily opt out of a relationship they vowed would fight to keep whole until death.  Death is a pretty high standard, way higher than “I’m not happy anymore.”

    • Most women opt out of marriages because they can’t take the male dominance anymore. They’re tired of doing more housework and childcare, they’re tired of giving up their careers, they’re tired of male-dominant sex, they’re tired of taking all the responsibility for birth control, they’re tired of giving up their names, they’re tired of their husbands’ lack of respect, they’re tired of their husbands’ infidelities, they’re tired of their husbands’ consuming pornography . . .

      They are tired, very tired, of patriarchy.

      • How can you possibly know why “most women opt out of marriages”?  Have you actually interviewed “most” women in the word and been told that by them?  Since that answer is no,  it can only be an anti-male outlook that drives a person to reach such conclusions.

        The good news is that “most” women aren’t feminists, actually like men, and don’t harbor the resentment you describe.  But, for those who do fit your description, perhaps they should have discussed what to do about children, careers, housework, names, birth control, and so forth prior to marriage.  What a concept!

        For those who do fit your description, with such disdain for men they should never have married a man in the first place.  Obviously, it’s best that they remain unattached from any man ever again.

        • There is lots of social research that shows why divorce is usually initiated by women. I don’t have to interview the women. Those interviews have been done by numerous sociologists, psychologists and other social researchers.

          Eric, I don’t want to say it, but you are very misogynistic. Any man who hates feminists hates women at some level.

          • Sarah, you wrote “Any man who hates feminists hates women at some level.”

            This is a rather pathetic and inaccurate attempt to paint all those who disagree with hardcore feminists are “men who hate women.” It’s untrue. Disagreeing with your point of view does not mean someone hates you. It means they have a different opinion. It’s not wise (and really unfair) to paint people as hateful just because they won’t conform to your viewpoint.

          • Sarah, FYI, I hate no person on earth. I hate “hate” and hateful stereotypes.

            I find that both MRAs and feminists very often fall into that trap, to a greater or lesser extent. When hateful stereotypes are propagated, I will call them out, along with the perpetrator(s).

            • MRAs and feminists are not opposite sides of the same coin. MRAs want to continue male dominance while feminists want a world where both the female and the male are considered the norm of humanity.

              I don’t think that feminists propogate hateful stereotypes. Rather, they show how our male dominant system has taught women and men to behave in harmful ways. If women were more reluctant to change their subservient ways, feminists would be calling them out a lot more. (Actually, that’s what they did several decades ago.) But the truth is that nowadays, men are a lot more reluctant to change their dominant ways and so feminists are calling them out on it.

              • Kath – this article is a prime example of a hateful anti-male stereotype propagated by feminists.  I know that most feminists don’t get that.  They dont see it. But, thankfully, non-feminists do – which is why they (75% of women) reject feminism. 

                Non-feminists actually like men (as imperfect as we are) and don’t think that our brains and hearts don’t work as this article, the accompanying picture, and feminists supporters claim.

              • Pommodore 94 says:

                “MRAs and feminists are not opposite sides of the same coin. MRAs want to continue male dominance while feminists want a world where both the female and the male are considered the norm of humanity.”

                Correction MRA’s want to stop the misandry in the world. A blind spot in the feminist movement. Yes feminist can also be misandric my friend, every time a feminist ask for more support for women and none for men, that’s mysandri. When feminist are against in giving shelter to bettered men, that misandry. When feminist ignore rape men or dismiss MGM that’s misandry…etc etc ect. MRA are also out to remove the gender stereotyping of men, something that feminist far many times, despite the good intentions ignore. BTW if feminism was a egalitarian movement, instead of criticizing the guy’s who are angry at the modus operandi of Hugo, they would support them. But this doesn’t happen, why? And another example of misandry, is the spell check on this site, dont contain the term ‘ Misandry’ can we please fix this?

          • Pommodore 94 says:

            ” Eric, I don’t want to say it, but you are very misogynistic. Any man who hates feminists hates women at some level.”

            Who told you that? who told you that, hating feminist equal at hating women? feminist’s are not only women, there are also men in the feminist movement, so I don’t see how hating feminist means you hate women? unless off course you think that male feminist are not feminist’s but just ally? So hating MRA’s and MRM is equal at hating men for you?

        • Suzana Alves says:

          Man, do you really believe only people who label themselves as feminists dislike and oppose male dominance?! Do you in fact believe male dominance is ok and should be tolerated? Why “resentment” as if it was a bad thing to resent it in the first place?

          Also, do you ALSO believe males who try to dominate and opress their women are never at fault, only because you think these women “perhaps should have discussed what to do about children, careers, housework, names, birth control, and so forth prior to marriage”? Don’t you know many people change and show their true faces after marriage? Why blame the women for their partner’s machismo and dominance?

      • Pommodore 94 says:

        “Most women opt out of marriages because they can’t take the male dominance anymore. They’re tired of doing more housework and childcare, they’re tired of giving up their careers, they’re tired of male-dominant sex, they’re tired of taking all the responsibility for birth control, they’re tired of giving up their names, they’re tired of their husbands’ lack of respect, they’re tired of their husbands’ infidelities, they’re tired of their husbands’ consuming pornography . . .

        They are tired, very tired, of patriarchy.”

        Nice try in dehumanizing men, MB, so that means, when men opt out its because they are tired of female domination and matriarchy?

    • I do not think the author showed that women and men are wired differently. I think he showed that women and men are taught differently.

      You need to apologize to Hugo for your comments about “incessant male feminist psychobabble.” Hugo made some valid remarks and it it very unfair to demonize feminists.

      • The Bad Man says:

        I’ll apologize to Hugo if he can substantiate any of his argument with facts rather than bad stereotypes.

      • Feminists have been continuously and unapologetically demonizing men for years.  This article is just another example. There is nothing wrong with pointing it out.

        He stated in his article posted that men’s testosterone drops when they become fathers.  He concludes that this shows that it’s natural for men to care for children: less testosterone means better equipped to care for children.  Per his logic, then, women are clearly the best suited for childcare because they have even lower testosterone.

        • Majority of women are biologically more NUTURING, but that does not negate men’s responsibilities for caring and raising children together. Personally, and the law is behind this…that if you take part in conceiving a child – you are responsible for the welfare of that child, REGARDLESS if you have low or high testosterone, the courts don’t care about your testosterone count.

          The OP has pointed out that men can also have this natural nuturing ability, despite the Guy Code. Men can indeed be equally caring and nurturing as women, these men exists, and be proud of it guys! It’s very SEXY. When most men lack this trait and you got it, yes it’s very SEXY. Your children will love you for it and so will your mother-in-law 😉

          • No one said that men do not have responsibility to care for their children. That goes without saying. That’s what it means to be a father. But, fathers and mothers are not interchangeable. Children need both, not two mothers or two fathers.

            If fathers and mothers were interchangeable, men and women would have equal amounts of testosterone and estrogen. We don’t. We naturally behave differently. And that’s a good thing.

            And there is no “Guy Code” that disables all men from being able to communicate effectively. That’s a sexist stereotype.

            • But the testosterone argument is used to get men off the hook for refusing to change diapers, make his spouse’s career the primary career, and so on.

              By naturally behaving differently, do you mean that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally submissive? If so, then that is not a good thing.

            • Suzana Alves says:

              “But, fathers and mothers are not interchangeable. Children need both, not two mothers or two fathers.”
              Damn. Why all of you “FEMINAZIS R OUT TO KILL THE MENZ!!!11!!one!!!1” pricks are always anti-gay couples with children? That is so telling.

              “We naturally behave differently. And that’s a good thing.”
              Prove it. Prove only 1 difference that is 100% natural between human males/females’ social behaviour. Because you see, not even the most recognized biologists, psychiatrists and so on have been able to prove it.

        • He stated in his article posted that men’s testosterone drops when they become fathers. He concludes that this shows that it’s natural for men to care for children: less testosterone means better equipped to care for children. Per his logic, then, women are clearly the best suited for childcare because they have even lower testosterone.

          doh, The feminists will come up with a ‘cunning plan’ – They will in response downplay or marginalise the role of testosterone and estrogen.
          There, problem solved. Just sophist it away all in long tomes filled with mystical-esoteric terms

      • MB: You need to apologize to Hugo for your comments about “incessant male feminist psychobabble.

        —–

        This is a joke, right?

        Hugo should apologize for his persistent misandrist drivel against men.

    • Eric again brings a dose of sanity to the discussion. Men and women are wired differently, not better, not worse, just different. Many women leave marriages because they believe they’ve tried everything to make the relationship work. They stop talking about their concerns because they don’t feel heard. Many men think that since their wives are no longer bringing things up, everything is fine. This is why they feel broadsided when their wife leaves.

      I agree with the point that many men want to be good husbands, but don’t know how. This is because of the wonderful idea that if “my husband truly loved me he would know what I need.” The corollary is that if a man does what a woman asks it doesn’t count because he only did it to make her happy. My mother once said to me that she didn’t think women should have to ask for what they wanted. AAAAAGGGHHHH! Couples need to learn to communicate productively. Both have valid positions and they need to come to resolution on some things. Learning to work together is the key. Blaming each other is a recipe for disaster–Hence the high divorce rate.

      • Suzana Alves says:

        … that still does not prove it is “wired”, naturally. One refutation? Look at other (much different) cultures and how marriage works, it’s outcomes, etc.

  33. LOLing Woman says:

    I think that this article is far superior to the other one (Asshole Husbands) because it’s more realistic & doesn’t place the blame on one gender or the other.

    Men are socialized to be emotionally retarded (Assholes!) and women are spcialized to play right into that. It keeps the dysfunction going. Women expect to & are expected to do the emotional heavy lifting in a relationship. Women are expected to adjust themselves physically & emotionally for everyone around them – to the point of lying & denying their true feelings. Men are expected to take up as much space as they feel like & care about themsleves. Let’s admit that these are the causes of marriage problems.

    Anyway…here’s a tip: If you are romantically involved with someone else & you try to meet their needs – take a look at what their needs are and do your best to meet them. DO NOT use your own needs as a guide. You will fail.

    • Wow. You are so warped it’s not even funny.

      To think the men are automatically “socially retarded” is just dumb. It might surprise you to know that in my marriage, I’m the communicator. I do the heavy emotional lifting. The same is true for many of my married friends. And I can assure you that as men, we do much more than “take up space.” We are caretakers (both of our wives and of children), workers, handymen and shoulders to lean on. We’re not perfect, but we always put in the effort.

      And I think the majority of men fall into this category. To make a blanket statement that we’re “retarded” really shows your ignorance and lack of even basic comprehension.

      • What do you mean by heavy emotional lifting? You say that you are a handyman, but how much day-to-day housework and childcare do you do? And how much does your spouse do?

        Also, you say you’re a caretaker. If that means you’re the breadwinner, keep in mind that when the man makes all the money, that’s a HUGE power imbalance in the husband’s favor.

        • Heavy emotional lifting means getting her to talk about what’s wrong, even when she doesn’t want to. It means hashing things out, getting them out in the open and working to improve ourselves. For me, the heavy emotional lifting means smoothing over problems even when they weren’t of my creation, for the greater good. At a certain point, it was realizing we both could benefit from talking to professionals, despite that being a very tough pill to swallow. Those are just a few examples.

          When it comes to housework and childcare, we’ve actually just undergone a major shift. When both my wife and I were working I was the primary caregiver because of my job’s flexibility. I was in charge of breakfast, getting ready for school, drop off at preschool, pick up from preschool and dinner. My wife would be home for bath time. I did the dishes, took out trash and generally straightened up. My wife (formerly in finance) took care of the bills and the laundry.

          Three months ago I switched jobs because I needed something higher paying after my wife’s health suffered to the point she could no longer work. Now I do much less housework and childcare because I commute 4-5 hours a day in addition to working both a full- and part-time job. It’s been extraordinarily difficult to become the breadwinner, a status I’m completely unfamiliar with as my wife has always out-earned me.

          And by the way, I did not mean caretaker as in “financial caretaker.” I meant I enjoy taking care of my wife and son’s emotional needs as well.

          • boy daddyfiles, you sure are a sexist jerk for partnering with your wife for the benefit of the family. I hope you feel super guilty for every hour you work/commute and dollar you bring in. I think you should feel twice as guilty for every hour at the second job. Also, apologize to your wife for all you do. Then you’ll be a REALLY enlightened guy!

            sarcasm is intended.

            Non sarcastic- I bet if you were the one who was hurt or lost your job your wife would have done exactly what youre doing. You two sound like great partners. Best wishes to you and your family in what sounds like a very tough time.

            • It sounds like both of you have benefitted immensely from the feminist movement. Feminism forces both women and men to grow up.

          • If she doesn’t want to talk about something, don’t coerce her to do it.

            • MB, excuse me if I don’t take marriage advice from an anonymous pot-stirrer on the Internet. But thanks for thinking you somehow know enough about my relationship to know what my wife wants. That’s not condescending at all….

        • power imbalance?! I am the bread winner because my career choices were far more lucrative than my wife’s. We had the SAME job right out of college but I moved into finance while she moved into HR. She had all the ability to move into a financial role but didn’t want to (BS in Business Admin from a top Univ). We pursued what made us happy and structured our relationship to make these things possible.

          I guess I should have held myself back careerwise to protect her from the evils of MALE DOMINATION. By the way, I work for a woman who makes considerably more than her husband.

          Does it make her anti-feminist that she likes the fact I make a good income? Does it make her anti-feminist because she’s happy that I make enough money that we can bootstrap finance her new business venture? Perhaps I should take a lower paying job to balance the “power” and she should pursue an SBA loan? That sure would be good for my family and sure would strike a blow for equality of the sexes!

          • You don’t need to get defensive.

            Our culture still thinks it’s better for the man to make most of the money because money is power. The mass media loves to print articles about all the problems when the woman makes more money than the man. There is this notion that if a man makes less money than his spouse, it emasculates him. Like it or not, we are all exposed to those pervasive cultural ideas and yes, we are all affected by them.

            I know one couple where the woman makes a lot more money than the man and it doesn’t seem to bother either one of them. However, friends (who consider themsleves progressive) will question them and wonder if she is “unmanning” him or if he is “emasculating” himself. This couple looks pretty typical and if these friends didn’t know how much money she made, they would never wonder if he is losing his manliness.

            On this website, so many readers seem to think that just because they don’t act like stereotypical women and men, they haven’t been affected by those stereotypes. And they get very defensive. But the truth is that all of us are impacted by stereotypes.

            BTW, since you do make more money, how do you ensure that you and your spouse ensure that you won’t abuse your power? I hate to talk about studies, but they have shown that when the man makes more money, there is more male dominance.

      • “I do the heavy emotional lifting.”
        While not discounting this, I do feel it would be more helpful if you were to follow it up with examples of how you communicate, how you lift things with emotional weight. Everything else you listed (caretaker of wife and children, worker, handyman, shoulder to cry on) sounds pretty standard “sturdy oak” to me.

    • Respectfully-

      Saying men are socialized to be “emptionally retarded” is just as offensive as saying women are socialized to engage in “emotional diarrhea.”

      They are both offensive.

      I think there are benefits to both “keeping a stiff upper lip” (think the British in WW2) as well as more free emotional expression. When someone gets to the extremes- catastropic thinking or bottling everything up- is when we see problems.

      Real life example- When my daughter was being bullied (by another girl) should I have told her to “freely express your sadness and dismay! Maybe they will see how sad you are and leave you alone!” or should I have told her to “don’t cry in front of that jerk- don’t give them the satisfaction?” I listened to her express herself to me, empathized, told her the second quote above, immediately followed up with the teacher (and let my daughter know she was to go to her teacher if the kid tried anything again), and helped her with some situational tools and responses to handle a bully.

      The GMP needs to move past denigrating and exaggerating the male stereotype while lifting up female stereotypes. There are MANY good things in traditional masculinity- no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater while we’re trying to improve ourselves as men.

  34. No. No no no.

    We are not dumb. We are not (totally) clueless. And I’m not sure what Guy Code you’re referring to, because that’s not a code I grew up with. Men know what it means to be a good husband. I truly believe they do. Be faithful, be loyal, be honest and always work to improve the relationship. It’s not rocket science. For you to assume men don’t understand these simple concepts is fairly insulting, and also (in my opinion) incorrect.

    And I know you don’t hold women totally blameless, but you really gloss over the way some women in a marriage act. The ones who are completely overbearing, ridiculously controlling and dictate rather than communicate. Frankly, I see a lot more of that than I do of your so-called Guy Code.

    • LOLing Woman says:

      “you really gloss over the way some women in a marriage act. The ones who are completely overbearing, ridiculously controlling and dictate rather than communicate. Frankly, I see a lot more of that than I do of your so-called Guy Code.”

      Of course you see that more – you’re looking for it more LOL!

      “Men know what it means to be a good husband.”

      Do they? No. They know what THEY THINK it means to be a good husband, not what their specific woman thinks it means.

      • Wow. Do you even see your own hypocrisy??

        You assume that WOMEN know what it means to be a good husband, and men need to conform to that. Well I have news for you, that’s not the case. Men know how to be a good husband, but not all women recognize it. Perhaps because you’re too busy making all the rules and deciding for everyone else what is good and what isn’t.

        But that’s not surprising. It doesn’t sound like people such as yourself would ever ask her husband his opinion about anything.

        • Aaron, if we could avoid the ad hominem about “people such as yourself”, that would be helpful. You’re starting to sound like an MRA rather than a fellow editor.

          The sweeping generalization that “men know how to be good husbands” doesn’t stand. Being a good husband is inextricably bound up with being in a relationship with an actual person, not with playing a role. You may be playing a part that looks like a good husband, that feels to you like a good husband, but to your spouse, it ‘s missing the mark. That doesn’t mean her definition is right. But it does mean her definition counts in the discussion.

          • Hugo: There’s a reason I sound pissed. Because I am. More so everyday as I read (not just yours) more and more articles on here that villify men as opposed to sparking any kind of useful discussion.

            I’m sorry, but there are certain traits that make one a good husband. If you’re loyal, respectful, compassionate and faithful then you’re being a good husband. It doesn’t matter what the other person thinks, because those are good things. Those are qualities that are always good, no matter what. If your spouse doesn’t value those traits or worse, views them as negative, then she’s wrong. I’m not sure how you can deny this fact.

            It’s kind of like politely opening a door for a woman is always a good thing, but we’ve been down that road before.

            • Aaron, I hear your anger loud and clear.

              A lot of men make this mistake in a relationship: they define goodness as meeting a set of expectations. They’re like students in my classes, who want to know on the first day what they need to do to get an A. But that’s not what a marriage is; a marriage is dynamic, a marriage evolves, and a marriage is a place where “good enough” is a shifting goal that both partners have a responsibility to create. This doesn’t make every demand a wife makes a husband’s obligation to meet, or vice versa — it does mean that the most important quality we bring isn’t just our fidelity, our loyalty, our nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic. It’s our willingness to be fully present emotionally with our words, our feelings, and our actions — and our willingness to reconsider last year’s definition of “good enough”. That’s what it means to have a vitalized marriage.

              • Hugo, sometimes I worry that’s what the problem is. People want a checklist of if I do these things, I’m a good x. And I agree with you, such checklists usually don’t exist in anything that’s about personal relationships between two individuals. My husband and I have this issue from time to time. The generic “good husband” script says that a good husband buys jewelry. The ads around major holidays pressure guys into this. But I don’t really enjoy wearing jewelry. My skin is pretty sensitive and I code all day on the computer, so rings and bracelets can bother me. When I do wear it, I’m worried about losing it or having it stolen. I have other interests that I’d much rather have indulged but he feels guilty that he’s not following the script.

                Parts of the “good wife” script are just as bad, including not recognizing the difference between nurturing and controlling.

              • Hugo: your condescension is loud and clear.

                I am not a student in your class and I am not mistaken either. A marriage is constantly evolving and both parties should always strive to meet each other’s needs. I never said otherwise.

                But something you seem to be overlooking is that some definitions do not change. If a man (or a woman) is displaying all the aforementioned characteristics, then they are being responsive and emotionally present. And frankly, I think there are certain requirements for a good marriage. Again, if you are displaying positive behavior in a marriage and doing all the things I listed, then you are being a good husband. You want to term it “playing the role” of a good husband, but if you really mean it then you’re not playing a role. You’re actually doing it.

                Yes you should constantly communicate and reevaluate, I agree 100%. But to say a good man displaying all those qualities isn’t doing good enough simply because they’re not strictly adhering to the other person’s requirements, is just off.

                There is right and wrong, good and bad. It’s not all a grey area. And I think too many people have forgotten that because it’s convenient not to have to live up to any standards whatsoever.

                • “If you’re loyal, respectful, compassionate and faithful then you’re being a good husband. It doesn’t matter what the other person thinks, because those are good things. Those are qualities that are always good, no matter what. If your spouse doesn’t value those traits or worse, views them as negative, then she’s wrong.”

                  That doesn’t sound respectful or compassionate, particularly because each person’s definition of the “traits” you list may be very different, which constitutes an undeniable grey area. Also, your list of positive traits in a husband might not match another man’s list, much less all women’s “lists”, if one is to believe all men and women have a set criteria for a spouse or partner.

                  I’m tired of men insisting that all women have a preconceived notion of what their partners should and shouldn’t be doing. I don’t have a list of rights and wrongs that inform my response to any given situation; I simply know how I feel. If a man can’t listen to my feelings and acknowledge them without becoming defensive (even if he honestly disagrees he’s done something “wrong”), then he has some growing up to do if he wants the relationship to continue. The same applies to women. This isn’t a “trait”; it’s work that continues through the duration of any committed relationship.

                  • I disagree.

                    There are many ways to show respect, compassion, faithfulness, etc. Absolutely. But the definitions of those terms always remain the same. And they always remain positive. That’s just a fact.

                    • Do you honestly believe that every man and woman define loyalty, respect, compassion, and faithfulness in exactly the same? That there are no nuances, much less glaring contradictions? I’m not implying that you have unreasonable definitions for these terms, but I’m certain other people have equally reasonable (and personal) ideas of what they mean.

                      I’m not talking about differences between men and women; I’m pointing out your sweeping generalization that EVERYONE should accept these “good” traits and define them, internally, in exactly the same way you do. That’s absurd.

                    • For me, respect means no shouting in an argument, but that isn’t true for everyone, some folks need to shout to feel that they’re emotions are being heard. Faithfulness for me doesn’t mean that my partner can’t sleep with other people, I just want to know about it first and agree on some rules for safety and security, but this is a very different definition than a lot of other people have. I could go on. If you’re trying to follow a husband script – which seems to be what you’re asserting when you say “do x, y and z, which are well defined and consistant, and you’ll be a good husband” – then you are not engaging with your partner. And that is what this is all about, a failure of men to engage – to even see that we’re not engaging. It’s a trained blindspot. We get blinded by shame and anger.

              • wellokaythen says:

                DaddyFiles can correct me if I’m wrong here, but what I see him suggesting is that a man could be a good husband and be underappreciated by his wife. Her expectations could be realistic, or they could be unrealistic, or a little of both. There are ways that a man could be, by most definitions, a good person and a good husband. He’s not saying that it’s completely independent of what his wife wants and needs, but it’s not completely based on his wife’s feelings either.

                I think DaddyFiles is suggesting that a wife could have unfair, unrealistic expectations about what makes a good husband, as I’m sure Hugo would agree that there are unfair, unrealistic expectations placed on women about what makes a good wife.

                A husband and wife could disagree about whether he’s a good husband. He could be wrong. She could be wrong. They could both be wrong.

                A husband and wife could disagree about whether she’s a good wife. He could be wrong. She could be wrong. They could both be wrong.

            • Daddy Files, I think you’ve missed the part where GMP is a feminist training ground where women can teach men how to be men. I’ve only recently found this site but even a cursory look over the articles it is plain to see that it is not by men for men, it is by men who want to be attractive to women and by women who want to shape men into their desired image.

              Schwyzer’s “you sound like an MRA” should ring alarm bells for you. It does for me.

            • “I’m sorry, but there are certain traits that make one a good husband. If you’re loyal, respectful, compassionate and faithful then you’re being a good husband. It doesn’t matter what the other person thinks, because those are good things. Those are qualities that are always good, no matter what. If your spouse doesn’t value those traits or worse, views them as negative, then she’s wrong. I’m not sure how you can deny this fact.”

              Actually, no. Arguably, if your spouse sees you in these ways, you probably are. But you thinking you embody these qualities doesn’t mean you do to her. What does faithful mean to you, for example? Sexual fidelity? That’s not something I value. In fact, I prefer open relationships. I wouldn’t see a man being faithful to me in that sense as a perk. I’d rather we both be with other people. Being a good partner to me would be sharing my desire for having outside partners. (I know this might not be what you meant by faithful, so please clarify if need be.)

              You seem to see the world as far more black and white than it actually is. What you wrote – “It doesn’t matter what the other person thinks”; “If your spouse doesn’t value those traits or worse, views them as negative, then she’s wrong” – suggests arrogance and a lack of sensitivity that I have a hard time seeing as compatible with being a good partner.

              • What I’m saying is that the word faithful does have a definition. Faithful is “steadfast in affection or allegiance.” As I’ve repeatedly said before, there will be a myriad of ways to display faithfulness depending on the couple. But the definition remains. Otherwise, why even have definitions at all?

                I do see a lot of things in black and white. Not everything, but admittedly more than most. I also fail to see how this is a negative.

                As for my supposed “lack of sensitivity” and incompatibility with being a good partner, I guess we should agree to disagree and both thank our lucky stars we’re not partnered to each other. I know I’m a good husband. Not because I’ve deemed myself as such, but because my wife tells me that on a daily basis. And since hers is the only opinion I’m interested in, your uneducated opinion regarding my abilities as a good partner are completely irrelevant.

                • Interesting that you say you’re only interested in your wife’s opinion while telling other men “It doesn’t matter what the other person thinks”; “If your spouse doesn’t value those traits or worse, views them as negative, then she’s wrong.” You don’t see a conflict here?

                  Bunch of folks trying to convince you that the spouse’s opinion does matter, you’re screaming about how it doesn’t only to end with “And since hers is the only opinion I’m interested in, your uneducated opinion regarding my abilities as a good partner are completely irrelevant.” HA!

                  • You need to work on your reading comprehension, as you’re taking half my quote and not taking context into account.

                    When I said the other person’s opinion doesn’t matter, it was in regards to the husband being faithful, compassionate, etc. I said if he’s truly displaying those positive traits yet the wife won’t recognize or admit that, then she’s wrong. And it doesn’t matter what she says about that particular subject, because she’s wrong and he’s right. You could flip the scenario and have a loving wife and an idiot husband, and the reverse would still be true.

                    So the answer is no, I don’t see a conflict. I stand by everything I said. If a woman can’t see that her husband is displaying positive traits, then that’s on her. Not him. She doesn’t get to change the definition of words to suit her own unhappiness. That’s not how it works.

                    • It sounds like you took this article as a really personal attack on you. If you’re in a happy relationship where your dynamic works, then what about this article is so upsetting? That’s not a rhetorical question, I really mean that. The problem that this article is addressing is that lots of men feel like they don’t know what to do to be a good husband. I see this a lot among my guy friends – we generally don’t feel like we have the emotional skills to talk things out with our partners, so we disengage and then get upset at our partners for ‘trying to change us.’ But if we don’t have the emotional skills to talk things out, then we DO need to change and stop putting it all on the women in our lives to tell us what to do. This is a gendered trap that men and women alike fall into, and it’s very frustrating all around.

                    • Apparently, you need to work on your comprehension skills. You fundamentally misunderstood every response to your irrational, angry comments; therefore, you missed the absolute hilarity in your preschool “my wife’s opinion is the only one that matters” retort. You’re a clown.

          • The Bad Man says:

            “You’re starting to sound like an MRA rather than a fellow editor.”

            Ad hominen + coercion, you are a hypocrite and being honest is good.

          • “You’re starting to sound like an MRA rather than a fellow editor.”

            Why should MRAs not be fellow editors of the GoodMenProject?

            This is supposed to be a magazine for men, about men and and there should be no preference given to a male feminists.

            If there is space for a male feminist to publish his opinion, there should be also space for the Men’s Rights Movement.

    • Please don’t give Hugo attention. He literally never ever stops giving women as a group a pass for everything, and he never ever, writes a column on men’s issues that doesn’t contain at least one insult to our sex or attempts at shaming language. He makes his living off this stuff -womyn’s studies, dontchaknow? And he’s one of the “experts” on this site trying to tell other men how to be “good men” and husbands when he’s already been divorced by two women and is on his third. It’s sad the older men/younger women got as much comments as it did (including one from myself, unfortunately) because it helps his ego and maybe his pocket.

      • I like Hugo’s columns because he admits that he has made big mistakes in the past and is committed to correcting them. He admitted that he caused the problems in his first two marriages.

        BTW, Hugo is actually on his fourth marriage. He admitted that on his third marriage, there was no sexual interest and his wife wanted to end it because “both of us deserve better.”

        It looks like Hugo’s fourth marriage may work out because he is commited to learning from his mistakes.

        • The Bad Man says:

          Like others at the GMP, Hugo projects his own “big mistakes” onto other men. Hence my moniker, I’m not like them.

        • I agree wtih The Bad Man.

          Why do Hugo get to project his failures on everyone else? I am still waiting for the day when he starts to display true introspection, that is he starts judging himself instead of everyone else.

        • Consider the source of this “advice.” Would you use advice on how to win from a coach who lost every game he ever coached?  All s/he can tell you is what they know about failure and what they “imagine” it takes to win. 
           
          But, this time he claims that he finally has it all figured out.   Just like last time. . .And the time before that. . . And the time before that.
           
          Likewise, a person with several failed marriages is obviously an authority on how he managed to be a part of several failed marriages but he’s obviously no authority on how to build an enduring, fulfilling, and happy marriage as a man.
           
          I know.  But, this time he’s got it all figured out, right?  Of course he does.
           
          Just like he had it figured out last time. . . And the time before that. . . And the time before that.

          • Maybe its not the coaches fault, Maybe the game is rigged for the other team?

          • I don’t really thing the sports metaphor holds here – a relationship isn’t a failure just because it ends, and a marriage is not a success just because it endures. If both people end up bitter and resentful, then it’s a failure even if they are parted only by death. That’s the point here, there isn’t a model that works for everyone – a marriage is successful if both partners are happy with it. This is a particular type of unhappy dynamic that affects a lot of people – I’ve experienced it, I’ve submarined and waited for a partner’s anger to blow itself out. This is a bad tactic because I ended up ignoring my own feelings, and thinking I was being selfless by ignoring them, and thus making my partner totally responsible for my feelings. Martyrdom in a relationship is pretty selfish is the point. Don’t be long-suffering, communicate.

    • Daddy Files, you never heard “boys don’t cry” growing up? Really? None of your peers ever shamed sensitivity and emotional expression? I find that difficult to believe. That’s what the Guy Code is, after all.

      Working to improve the relationship means being able to communicate effectively using words that can describe emotions. The problem described in Lisa’s piece is that most men are choosing (and yes, in the end, it is a choice) not to do that.

      • We took away very different things when reading Lisa’s piece, because I saw a bunch of guys who do know what they want but feel they can’t communicate it because their wives either don’t want to hear it or won’t bother to listen.

        • It seems like the guys want male dominance.

          • Um, actually it seems pretty clear the women want dominance.

            • The Bad Man says:

              Yes, most relationships are female dominant, unlike what you will hear from many feminist ideologues. Even Hugo’s past relationships were clearly female dominant as he explained his struggle to grow a pair.

              I don’t even think this is a new development as the advice I have heard from many old married men is “just give her what she wants” and “happy wife, happy life”.

              Psychologist John Gottman, the marriage therapy guru, has stated that “the biggest revelation we’ve had about how conflicts are best resolved in successful marriages” is if husbands yield to their wives. That is, the key factor in whether a relationship will be happy and successful is whether the husband listens to and obeys his wife. In a statement that shows women’s demanding nature, Gottman also says that women bring up over 80% of marital conflicts while men tend to avoid these stressful discussions

              • Bingo! Lets talk about submissiveness…Yes, Yes, Yes…Let talk about Feminist Views on gender and power.
                My concern is that although gender identity shouldn’t be a forced binary evaluation,
                Power is!

                Power is Binary.
                Power is the ability to have someone do something despite their own intentions.
                Feminist has never proven (to me any way) that women don’t power lust. Nothing makes that more evident then then the petty arguments engaged by of your typical married couple.

                In respect to Professor Hugo I understand that I must train Myself to listen when my spouse is criticizing me…

                But the every so often your going to get the thought in your head “When did I turn to such a little bitch!?

                (pardon the phrase)

              • Avoiding tough conversations is a way to make your partner responsible for the emotional health of your relationship – and then you want to punish her for accepting that responsibility by calling her demanding? Whenever I hear guys say “my wife is always right,” it just rings with disengagement – they aren’t really interesting in being present in their relationships by, you know, relating. I know a lot of guys, and I’m totally this guy too often enough, who swallow crap from their partners and feel good about it – because now I’m a martyr. And I use that moral high-ground to avoid any discussion of problems with my own behavior, then I can disengage when my partner gets upset about it. This is a pattern that I didn’t make up all by myself, and it takes work to break it. Women have worked hard to change their role in society, but men haven’t really done anything comprable and we feel the effects of that. Lots of us feel out of place in gender relations, so lets do the work of finding better ways to be men, not just pretending that feminism never happened or caused all of our problems.

      • It would be good for Hugo to understand that the relationship between a man and a woman cannot be a one-way street.

        All what I read is about how men should please women, I never read anything from Hugo what women should offer in return to men.

        • MorgainePendragon says:

          “All what I read is about [sic] how men should please women, I never read anything from Hugo what women should offer in return to men.”

          Uhm, b/c this is a site FOR MEN, maybe? Hello!

          All you people who hate everything Hugo has to say, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

          There are literally MILLIONS of blogs out there, and surely hundreds of thousands of MRA-oriented ones, designed just to feed your male privileged whining.

          Why not go to them where you can engage in fulfilling simultaneous monologues about how hard done by you are, and leave this site and Hugo’s posts to men (and women) who actually want to evolve in their relationships with each other?

    • Hugo explained the Guy Code very succinctly:

      “The Guy Code, which boys learn from their male peers and older men, prizes action rather than words. It teaches boys, as the sociologists Deborah David and Robert Brannon pointed out decades ago, to be highly competitive “sturdy oaks” with little vocabulary for anything other than ambition or anger. The Guy Code teaches men how to pursue women, how to court, and how to charm; it teaches us nothing about how to be in an actual relationship with a woman once we’ve succeeded in catching her. (If you’re getting an image of a dog who looks bewildered and helpless when he’s finally managed to catch the cat he’s been chasing, you’re not far off the mark.)”

      Whether you admit it or not, everyone in this society is exposed to The Guy Code.

      • The Guy Code: Part of the creed of feminist misandry.

        • Like it or not, The Guy Code is a social fact.

          BTW, anti-feminism is a form of woman hating.

          • The Bad Man says:

            Grow up, feminists don’t represent all women and all feminists aren’t women.

            • Even 75% of women reject feminism, including the majority who are educated, independent, and require equal respect in their public and private lives.

              • Actually 75% of women say that the women’s movement has improved their lives.

                30% of women consider themselves feminist, 50% consider themselves “somewhat feminist, believing in equal rights.”

                It is not true that 75% of women reject feminism. If they did, our culture would be much, much more male dominated and we wouldn’t have websites like The Good Men Project.

                • I stand corrected. 74% of women reject feminism, not 75%.

                  74% of women said NO when asked, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE A FEMINIST, OR NOT?

                  According to a a CBS News poll conducted in 2005.

                  • What’s to reject about wanting equality for everyone? Real feminists don’t go around saying that men should be dominated, at least not the ones I talk with. It’s just about getting rid of silly things like double standards, slut-shaming, rape, and making sure that women around the world get the same opportunities as men do, even if they chose to fit into more traditionally ‘feminine’ roles. Feminists acknowledge that men can be victims of abuse and that the transgender community and sex workers are particularly affected by it in almost every society. We really just want everyone to be equal and free. It sounds like common sense.

                    • Aya,

                      feminists acknowledge that men can be victims of abuse but produce and use convoluted research that keeps the majority of male victims and female abusers hidden while controlling a multi billion dollar abuse industry that excludes men.

                    • Unfortunately, the sexist hateful anti-male stereotypes used in this article reflects the kind of thinking that dominates feminism. Michelle is a great example of an exception, however.

                      In case anyone is wondering why the vast majority of women reject feminism – this article and its supporters are precisely the reason.

                    • Unfortunately, the sexist hateful anti-male stereotypes used in this article reflects the kind of thinking that dominates feminism. Pillowimhell is a great example of an exception, however.

                      In case anyone is wondering why the vast majority of women reject feminism – this article and its supporters are precisely the reason.

                  • There is a big distinction to be made – one that both you and the survey you cite fail to make – between identifying as feminist and believing in feminist ideals.

                    • If feminists practiced the equality they preach (the “feminist ideals”) there would be no distinction.

                      If feminism were simply about equality and did not contain the misandry and double standards exemplified in this article, man-liking/loving women would happily identify rather than reject it as they do.

                • I dont know many women who reject equality between men and women. I know plenty who reject the man bad/woman good dynamics that so many feminists push.

                  • I’m a feminist and I would never in a million years think that all men are bad. Some of the injustices that feminists try to get rid of make men look a lot worse than women, and if we get rid of them, the world will see that men aren’t just mindless brutes. For example, when a culture forces women to cover up or wear burquas, you’re not offending the women as much as you’re offending the men. You’re saying that they have absolutely no control over their bodies–that when they see an ankle, they’ll be all OMG ANKLE MUST RAPE NOW (or showing too much cleavage, wearing a mini-skirt, etc). That’s not how men are, and it’s insulting to them. Most modern feminists just want to get rid of all of that bullcrap.

                    • Exactly, Aya.

                    • Aya

                      ” Some of the injustices that feminists try to get rid of make men look a lot worse than women,”

                      Feminism systematically and deliberately creates and distributes misinformation that makes men appear a lot worse than women.

                      eg. feminist domestic abuse and rape studies that are weighted to make it appear that these things are mainly done by men to women.

                    • Ron, that might have been in the past. The fact that men can be raped and abused is CONSTANTLY talked about. Ending rape in male prisons is a huge topic. The reason some of the domestic abuse statistics can be skewed is because a lot of men are afraid to report it and feel that admitted it will make them come off as weak. That’s something that needs to change. I’m very careful to point out that abuse and rape can and do happen to men, but the disclaimer can’t be put in before every single case that’s discussed.

          • To be against feminism is not women-hating.
            These are 2 different things.

        • @ Eric M

          “The Guy Code: Part of the creed of feminist misandry.”

          Hm, would you be able to expand on this? I’m really not sure what you mean by this, but as someone who does not want to engage in misandry, I’d really like to know why you feel that “The Guy Code” is misandrist.

          • That there IS such a thing as the Guy Code, to which all men adhere, which cripples all men, disabling them from being fit to be married – forcing women to initiate divorce almost 70% of divorces. All because men are immature and crippled emotionally. That is what is misandristic.

            Read the article “Being the Man Does Not Automatically Make Everything Your Fault” by Jackie Summers. It will explain further.

            • Thanks for the article. It was an interesting read, and made a lot of good points.

              About the Guy Code. Do you think that there are gendered expectations that men are expected to live up to? Including things like “real men don’t show weakness”?

              I don’t suggest that all men believe in things like that. But, as a woman, I feel that there are certain gendered expectations of me. While the women’s liberation movement has made my gender roles less mandatory, it has always seemed to me that men are still expected to live up to a very rigid set of gendered expectations. Men may not all buy into that, but there is still a lot of pressure on them (from other men and from women) to live up to those expectations. That’s what I thought people were referring to when they talk about the Guy Code.

              But, as a woman, I can only have an outside view of things, so I’d rather hear your opinion. Do you think that this rigid set of expectations exists for men? If so, is that a separate thing from the “Guy Code” people are talking about?

            • Suzana Alves says:

              When where does the “FEMINIST” part of the misandry enters? You did not mention it when explaining. And why calling it a creed, and not a social phenomenon?

Trackbacks

  1. […] Poor, Pitiful Men:  The Martyr Complex of the American Husband. […]

  2. […] Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband, Hugo Schwyzer […]

  3. […] of controversy over at the Good Men Project with this post of mine: Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband. (In this case, the title was mine, as it rarely is at GMP.) […]

  4. […] Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband, Hugo Schwyzer […]

  5. […] Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband, Hugo Schwyzer […]

Speak Your Mind

*