Tad Hargrave explains how patriarchy and masculinity are not the same thing, and privilege is not good for anyone.
I want you to imagine an acorn.
We will come back to it soon.
Because we are talking about patriarchy. Or, perhaps, we are talking about power and privilege. Or, maybe we’re talking about happiness.
Regardless . . . This is a conversation that’s important to have.
Important because I think so much of the discourse on patriarchy is rooted in a myth so pervasive that it’s invisible. A myth so potent that it colours the conversation in a way that does not liberate men to their fullest.
I just read an article that basically stated that men are increasingly finding themselves in a lower social position as women ‘climb the ladder’. And so that men are disempowered and need to get there act together to avoid this catastrophe.
And it lifts up the thorny topic of patriarchy and male privilege, which isn’t so simple as it might seem.
I mean, clearly, the majority of major political posts are still held by white men. Every president of the United States (except one!) has been a wealthy white male. Men still, somehow, make more money per hour than women for the same work. The work of staying home to raise a child is still not economically counted. While men experience abuse (sexual and physical) it’s far less than women. Even in an activist scene that is full of women–many of the positions of power are held by men.
This balance of power is shifting as more women come into “positions of economic and political influence”. But there are so many ways, big and little, that men still hold onto the reins of power.
I think it’s good to step back and remember the bigger picture. The past thousands of years have seen women being oppressed–witch burnings, no right to vote– women seen as chattel. It’s easy to forget that, in the USA–women only won the right to vote in 1929.
But despite all this–I rarely hear feminists (even the most hardcore) saying men should now be oppressed. Just that we should stop oppressing and devaluing women. That everyone deserves to be heard. And that seeing those who’ve been ignored in positions of power–those who’ve been most impacted by oppression–is a good thing. If you want to help the people who are most affected by environmental and social injustice–why not put them in charge? Why not let them set the direction. They probably know what they need better than we ever will.
And men ARE becoming less ‘dominant’. Which is a wonderful thing. As a feminist I know said recently, I’m working for the liberation of men AND women.”
We’re coming out of a time of tremendous power imbalances. Men and women being stuck into traditional gender roles that don’t always work for them. People not feeling free to express themselves for who they are.
The coming out of these roles is not simple, easy or straightforward. There’s a lot of learning and healing for everyone involved. There’s a lot of, ‘who am I now? what’s my role? what does it mean to be a man–if not this?’
As a man, I can attest to there being a tremendous amount of confusion about “how to be a man.” The mixed messages we receive about “be more sensitive” but “don’t be so sensitive.” or “don’t be so passive” and then in the next moment, “don’t be so aggressive,” an encouragement to “make good things happen” and yet, “why are men always in charge.” None of these are mutually exclusive–but the balance isn’t easy.
♦◊♦
At a summer music festival, I find myself talking to a young woman of colour for whom feminism matters deeply. She tells me she noticed this hard edge she had where she would look at men who were clearly interested in her and think, ‘if he doesn’t have the balls to approach me then he’s too weak for me.
That struck me. Not because I think she shouldn’t think that. It’s likely an accurate assessment of the situation.
What struck me is the seemingly conflicting message progressive men receive of, “Don’t hit on women. I’m tired of being hit on. Don’t objectify us.” with, “If you don’t approach me and you want to, you’re too weak for me.”
There’s no actual contradiction here. You can approach people in a way that uplifts or in a way that has them feel terrible. There are ways that are fun and authentic and ways that feel creepy and slimy. But for some men today, it’s hard to know the difference.
♦◊♦
Another friend of mine (a man) dates a woman (a feminist) and when he goes to share his feelings with her she accuses him of being “a woman” for being so sensitive. On one hand he’s getting academic and political messages about not essentializing gender or participating in a heteronormanitive discourse, he’s getting messages from the queer community about letting people be who they are and identify how they identify–and here’s this woman accusing him of “being a woman” (in a shaming and condescending tone).
This isn’t simple.
♦◊♦
I’m in Vancouver talking to an old friend. She’s young but been an environmental activist since high school. She tells me she doesn’t want to date activist guys anymore. “They’re too passive. If we go to rent a movie, they’re all, “no, you choose”. Have a fucking opinion. And when we get back to my place–they’ll sit on the other end of the couch and if I want to make out I will have to initiate every single step of it. Ugh.”
Imagine a progressive male having learned the importance of respect and consent and not objectifying–but not having also learned the power of honesty and forthrightness.
♦◊♦
Case in point: I have a friend who’s a model. Let’s call her Jane. I’ve been shameless in expressing my attraction to her ever since I met her and she appreciates it. I know she’s seeing someone but I know she feels more relaxed around me knowing I’m not smuggling an agenda. And I feel more relaxed too. Recently, she confided in about a huge project she’d been working on that had come to an end. Why had it ended? Her business partner had been in love with her. She’d been expecting to make the project go and he’d, secretly, been hoping she’d been his girlfriend despite her seven year history with her partner. She didn’t appreciate his lack of forthrightness about what he was really wanting from the relationship with her. He used (consciously or not) the project as a way to get close to her.
We all do this with each other. We smuggle in agendas. We don’t really see people–we see them through the haze of our hopes. A friend of mine called it “hopium.” And it’s addictive. He might actually have been giving her clear signs of his interest that she couldn’t see because she wanted so badly to make this project happen. And he might not have been able to see her lack of signals because of his hopes.
As I typed those words, I was aware of the ever present part of me that wanted so badly to position myself as better than this fellow. To use that example to say, “I get it and he doesn’t.” And I want that so that I will be more attractive to women. And I want to be more attractive to women because . . . well that’s a whole rabbit hole to go into. Because I genuinely enjoy the company of women and feminine energy in my life. Because I’m scared. Because I’ve been attacked by feminists before and I’m scared of that happening again–so if I show that I “get it” enough–maybe they won’t attack me. And if I demonize another man–then I get to show that I’m an ally. I win and he loses. Self-protection.
♦◊♦
Another story: I’m at a fundraiser for the Otesha Project in Toronto. A youth run bicycle tour of parts of Canada. Amazing. One of the lead members went up to share his words. I was sitting at a table full of women. All of whom I would characterize as politically progressive or radical. And I listened to them objectify this man and talk about him like a piece of meat. It was kind of funny and I totally noticed myself start comparing myself to him, “Was I that hot? If I were up there would they be talking about me in the same way?” (I hoped so, but doubted it).
What struck me most was if it had been a table full of men and there was only one politically radical woman where I sat–she might have been enraged at the kind of objectification.
♦◊♦
The other day I was hanging out with two women I would consider incredibly empowered. They were talking about their new favourite TV show and how it kept finding a way to get the main character (a male) topless every single show. “I think they’ve finally figured out that women’s libido is just as high as men’s and if you show a topless hottie like that–we WILL watch it.”
♦◊♦
A shocking story: I ask a feminist activist what advice she would give a young progressive man who’s scared to approach girls. She ends up giving a great gem, “he should create an interesting life that he loves so he’s not devastated if she isn’t into him” (brilliant). And, on the way to this, she says, “maybe he should go to a sex worker to build up his confidence first.”
I was struck, not so much at the suggestion, though it caught me off guard, but at how I know so many feminists who consider prostitution the worst thing in the world–and yet here is one suggesting a practical use for it. It reminded me of an article I read where two feminists were debating the practice of creating feminist porn. One was for it and the other hated anything to do with the porn industry.
Some women I know are deeply anti-pornography. They find it objectifying, dehumanizing and just a terrible thing. Other women I know are huge fans of it and declare themselves to be proudly “pro porn”.
Some women love the kinds of sex they see in porn–others don’t (as is beautifully illustrated on the website Make Love Not Porn).
Who’s analysis is a man supposed to follow?
♦◊♦
Story: I’m in Cape Cod, Massacheusetts hanging out with one of the most beautiful women I know. She’s deeply steeped in tantra and the spirituality of masculine and feminine energies.
“I’ll tell you something,” she says. “Many of us women talk about in these circles for conscious change. We’re surrounded by sensitive new age men and what we really want sometimes is a man who could just bend us over the couch. Yes, we want men to be more sensitive. But sensitive to US as women. Sensitive to our needs and desires and body language. Not overly sensitive and taking everything personally. I need a man who’s solid in himself enough to notice what’s happening over here–not someone who’s obsessed with himself and what other people think of him.”
It’s clear, of course that women want to be respected and honoured. What’s also clear is that they are wanting something else. Something that progressive men, for the most part, are not able to bring them.
The point is that, for many men–these messages feel confusing. It’s not always clear how to be a man. How to relate with women. How to be a brother to other men.
We’re all unlearning the old and relearning something new together–creating it together even.
On one hand progressive men are told that, “There is no binary gender. It’s all cultural construction. Every single person is unique. You can’t fit everyone into some heteronorminative idea of who they should be based on their sex.” And so we nod and say, “Yes, that sounds wise.” But the next moment we hear these same women identifying as a gender. They preface their statements with, “as a woman I’d like to say” or “I stand by her as a sister”. What happened to no heteronorminative sense of gender?
♦◊♦
Another friend of mine who teaches women’s studies is a hardcore feminist–but not a hippie. She dresses like a 50′s movie star with an apartment to match. She’s a wonder. But because she dresses as she does the “activist” crowd was less than accepting. When she tried to join a campus activist group she was called “princess” by the male activists. Here she was expressing herself in the way that felt best for herself as a woman–but still not being accepted by men who professed to be feminist themselves.
♦◊♦
A painful story: A friend of mine starts to study the art of “pick up”. As in “how to pick up women”. He gets visciously attacked by a feminist friend of his, who says that she knows many men who are attractive to women because of their deep integrity and respect of women. And he feels devastated. He’d spent years being respectful and careful–and was never considered sexually attractive by women. He was always ‘the friend’. So, he tried to learn how to shift that the only way he knew how –and got slammed for not being as amazing as the other men she knew. Not only were her words not helpful or useful in any way–they were shaming, comparing and devastating to him. It took him years to recover.
Many women criticize the “pick up” movement (as if it were a uniform, homogenous movement any more than feminism is). But what if they had a younger male cousin who was a great guy but felt too terrified to every approach a girl? What would they say? What advice would they give?
In fact, to make things more confusing–while one half of the feminist scene is his town attacked him visciously (often privately and behind his back) others secretly admitted to him, “tell me if you’re doing another one. I know of some guys who could use this.”
♦◊♦
I remember myself going through a time of almost deifying feminists. And people of colour. And queer, woman of colour led to a distinct feeling of needing to impress them. There was nothing more I wanted than for her to pull me aside and say, ‘Tad, all of these other white men are crazy . . . but you? . . . You’re different.’
Whatever they said was infallible. Same went for their ‘allies’. If a white male positioned himself as an ‘ally’ to them then his word was gospel as well.
It took me years to notice the ways that certain activists and feminists would position their perspective on reality, gender and politics and the only one. The true one. And if you disagreed? You were a stupid, oppressive douche. You were dismissed. You were attacked and villified. You were made an example of. And i really believed it. I believed that they knew the truth and I didn’t. I believed that my own experiences, feelings and needs weren’t valid. And sometimes this was encouraged.
Now, a lot of the time, the politics were on point. Really solid and important points were being made. Good learning was happening for all involved.
And it took me years to notice the ways that I had my own self worth wrapped up in having their approval of me. It took me years to begin to see that they weren’t always in integrity. That some of them (like all of us) had deep anger issues, or lived in a worldview of punitive justice where they believed themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner of the value of other people. “He’s a good guy.” or “He’s a douche.” It took me years to see that some of them (like all of us) could be deeply manipulative.
It took me years to see that not all women agreed with each other. Or with the feminists. And that not all feminists agreed with each other. It took me years to see that not everyone in the anti-oppression scene viewed training the same way. Some trainings would have participants leave feeling uplifted, inspired and more connected to the world and their place in it–and some of them would leave having people feel shut down, ashamed and small.
It took me years to see how very, very complicated all of these conversations about gender can be.
It took me years to see that I could honour myself and honour others at the same time. That I didn’t need to leave myself– or anyone else–behind.
♦◊♦
Another story: A dear friend of mine became a part of a network of high level change makers who would meet once a year to discuss how to create more change more quickly in the world. It was a diverse group of people with a commitment to growing in diversity.
But the leader was a white man. A white, upper class, privileged male.
The group began to explore the dynamics of race, class and power in the group and the leader announced to the group he was going to step back from leadership so that more women and people of colour could step in.
But something felt off.
So my friend spoke up. She said, “I hear what you’re saying. And I’m concerned about where it’s coming from. I get that it’s the politically correct thing to say but I don’t want you to be left behind in all this.”
Within minutes the leaders’ repressed anger at the situation showed up. “Why can’t white people have a role in leadership? Where am I supposed to contribute?” He was so deeply hurting. But he’d shut that part of him down to do the right thing.
The conversation continued and a transition did indeed happen. But one that didn’t leave him feeling like he was a worthless, privileged roadblock to be removed.
♦◊♦
But to step back a bit . . .
Perhaps the most damaging myth of patriarchy is that it, ultimately, works for men.
I recall a friend of mine saying, “Well, every day is men’s day.” In the big picture (economically and politically) this is true.
But emotionally it is not.
Imagine an acorn.
It lives in a castle, on a hill.
Each day it is put onto a pillow where it is washed, cleaned and dried.
And the people who walk by admire it.
On one level this acorn is privileged. But in a far more profound way–its growth is being held back by that privilege. In its separation from nature–it is not allowed to root itself and to grow into a oak tree and give back thousands of acorns to the world. As this acorn on the pillow all it can do is demand and consume resources and care. This is not good for the world. It’s not good for them. It’s not natural.
Being in a privileged class does not just hurt those being exploited–it hurts those in the privileged class.
Being pampered and told you are special and better than others is not medicine for the soul–it’s poison. It leads to the acorn, eventually, being spoiled and rotting to death on its pillow, dying alone–having given nothing to the world. And this is its last thought. “I have died of old age, and given it back no youth. I have taken, without returning. I had the seeds of a thousand forests in me–and they are dying with me today.” It’s tiny acorn body dies. And is tossed into a plastic trash bag and put in a landfill.
Not that the oak tree doesn’t die.
It does. Eventually, the sap no longer runs up its body and it dies. Its trunk begins to rot until one day a strong wind cracks it–or a fire consumes it. But its last thoughts are different. As it dies it knows it is going back into the Earth. It is returning to its source of life. That, in its life it has given and given and given. And now, even in death, it gives its body back to the creatures of the woods as food.
It dies as a part of the world, not apart from it.
♦◊♦
We are made wise by the number and depth and diversity of our relationships. And to live in a system that has us living in monocultures we becoming myopic. Less wise. And I’m not just talking about the monoculture of only hanging out with other rich, white privileged males in positions of power. Not just the loss of meaningful relationships with people of colour, indigenous people and women. I’m talking about the loss of intimacy with nature, with animals, with the stars, with the elements.
The world becomes reduced to resources to consume rather than relatives to learn from.
To quote Thomas Berry, ‘the universe is not a collection of objects–it is a communion of subjects.’
Men are less mature, less deep and less real for these privileges. We don’t fight for justice and equality for women alone–we do it for ourselves, our own hearts. Unconscious hierarchy hurts us all. Believing that we are better than others hurts us.
So, this is the myth: That patriarchy ultimately benefits men.
That because men are economically and politically privileged that this system is a good thing for them. Of course, when we step back and look at the big picture–this comes into question.
We see before us a generation of men who are disconnected from their hearts and bodies. Men who were never initiated into their manhood –but feel trapped in a permanent adolescence. Men who have never learned of what a woman’s world is. Men who feel ashamed for all the things that make them a man. Men who have no real sense of brotherhood with other men. Men without direction. Men who are afraid of women. Men who are afraid of other men. Men without purpose. Men not initiated into their greater purpose of making a difference in the world. Men so obsessed with the penetration of sex that they never learn the ways they can penetrate each moment with love.
We see one of the first generation of men raised without fathers or positive male role models. As their old role of dominators and heads of the house hold fall away–they are left with no clear sense of what to replace it with.
So many mixed messages from the world saying, “this is what it means to be a man.”
If you were to sit down the average progressive male and ask them, “What are the gifts that women and the feminine bring to the world? What are the gifts that sexism, patriarchy and oppression have blocked the world from receiving?” The list would be long. Of course, there are dangers of conflating women and the feminine together directly–these lines are often not so clear. One can be in a woman’s body and deeply masculine and vice versa. But still, the list would be long. The gift of birth. The gift of their cycle. The gift of nurturing. Deep intuition and sensitivity. An amazing capacity for depth of feeling. The way that women are often the ones to carry a community–often the invisible giants on whose shoulders a community rides.
But if you were to ask the same man, “What are the gifts that the men and the masculine energy brings?” You would often see silence. And shame. Answers come but . . . not as readily. There’s a deep sense, in this culture, that men are a bad animal. A sense that “we don’t need men’s protection–we need protection from the men.”
“Look at all the wars in the world.” we are told. “The pollution. The devastation. And look who’s in charge! This would never happen if women were in charge.”
And many men have drunk this down. Swallowed it. And it comes out in small jokes about how stupid men are or how women are better. But sometimes those jokes have an edge.
Another friend of mine is attacked for his “masculine, direct style of communication” (by another male activist). And it makes me wonder-when did the term “masculine” become a bad thing?
We have come to believe that patriarchy and masculinity are the same things.
I was reading a blog post by Christine Agro, The Metaphysical Feminist. She wrote:
When I look back at the Women’s Revolution, I see a necessary fight; one in which the internal fire sparked revolution, sparked change, sparked an awakening. But I also see a continuation of fighting within the Masculine Principle, an energy in which I believe no one will ever have true equality because it is an energy that forces us to constantly choose “fight or flight”. So I propose a new equality, one that is based in the Feminine Principles. The Masculine Principle is the energy that has influenced our way of being since at least the Caveman era. It is an energy dynamic that is linear, outward focused, power-over, controlling and fight or flight based. It has influenced everything from religious doctrine to the laws of the land and in its influence has arisen a world in which we have and have-not, in which divide and conquer is the status quo. There is no room for the truths of many, there is only room for the truth of the most mighty, the most powerful . . . we should not accept law or doctrine that has been created within an energy structure that supports the few and views us as somehow less than.
And so masculinity has become synonymous with hierarchy, oppression and patriarchy.
Imagine how that might feel to the men in your life to read that.
To grow up scared of yourself. To think that the only answer is to become more feminine. That our masculinity is something to be scrubbed clean from us.
This is the point that must be challenged.
♦◊♦
Patriarchy is not authentic masculinity. It is the shadow side of it. It is the toxic mimic we have come to accept. That there are ways to be a man that don’t require being dominant over women–but in partnership with. We are re-learning how to be powerful as men–but a power with–not power over.
But when the two get conflated–and men are challenged on their privilege–bad things can happen. This is a core challenge in the anti-oppression scene. How to address men’s privilege?
I asked a friend of mine in Vancouver who did a lot of men’s work about this. He said, “You know what? I totally get you on the male privilege piece and that’s been a lot of my journey. And my experience is that the best way to address that is not to hit it directly on the head but to build community, build up men’s worth and inner strength. To build community and safety.”
When they have that they tend to be so much more open to hearing these things and absorbing them. They can actually integrate it all. They’re less defensive. I find that the best way to open them to issues of justice is to honour their lived struggles and experiences.
If we jump right into anti-oppression work that can be experienced by many men as saying that their struggles are totally invalid in the face of what women experience daily. It can seem dismissive and shaming to them like they shouldn’t ever complain. and to ask men to give up power with nothing to replace it usually puts them in a place of fear. They’re scared.
I want an activist community where there can be really deep listening and deep honesty on both sides. Sometimes men act in hurtful ways and sometimes women do too. I see my role as helping to grow into a place where the way they engage with work for change is uplifting and inspiring for everyone involved. Where they can be powerful and creative allies to women AND to other men.
A movement where no one is left behind–regardless of level of privilege. a movement where everyone has a place and belongs–a movement where everyone’s struggles are honoured instead of compared. I think that’s the foundation for a movement where genuine power imbalances can be questioned–where hard conversations can happen.
We absolutely live in a world of imbalances of privilege–and that’s often along lines of race, class and gender. And I think a strong men’s movement is a part of healing that.
This culture’s media denigrates the authentic feminine and trivializes the authentic masculine.
The old ways are unraveling and something new is being born. In all of us. Every day. I predict it will be clumsy and awkward–but beautiful.
As men’s roles are shifting–more men are getting involved in men’s work, joining men’s circles and learning how to relate with more honesty to other men and women in ways that uplift everyone.
Here’s to a future of genuine partnership between genders–and space for those who think the whole binary gender thing is bullshit. A future where people are free to be who they are. A future where everyone’s voice is valued.
About Tad Hargrave
Dude, at about this point in your essay:
“Whatever they said was infallible. Same went for their ‘allies’. If a white male positioned himself as an ‘ally’ to them then his word was gospel as well.”
I realized that you need to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2rsiER-OnU&feature=related
Socrates has a lesson to teach in every age.
As a matter of a fact, after reading your article, Socrates and some of his lessons come to mind more than anything else.
So it goes…
Beautiful! Thank you!
thank you jeni. what was it about it you found beautiful?
Tad,
I thought the article/essay was particularly well-written. Also most of your examples really resonated with me. I have witnessed very similar attitudes/interactions in the women in my community. I have also noticed them in myself from time to time. It’s an unfortunate situation for men and difficult to navigate.
For my part, I am starting to feel frustrated by the fact that so many feminists (I consider myself one, btw) are still using aspects of patriarchy to not only keep themselves caged but also cage the men around them. It’s not a helpful strategy to anyone.
Oh, and I loved how you pointed out that most men are not benefiting from patriarchy – delightful!
‘…a feminist I know said recently, I’m working for the liberation of men AND women…”’
In that case, is there not a better name? If what you want to identify yourself as is somebody who believes in genuine partnership between genders and so on, surely “feminist” is misleading and confusing?
Good point.
I’m thinking about using “humanist” as a better name, but… oh… there’s “man” in it, so I’m afraid it’s still not “neutral”.
Do we need a new vocabulary, too?
A gender neutral term wouldn’t be appropos, based on the work and issues that feminists promote. Feminism as a movement has never worked in behalf of men’s rights or issues. Not that they should; men’s rights are not their responsibility and, based on their activity, not their concern.
The contemporary feminist discourse tends to focus exclusively on the fact that important and influential roles in society are filled by men in a patriarchy, and use this observation to conclude that patriarchy is about male dominance and male power. Through this generalization, the power of a small subset of men, is taken to represent all men, without investigating whether other men really have any power. Another factor that also isn’t investigated is whether the small subset of men with power use their power to help other men. If not, it cannot really be said to be a male power.
Today’s feminists therefore misinterpret patriarchal societies in a number of ways:
-The power of a tiny subset of men is taken to represent all men, instead of seeing the powerlessness of most men.
-It is assumed that the men at the top helped other men, but in reality they used other men for wars, mining, construction, etc. There is no evidence that the men in power were reluctant to use other men to build society, regardless of the hardships, injuries and deaths that were required.
-So called male networks were really networks for the rich and powerful. Women didn’t ask to be part of these networks, since gender roles were still fused with biological sex in the cultural awareness.
Agree with this. And some women are part of power networks based on social class. Probably more regional elites rather than national elites, though.
interesting! it seems you’re suggesting that class dynamics play a larger role in all this than gender dynamics. am i understanding right?
If that is what they are saying they are wrong. You can be on any given class level in a society and still feel that those in your same economic class are beneath you. Have any of you ever been treated by the other gender as though you are crazy every time you get angry? Or not been taken seriously by them? Or had members of that gender, on a regular basis, treat you as though they were your authoritarian (when they weren’t)? Or been called argumentative whenever you dared to question their “authority”?
Oh, gosh, you haven’t? Well, I have. By men. In my same economic “class”. My entire life. So please. Your experience is valid. But until you’ve lived as a woman in this patriarchal society, you’ve really no right to attempt to diminish a woman’s experience by denying the significant role that gender does im fact play every single day.
Would you consider writing something similar for an adolescent audience? I’m a teacher who teaches media studies including sex in the media and you bring up many interesting points which I think would plant some seeds in younger minds, but this piece is not appropriate for high school students. Don’t dumb it down, but write to your 16 year old self.
i haven’t thought of that and likely won’t have time – but i give you full permission to edit, tweak and use this as you see fit.
Great article. Very happy to have read it. Thanks.
thank rebecca. was there anything in particular you resonated with?
Oops, sorry. Didn’t mean to have ‘Your Author’ in there.
While men experience abuse (sexual and physical) it’s far less than women.(Tad)
I dont know what world you grew up in but I have seen men being beaten considerably more often than women.
That is different than my experience. Can you share more about that?
i am amazed that two people have disliked this comment – a statement of my experience and a request for clarity. amazing.
I think Tad if you simply refer to the rate of male rape in prisons you will discover that in aggregate more men are raped each year than women. But of course it’s so socially acceptable that our knee jerk reaction is to believe they deserve it, so we dismiss them from our mind.
The rape of men is socially facilitated by the community and by feminists. I think when society changes that perspective and beliefs I will focus on the next largest group, women. Until then I’ll be ethical and moral and follow my integrity and work towards reducing male rape.
Tad, I agree with much of what you said. But the hall-of-mirrors nature of being with a feminist activist seems pretty tiresome. My wife is an incredibly strong person, as am I. But we never go there. I really like staying away from the cultural left because it’s so tiresome. (I have years of activism 1968-1978 including working for the Farmworkers full time.) The one very feminist woman I dated for a long period in recent years seemed responsive to my probably traditional masculine response. She ultimately dumped me, thnough, which may have had to do with ideology.
“Men still, somehow, make more money per hour than women for the same work.”
This is really disappointing to see this on a site dedicated to men’s issues.
The Wage Gap Myth has been proven false many times now. When controlling for experience and education for the same job, men and women make the same. In fact, in urban areas, young women are now earning more than young men. Somehow I don’t think feminists will be outraged at this real wage gap.
As a site dedicated to men’s issues, The Good Men Project, has a duty to debunk feminist propaganda and the last thing it should be doing is promoting it.
I can see why you believe the Wage Gap Myth; this site is, for some reason, promoting it. If you ignore the author’s article, in the following link, and scroll down to poster’s John D’s posts you’ll find an excellent debunking of the Wage Gap Myth along with links to studies. Here’s the link to the John D’s posts (you’ll have to scroll down)
http://goodmenproject.com/families/myth-busting-the-gender-wage-gap/
The author of the article, in the link, does get the fact that young women are now earning more than young, but disturbingly promotes the Wage Gap Myth, on a men’s site. The Good Men Project should have asked poster John D to write the article instead of Liz ‘Donnell.
Had to correct the last paragraph..
The author of the article, in the link, does get the fact that young women are now earning more than young men correct, but disturbingly promotes the Wage Gap Myth, on a men’s site. The Good Men Project should have asked poster John D to write the article instead of Liz ‘Donnell.
Silly troll! The only myth is that there is no pay gap. I’ll let the co-president of National Women’s Law Center do the schooling here:
“On average, a woman who works year-round in a full-time job makes 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The wage gap grows even wider when we look at the numbers for women of color: African-American women earn 62 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men, while Hispanic women earn only 53 cents. These disparities translate into an earnings gap of $10,849 per year. That’s not pocket change–it’s a serious discount on women’s paychecks and money that families need to pay for basic necessities such as groceries, child care, rent and health insurance.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-d-greenberger/families-cannot-afford-to_b_721510.html
Oh, if you feel more comfortable with a dude proving you wrong, here’s Matt Yglesias on how the gender pay gap starts right out of college:
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/06/07/238472/the-gender-pay-gap-starts-right-out-of-college/
You call people you disagree with names? Not much point discussing this with you.
For the rest of the readers, please check out John D’s posts, he really does an excellent job of disproving the Wage Gap Myth.
So, I checked out your links, even though the Huffington Post is not exactly an unbiased source. The links only show that men, in aggregate, make more than women, in aggregate. I don’t think anyone is disputing this.
However, it does ignore the multitude of career choices men and women make that cause the difference in aggregate totals. Your links provide a very simplistic analysis of the numbers and it is in fact the simplicity of this analysis, which is the source of the Wage Gap Myth.
Check your facts, i love the research and resources you’re bringing – and when you start it off with calling myself (or the author of the article) a troll . . . i notice myself pull back from you and close off – which i don’t want to do because i think you have important things to say.
Sorry if you didn’t like my choice of phrase… I have little tolerance for people calling a well-documented phenomenon like the gender pay gap (such that the first bill Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act) “feminist conspiracy.” That, to me, is more off-putting.
Check Your Facts,
I explained to you where you are going wrong in your analysis of the Wage Gap Myth. Again, you are simplistically only looking at the aggregate totals of men’s and women’s wages. In doing so, of course the Wage Gap Myth would appear real to you. Dr. Warren Farrell has been researching the Wage Gap Myth for 15 years. Look into his work to see where you are going wrong. Or better yet, The Good Men Project, could invite Dr. Farrell as a guest poster to explain the cause of the Wage Gap Myth to its readers.
Here’s a link to an outside source, since you’re big on that, which quickly summarizes why the Wage Gap Myth exists. It’s also written by a woman, if that makes you more comfortable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
The author also briefly mentions the impact of the Mancession. Another important topic The Good Men Project should look into covering.
Here is a link to a study by the Consad Research Group which was commissioned by the US Department of Labor. The study’s summary is as follows:
“This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
Here is another link to article that explains why the Wage Gap Myth. It also references government reports.
http://www.bnet.com/blog/ceo/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/6928
Great essay and so many anecdotal examples. (Anecdotes are real testimony…someone’s actual truth.)
In an acornshell: “Perhaps the most damaging myth of patriarchy is that it, ultimately, works for men. I recall a friend of mine saying, “Well, every day is men’s day.” In the big picture (economically and politically) this is true. But emotionally it is not.”
If love is the answer (followed by truth at a close second…the two are intertwined: Can’t have true love without real truth), then it would behoove men to love their women, even when they might not deserve it here and there. And then, that love gushes back.
Unfortunately, the opposite is escalating. Domestic violence (physical abuse, including rape) and emotional / verbal abuse has increased 400% in recent years, and malignant narcissism / sociopathy is everywhere today, mostly completely unpunished, and therefore, de facto, encouraged.
Since abusers are, be definition, mysogynists, and therefore will not listen to women, it will take men to stand up and tell them they’re wrong.
“Unfortunately, the opposite is escalating. Domestic violence (physical abuse, including rape) and emotional / verbal abuse has increased 400% in recent years, and malignant narcissism / sociopathy is everywhere today, mostly completely unpunished, and therefore, de facto, encouraged. ”
Are you kidding Me!? “More Raise Your Voice Loose your child logic”
400% Hold the phone! please offer up a citation for that claim. I hope you are not doing that old feminist trick of lumping religious totalitarian states with westernized men.
You know the countries with Ak-47s on their flags….Is that the standard you’re holding men to?
@budmin. the following link is an article keyed by me regarding rape. In the article you will see a graph that shows a ten fold decline of rape specifically from 1978. That’s 1000% if you click on the graph it will take you through to the Bureau of Crime statistics which will also show a similiar decline in violent crime.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/deliverance-from-rape-can-you-squeal-like-a-pig-or-just-talk-like-a-chauvinist/
What the commenter failed to mention is that her 400% represents an increase in prosecuting violent women. This is not an example of a woman to listen to. Just more feminist hate and miss-direction. Consider me standing up and setting you straight Budmin. Gee I feel like such a chivalrist hero. Can I get a hug?
@ Keith
Did you catch when she said “Since abusers are, be definition, mysogynists, and therefore will not listen to women, it will take men to stand up and tell them they’re wrong”
Was she being ironic!?
I’m just so sick of being demonizied.
Hey Budmin I just stood up and told you that your wrong and that she is wrong. I think you should bear in mind that most of the females here are between 17 – 24 check out the site statistics. Do you seriously think there is any informed commenting from these people?
Of course your a demon your a man. Don’t get sick speak up as you did.
She wasn’t ironic she was iconic. Typical feminist passing gas. Obviously it’s a self serving myopic view. These are the new progressive feminist women whining for traditional white knights and chivalry.
Take Back The Knight !!
deborah. thank you for your kind words. yes. we’re all better when we’re loved. though . . . sometimes I wonder if the goal is about punishing people. it seems like we do need to STOP them (a place where men can play a vital role). and then the hard work of restoring community begins. and i don’t even know where to begin here. but i know that, in the end, punishing people doesn’t work to change them. it might scare them into submission but it doesn’t solve things. anyway. thank you for your good words. on we go together trying to sort this all out. much love to you.
The 19th Amendment, which guaranteed American women the right to vote, was ratified in 1920, not 1929.
i’m from Canada
here it was 1929
Just curious Tad, what year were non land owning men allowed to vote in Canada.
By the way
Why did the Canadian cross the road?
to get to the middle! (I am also Canadian)
Not to niggle but women gained the right to vote federally in Canada in 1918, six years before my father an aboriginal was given the vote. Do I sympathize with women’s suffrage? What suffrage, my mother had the right to vote 6 years before my father. When he gained the right to vote his aboriginal status was removed. You will never hear that from a feminist.
“Another friend of mine (a man) dates a woman (a feminist) and when he goes to share his feelings with her she accuses him of being “a woman” for being so sensitive.” — SAY WHAT?
So “woman” is a “derogatory” term to be “accused” of? Is that the story?
to me that’s the point. a woman was using this term in a derogatory way. a woman was telling him that his being more sensitive than she wanted him to be was womanly and bad. and yet, at the same time, he’s getting messages to be more sensitive. my point is that this can all feel confusing for a man.
I think he has discovered what I realized about a year ago(in my early 20s)
. The feminist movement is in no way a monolithic movement.
The Authors statement occurring right after, “On one hand he’s getting academic and political messages about not essentializing gender or participating in a heteronormanitive discourse”, tells me he has knowledge of feminist thoughts on the use “Woman” and a shaming term.
The point is to place emphasis on how confusing this all is for men.
I think it can be confusing for women as well. I have known various women who probably think that women should not be subservient to men who do not acknowledge that they are feminists. When I say I am a feminist, I mean it very simply, I mean that women are human beings whose minds and ideas are as valuable as men’s. However, how exactly that should operate in daily life is a separate issue. Some feminists will agree with most or all of my specific beliefs and some will not. I think part of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding about what feminism is.
Caterina, i really appreciate your words. yes. i bet it’s incredibly confusing being a woman and figuring out how to be in all of this. i love your definition of feminism. that’s something i’d fight for. and yes – there’s such a diversity of opinions out there. i think it’s partly a misunderstanding of feminism but also that there are so many different understandings of feminism. and different ways of understanding how to translate that into the world. confusing for everyone
Great article, Tad. It’s one of the few I’ve read on this site. The acorn parable is priceless.
thanks mike.
Great article, really, thanks Tad!
)
(maybe a bit long…?
Your honesty and clarity and ability to see “the big picture” is commendable.
And I envy you for knowing so many interesting people.
But I strongly disagree when you say:
).
“There’s no actual contradiction here.”
There IS, and a LOT. So many women want to have the cake AND eating it.
It’s not enough finding the right behaviour, the right balance: the same approach can be seen as “Weak / not-manly-enough” by a woman, and as “Don’t hit on me, you jerk!” by another.
Hell, you can even get both responses from the SAME woman, depending on her mood (or your handsomeness
You just can’t be “right” for everybody, and you don’t know in advance.
Alas, women are fond of double standards as much as men.
i think you’re right about things being received differently by different people or in different moments.
i think what i mean is that most men feel trapped between being the nice guy or being the macho jerk. and i think there’s a higher way – a way that has heart but also spine. that being sensitive and being strong aren’t opposites. that’s what i was getting at.
Hi Tad,
can I just asked why you mentioned that the woman you are attracted to is model ( just as you didn’t mention what any of the other examples do for a living.)
It is an interesting article and I can see and have experienced how confused we are about who we would like each other to be. the only way around it i have found is to deal with people human to human. people seem to have a broad set of needs which want to be honoured, by themselves and through connection with others. so sometimes I am strong and will protect you and sometimes I need comfort and softenesss and love to receive that. In relationships i know when the wounds come out (gender, family wherever the wounds come from) it is so hard but the only thing I can hang onto is to remember the humanness inside the outer chaos.
Anyhow here is a piece of my humaness – i was so engrossed reading your article and then bam! The piece about the model hurt. i thought, he is surrounded by all these glorious women and of course it is the model he wants! Woke up all the ‘men only care about one thing’ demons in there. Even with this earnest fellow striving for enlightenment, does it all go back to lusting after models at the end of the day?
Hey Tad,
Great article. Thanks for writing on this and putting the time and effort that you obviously did into it. Your personal stories make it poignant and well-grounded. Nice work on trying to honestly face yourself in your writing.
I completely agree with the premise, and it’s something that my men’s group has been chewing on. I know a good many women who are being women in this empowered and wonderful way, (the result, no doubt, of the long struggle of the feminist movement). I also know men who are healthy people, but most of them seem as though they are healthy despite being men, not healthy as a function of being men, if you see the distinction. How do we identify, construct, and embody alternate models and paradigms of masculinity?
I resonated with your statement: “There’s a deep sense, in this culture, that men are a bad animal.” I find myself and many of the other men I know shying away from the word ‘men,’ as though it is synonymous with oppression and abuse.
As to you, this is troubling to me. I feel as though as long as our movement identifies as such, it will be self limiting. It makes it seem as though becoming an ally, a feminist man, is a step down from being a mainstream cultural man. If becoming an ally means identifying your gender as inherently oppressive and horrible, than the movement will not grow and will certainly not be emotionally sustainable for its male members.
I believe that figuring out how to be healthy, whole, happy, empowered men in a constructive and egalitarian way is some of the most work that our generation of males can undertake. You state accurately that: “It’s not always clear how to be a man. How to relate with women. How to be a brother to other men.”
Your friend’s point about community is huge, and very well put. “…the best way to address that is not to hit it directly on the head but to build community, build up men’s worth and inner strength. To build community and safety.”
In ecology, a community’s strength is defined by its diversity. I believe that this principal holds true in human societies as well. This seems to support the conclusion that the best thing we can do for men is encourage them to be who they are at their core, to help men burn away the cultural programming and privilege that, as you say, is poisoning our souls. As this toxic mimic falls away, we can foster the growth of the natural and empowered men that we are capable of being, and find a diverse community of men who contribute and flower in as many ways as there are men, men who exist with women and every other gender of folk side by side as allies.
This was where your article led my thoughts. I really appreciate your contribution to the body of work on the subject, and your contribution to my growth through your perspective. I’d love your continued perspective on whether my read on your article was close to your intention, etc…
Respect,
Trevanion
trevanion. wow. i feel soooo ‘gotten’ by you. yes. i think we share a point of view on this.
“wow. i feel soooo ‘gotten’ by you. yes. i think we share a point of view on this.”
OMFG!
Come on dude that sounds a little cheesey dont cha think?
I’m sorry but there is something about a man seeking soOoooo much external validation that strike me as being disingenuous. You seem to enjoy being complimented a little too much.
wow. wild budmin. yes, i totally love it when people get me and appreciate me. yeah. and i like to let people know that there words have an impact. do you enjoy slamming people anonymously online? because you seem to. is that what TGMP is about for you? Criticizing people? I think there’s something about people anonymously critiquing and fault finding everyone who’s offering up something real incredibly disingenuous.
When it gets to the point of placing Women on a perch of moral unassailability, I think you might have gone too far.
Flat out…You like to compete with Men for the attention of Women. You said as much in your article. That’s cool but it’s conflicting with your message.
First you projected the pay gap Myth without bringing up how pay varies from Hazard duty pay to Work Performance, Seniority and Overtime.
Then when one of your beloved Female commenters made suspect statements namely that domestic violence has gone up 400% you did not challenge her….? Nope. You took your compliment like a good boy.
Long story short, you have proven that you have an exceptional talent for “Hearing the Ladies” that’s fine. If that is what being a Good man is all about I’ll tip my hat to you…
But Do you “hear” the Men?
thanks for the clarity.
thanks for reminding me how easy it is to make assumptions.
i don’t know where I stand on the wage gap thing. what you’ve presented is new to me. i’m not sure if i agree or disagree. i think you might be assuming that i either already am familiar with it or should be and therefore should be taking down anyone and everyone who brings it up. that’s my sense of it.
and yeah. i totally can compete for the attention of women. it’s true. I can also be needy. insecure and jealous a lot more often than i’d like. even though i know better. and i can be solid, present, full of integrity and strong in the next moment. i’m noticing that you seem to want to put me into a box. a nice, simple, easy to understand, this-is-what-you’re-about box. that doesn’t feel great.
and i’m curious if you can help me see where i’ve put women on a perch of moral unassailability. that wasn’t my intention but perhaps i have.
i hope you’re well.
“i don’t know where I stand on the wage gap thing. ”
Tad, if you take the time to visit the links I provided it will become quickly apparent to you just what a fraud the whole wage gap is. Even the study, commissioned by the US Department of Labor, that I linked to, admits there is no such thing as the wage gap.
If men and women are to achieve equality, we’ll have to achieve it starting from a position of truth and openness. Unfortunately, there is about 40 years of feminist disinformation out there that has to be exposed first and the Wage Gap Myth is just one of many of the whoppers feminists have spread throughout the years.
thanks. i get that this is something you’re really passionate about and how much you value honesty and getting the facts right as the basis for any conversation. important! i’ll look into it.
Maybe it’s jealousy, Maybe it’s just a survival tactic. It doesn’t really matter. I don’t want to be such a f@$king troll…it’s just that there is so much raw emotions on the surface of this issue.
I know that Men should be able to take on the world with both the rational & emotional sides of our brains, but we are raised to rely on one. We are condemned to emotional castration because we are more useful to the powers that be. Sometimes that means the women in our lives get full private to exploit the void in our collective Male lives that use to be occupied by Doing Good for your Mama
And God
And Rocky Balboa Movies
And Dreams of being the head of the house hold.
Do you know what’s replacing the supposed Patriarchy?
… Ultra rationalism….
I’m talking Anti-Natalism, Nihilism, Objectivism, Darwinism, White Nationalism, Apathy, Desolation and Rage.
God bless those who are grounded by love.
god bless you budmin. i love love love your passion for this. i can feel it. and i feel all that pain too. it can be so raw for me. i love your perspective. i’d never considered the way ultra rationalism plays into all this. i think that’s a beautiful and important thought. i’m curious what is the opposite of “Anti-Natalism, Nihilism, Objectivism, Darwinism, White Nationalism, Apathy, Desolation and Rage” for you? what do you want to see in its place?
p.s. i respect that you asked for a citation on the 400% number instead of simply agreeing. you seem like someone who refuses to conform to other people’s expectations or what’s politically popular or expedient. i respect that a lot.
I mean, clearly, the majority of major political posts are still held by white men. Every president of the United States (except one!) has been a wealthy white male. Men still, somehow, make more money per hour than women for the same work. The work of staying home to raise a child is still not economically counted. While men experience abuse (sexual and physical) it’s far less than women. Even in an activist scene that is full of women–many of the positions of power are held by men.
The vast majority of men do not hold major political posts. The vast majority of white men are not and will never be president. Men tend to work longer hours, work overtime, and negotiate their salaries more often than women. People should not be paid to take care of their own children. Statistically speaking, men are less likely to report any abuse. When they do report it for studies, they report slightly less abuse than women. However, several studies have found similar rates of abuse against males compares to females. And it unclear why men should not hold positions of power in the activist scene.
But despite all this–I rarely hear feminists (even the most hardcore) saying men should now be oppressed.
That is bit like expecting Catholic Church officials to say how they should cover child abuse. Few people, even feminists, are stupid enough to say that. However, when you look at feminist policies — Title IX exclusively shutting down sports programs for men and boys, feminist-run support services refusing to help male victims, law enforcement policies that treat male victims as abusers, affirmative action policies that favor women over men — it is easy to see how feminists take no issue with discriminating against or oppressing men.
Unconscious hierarchy hurts us all. Believing that we are better than others hurts us.
By that logic, why should anyone turn to feminists for answers when feminists grace us with such wisdom like “men are less mature, less deep and less real for these privileges” or “being pampered and told you are special and better than others is not medicine for the soul–it’s poison”? If you assumes that all men live pampered lives and are told they are special and better than others, not only are you living in a delusion so magnificently structured that tripping off LSD could not compare to the thoughts going through your head, but you also ironically create a hierarchy that privileges one group over others.
That is the problem with dogma: you only ever see other people’s flaws.
Hey Jacob, we may disagree on some things here. which is cool.
my main point is that privilege is poisonous. we might differ on where we see privilege happening but i think we agree on that. yes? that to believe on is better than others isn’t good for anyone. that the belief that my needs and feelings matter more than yours is harmful. the belief that my version of the truth is THE truth is a problem.
You said, “That is the problem with dogma: you only ever see other people’s flaws.” and i’m noticing that all you noticed in my piece were what you saw as the flaws.
i’m curious if there was any part of it that you resonated with.
my main point is that privilege is poisonous. we might differ on where we see privilege happening but i think we agree on that. yes?
If by privilege you mean unfair, unearned advantages, yes, I agree that is a problem, although I do not think it is as significant an issue as feminists or progressives make it out to be.
that to believe on is better than others isn’t good for anyone. that the belief that my needs and feelings matter more than yours is harmful. the belief that my version of the truth is THE truth is a problem.
All three are problems, but the latter is the more problematic and the most ironic because progressives, feminists in particular, believe their version, i.e. their understanding, of the truth is THE truth. In a way, your article essentially makes that argument.
i’m curious if there was any part of it that you resonated with.
The anecdotes you listed matched some of the experiences I have had and others I have heard or read about. However, I reached a different conclusion than you. If the doctrine that guides an ideology regards an entire group’s identity as inherently negative, that doctrine needs to go. I do not think ‘patriarchy’ is inauthentic masculinity. Rather, I think the way feminists frame masculinity as ‘patriarcghy’ is an inauthentic view of it. It mires and distorts our understanding of masculinity, and takes an already exaggerated modern masculinity and bastardizes it to make a strawman to attack. It is no different than simply slandering men, and as your anecdotes show, that rarely ends while.
so we’re agreed that unearned privilege is problematic at some level and that a belief in superiority is also trouble.
and thanks for the reflection of what conclusions you saw me drawing there. in my mind, the central points i wanted to make were that:
- any system that privileges men over women isn’t healthy for the men either. that, as men, we’ve got selfish reasons to get rid of those.
- that trying to be a progressive man today is full of confusing and mixed messages.
can you say more about: “I do not think ‘patriarchy’ is inauthentic masculinity. Rather, I think the way feminists frame masculinity as ‘patriarcghy’ is an inauthentic view of it.”
Jacobtk. If I may.
I do not think ‘patriarchy’ is inauthentic masculinity. Rather, I think the way feminists frame masculinity as ‘patriarchy’ is an inauthentic view of it.
I happen to agree with you 5000%. Patriarchal hierarchy is a collaboration, a gender agreement that is narrowly defined by feminists as oppressive. You can apply the same feminist logic to a Matriarchal hierarchy that resides in the family. Particularly with courts, feminists and women in general advocating and executing the removal of the male as father. In fact I believe that this is evidence of a female bias and hypocrisy much more pernicious than Patriarchy in it’s oppression of men and children. Simply compare the “oppressive patriarchy” that facilitated the changes of the last 50 years to the “oppressive matriarchy” that has offered zero change to the status quo of the male within the family. The hypocrisy is evident. All we need do is stop referring to any positive attributes of the matriarchy in the family, after all gender and it’s roles are merely constructs to be shredded, defamed, destroyed and disrespected right. So now it’s time to start disassembling and destroying the evil and oppressive Matriarchy.
Interesting article, in your view of the big picture, I would suggest that you consider the natural development and evolution of an individual. Simply put, we learn and we don’t come prepackaged. What I find to be an overwhelming comedy is the default to attack. As men we cannot and are not perceived by women to be evolving in our own lives or in our perceptions or in our own gender.It’s like they are saying “put that down before you hurt someone” How could any male fulfill his masculinity when they are coerced, shamed and manipulated by women for possessing it. From cradle to grave.
It is a long and winding road that you have presented, but in it’s context you offer no example or reference to the identity of a man as an autonomous individual. It is always in the context of a women, or a group, but continuously political. I believe that the conflict men feel regarding their masculinity may result from not being able to wear their own skin and tailor it to their own fulfillment.
Have you ever walked through a forest at 3 in the morning. Have you ever been alone without human contact for an extended period of time? How many days can you go without eating? How far can you walk before you stumble? Can you turn off your television and computer for a week or a month? How long can you go without purchasing something unnecessary to your survival? None of these questions are related to women and everyone you can’t answer reflects your inability to occupy your own existence.If you don’t occupy it a woman will.
Consistent throughout your piece is the privilege people feel they possess to project their expectations and politics onto others without civility or common respect. Ever challenging yours. I am not an atheist and often enjoy conversations with them. I feel no need to convert anyone. I am not a feminist and I don’t enjoy talking to them.I find that any view that does not fit into their narrow definition and paradigm is viewed as misogyny. For my own protection I carry a can of misogyny with me wherever I go, it’s an effective feminist repellant and I am not afraid to use it. I simply open it place it on the floor, wait for it to attract all the feminists in the immediate vicinity and while they stand gawking and arguing over it I exit safely.It’s very effective,inexpensive and when used correctly highly entertaining.
(sorry only one misogynist per can) not available in Sweden or the Netherlands.
manufacturer makes no warranty on freshness, please refer to the best before date
keep out of the reach of children!
keith. what you say about men only seeing themselves in a political context is so fucking beautiful. I love that. that really opened my eyes. i agree. i think it’s central to the issue. thank you for lifting that one up for me
I’d never seen it that way before. the elusive obvious.
Tad. I think if you explore the non political masculine, the experiential, self actualizing you will gain an insight into brotherhood. The male bond the closeness of men has often been measured by a male equality. But in it’s masculine tone and form it’s phrased as “you can do it” “try”. I believe we as men and the mentors of men ask our brothers not to give to us but to give to themselves. To prevail…over themselves.
Here is one of my articles, please enjoy.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/do-you-have-a-default-switch/
In keeping with your acorn analogy, we cannot stand on the edge of a forest and yell at those that are lost within. Some of us must go into the woods, find them, lead them out.
There is a context to masculinity or maleness that is not political, it does not mate and couple, it is personal and alone. For me it is where I learn and develop and it is from that part of me that I am able to prevail over myself.
You are a very perceptive listener, by your writing I have no doubt that your masculine construct has been difficult for you. You give a lot in your writing and take little for yourself. Your reasonableness is disarming and even when tempted you still identify the value. Are you sure your not an atheist? LOL
ha! you have me pegged! how did you know? i thought you’d love this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xDwZqualoA
thank you again for sharing your thoughts. what a wonderful reminder. there’s a part of us that’s not political. yes.
Correction I meant to say [Privilege] not privat.
like Ayn Rand said “judge and prepare to be jugded”
I’ve worked for 7 years in women’s shelters.
I’ve seen too many exploited broken men.
I don’t want to be a Mysoginist so I fall back on rationalism.
For what it’s worth here I am.
http://m.youtube.com/index?client=mv-google&gl=US&rdm=34&xl=xl_tsp#/watch?v=ASTCvIv-eeE