“The Wrath of The Feminists”: A Discussion of Masculinity, Gender, and Feminism

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About the Editors

We're all in this together.

Comments

  1. This sounds like the debates I heard in high school and is on the same level as what is often on day time talk shows. Sad really

  2. The more I see people using twitter the more I see wasted communication.

    It is so funny – and better than Chinese Whispers!

  3. Wow who has time to read all that? I went about a third of the way through and I was done.

    • Oh I read it all – has more twists, turns and drama than a Hollywood Blockbuster.

      I’m wondering if it’s the basis of a script for the next Mission Impossible! P^)

  4. I know Mr. Matlack had wanted to cultivate good terms with the feminists, and now it has all come crashing down. The bridges are burning.

  5. I don’t think they will ever truly understand how damaging it is because they’re focusing on male “privilege” more than they focus on the fact that prejudice isn’t tolerated against other groups (at least in most equality circles), so why is it tolerated against men?

    FACT: Crime is committed by both genders, both genders cheat on their partners (something that is an abuse of trust and can be very damaging), both genders have reason to fear trusting the other, CDC stats have the same number of women being raped as men being forced to penetrate (BEING penetrated wasn’t counted due to lack of reports) suggesting in the last 12 months men were raped AT LEAST as much as women were, and they reported 79.2% of their perpetrators were women. This means yeah more male abusers + male or female victim, but it also means there are A LOT of the male victims had female abusers. Sexual abusers/rapists/whatever term are more commonly male but females aren’t that far behind.

    If women fear men then quite frankly men should be fearing women, when you look at the rate of physical violence (up to equal levels depending on stats and injuries just as serious for many) and even worse the psychological aggression (equal levels) everyone should be fearing the opposite gender. But does that fear actually help us if the majority of each gender aren’t abusive?

  6. Julie Gillis says:

    All of that makes me quite sad. If it were men arguing with men, would it be dismissed as “feminist wrath?”
    I do doubt it. Wrath? Real wrath is not what that was.
    That was a twitter feud and there are about 9 million of them on the internet every day. They all are like that.
    I don’t know how, at this stage of the game, twitter should ever EVER be used for discourse or argument. It’s a fools game on both sides.
    Really disheartened.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Tom, you said “my point was that some men are afraid to speak up out of fear of female reprisals. Kind of being proven right here. ” Is arguing reprisals? Or is it simply challenging your opinion. Reading it several times now, I don’t see that the arguments are wrathful (calling you loads of dirty names or cursing your parents/families or threatening to find you hurt you), or in any way the actual definition of reprisal -

      (Retaliation for an injury with the intent of inflicting at least as much injury in return. 2. Forcible seizure of an enemy’s goods or subjects in retaliation for injuries …)

      I see very intelligent people arguing fiercely, competitive and at times everyone was combative**, but not something that I’d expect to see this much animosity towards.

      The whole wrath of feminists “insane” thing….I just don’t know. It’s dismissive to treat your opponent with that little respect. They fought hard and argued well. Honor that with a better title on this piece. Though I’m making assumptions on the title. I could be wrong.

      ** though I still don’t see much good outcome ever in twitter fights. No room for nuance.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        “If it were men arguing with men, would it be dismissed as “feminist wrath?”
        I do doubt it.”

        It might be, yeah, if most of the men were part of a group who were jumping on anyone who disagreed with them. Also, it wasn’t just women: Hugo Schwyzer was chiming in aswell.

        What got me most about those posts wasn’t that they were disagreeing with someone based on rational argument (I have no issue with that) it was the drowning out of any victimhood that wasn’t female. I really question the motivation of that kind of behaviour.

    • The Pale King says:

      “I don’t know how, at this stage of the game, twitter should ever EVER be used for discourse or argument. It’s a fools game on both sides.
      Really disheartened.”

      I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t know if posting this twitter conversation did anything remotely positive. This wasn’t a real conversation. It quickly dissipated into yelling and name-calling. No one discussed any part of Tom’s article (even Tom) with any kind of nuance. I’m kind of embarrassed with being such an avid reader of GMP after this.

      • Hi. This is totally off-topic. Given your pseudonym, are you a David Foster Wallace fan?

        P.S. I’m not a fan of Twitter chats either, in general.

  7. What Tom came across to me as calling for in his article was space for men to be able to discuss their experiences as men. That seems to be the whole purpose of this site, or I thought it was at least. When Tom notes that most of the people that listen to his talks on manhood are women, or that women are the ones in the comments on his articles, or on Twitter, I think he is pointing out that feminists, mostly women, are dominating the discussion on *both* genders.

    I don’t think Tom has anything against feminism. I would personally consider Tom a feminist-ally. What I think what Tom is trying to convey is a frustration with feminists who, intentionally or not, are demanding men “play be their rules” when it comes to discussing manhood. I think this comes from a suspicion that when men want to have an active voice and role in talking about gender, it is something regressive and anti-female.

    The people attacking Tom want him first to acknowledge them as the gatekeepers: either you agree with them or your feelings and experiences are invalid. And in order for them to validate his feelings and experiences, he must accept their views.

    What’s at issue is that Tom is talking about men discussing their thoughts and feelings in spaces for men. When men are sharing their stories, and making space for themselves to discuss manhood, it should be organic, on their own terms. Men should not have to check-in first with women/feminists in general to see if their feelings are valid. They are sharing something that is part of their daily existence – their own unique, valid experiences as men.

    • Reese – interesting observation about gates and gatekeepers.

      It reminds me of Cerberus – a chimera – made up of many parts that should not make a whole. Odd how some who traditionally won’t agree suddenly managed to combine into an odd beast.

      Ally is an intriguing term – a Feminist-ally – which school of feminism is that? Even the Feminists are unhappy to have allegiances between different schools!

      Who;s views are to be accepted to become an Ally? Actually NONE – an Ally is accepted on their own merits, not made to conform to another’s will and views, That is subjugation.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Actually officially? Like academically? Allies listen and take the back seat to the whichever group they are allying. So let’s use an example that isn’t about women….a gay man fighting for marriage benefits, expressing his experience. For me to be a good ally as a straight person, I wouldn’t tell him where he’s wrong per se, or tell him, don’t you worry, I’ll take care of things for you.

        He should direct me to act on his behalf because only he knows what he needs.

        This is the theoretical version, and it’s early so I really am not going to appreciate any drive by commenting about what a (insert evil bad word about women) I am here. K?

        Just trying to answer the question.

        Groups don’t ask allies to subjugate themselves, but they do ask allies to listen. It is, in my experience, pretty typical of someone who has a lot of power and (oh god I’m gonna say it, save my soul here) privilege, to just not listen and then tell the oppressed group how they should do what they need to do to fix things for them rather than listen and act on the groups behalf.

        It is annoying when you are trying to relay your experience for someone to say, “see if you’d only act like this then you’d…..” when that person has all the power (or perceived power).

        Is that a perfect system? No, and in worst cases it hobbles the ally from acting on their own skills and strengths for fear of offending the group. That’s a problem. Absolutely it is.

        But you asked about ally-ship and I’m giving you the breakdown as I’ve seen it.

        What happens, because we do live in such a binary system where for one to “win” another must “lose” is that the folks who were formally in the “winner” category don’t know how to ally with those trying to not “lose” so much. There is a tension created where the winner doesn’t know how to help the loser (and yes I”m mangling things here but like I said its early) and the loser feels patronized and then no one wants to give up their perceived power and then it’s all “Don’t tell me how to think! and Don’t you want my help? and You aren’t listening!” and it’s a flipping mess.

        I’m not going to even get started on the inside/out–outside/in mess of which group was being allied or unallied or has or has not privilege between Tom’s post (about men which I presume Amanda would say is the privileged group) and the twitter response (from feminists who seek allies) because I can’t make any sense of it at this point. I don’t know if I have it in me to try even.

        No one can get out of the winner/loser POV. People become vested in one status or the other. Academic jargon is designed and that in and of itself can alienate people. Whole schools of thought are devoted to “isms” which I frankly do think exist, and some of that is good and some of that is not good. At a certain point it becomes dogma on either side and then look where we are.

        • Julie – uhmmmm

          You seem to be referencing the term Ally incorrectly. I did make quite clear that Allies act in equality.

          RE Gay Marriage – if it is viewed with Privilege of heterosexuals it becomes we need to support you – so a back seat is taken.

          If it is seen as Equality – then there is no back seat to take. The Allies Stand side by side as Equality is the issue and gay marriage just a fulcrum in the balance of equality.

          The term Ally keeps getting used in relation to Feminism where it is being implied that some should be in the back seat – and Fulcrums and Equality keep getting ignored.

          I’m more than happy to ally myself to anyone who deals in equality, but as we all know, being treated as a back seat driver when you are not even in the vehicle results in going nowhere! P^)

          Is that Drive By?

          • Julie Gillis says:

            I don’t think it was a drive by. It was a thoughtful comment. And I personaly wasn’t advocating for anyone to take a back seat, I hope you can see that. I was noting what my past experience had been and the mess that happens.
            Maybe the back seat is not the best example.

            Allies stand with, stand behind, support, but don’t necessarily lead the charge or set the agenda. That’s the model I have seen most often in social justice movements. I wouldn’t “speak for” men or LGBT, or people of color, but I’d listen and act as they needed.

            They know more about their experience than I do. Whether that’s the right model, remains to be seen.

            In this case, if one views “men” as a dominant class then it shuffles the whole twitter exchange in a very different way. If one views “men” as an oppressed class then again, the argument is viewed differently.

            If one views people with access to twitter accounts, computers and academic training as the group in question, I have no idea who is oppressed in that particular upwardly mobile group :) I wish I had my sarcasm font installed.
            http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/spreadtheword.htm

            All of it is making my head hurt this morning. All I know is, person to person? I try to listen and hear people’s experiences and I hope they hear mine. And then I do my best to find common ground and shared goals. Boring, huh?

            • Julie – have you ever considered a Career In Conflict Transformation?

              It’s growing business on an international scale! You seem to have all the prerequisites.

              Just have a look at TRANSCEND International – http://www.transcend.org/

              I’ll try and dig out a lovely piece written by an associate which deals with how to use being railroaded as a way to achieve unimaginable results and no noise from the railroad built next to your house.

              … and the joys of the Internet – “Arial Sarcastic” – but I do have to wonder if it would make things better, or just add to the mélange. P^)

            • Julie Gillis says:

              I have indeed considered that. Thank you for the link and please feel free to send me me the piece. :)

            • Julie – had to go digging in me archives – Phew the dust! P^)

              click away and read – it’s posted below!

              http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-wrath-of-the-feminists-a-discussion-of-masculinity-gender-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-78149

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              “All of it is making my head hurt this morning. All I know is, person to person? I try to listen and hear people’s experiences and I hope they hear mine. And then I do my best to find common ground and shared goals. Boring, huh?”

              Thats the problem :( They weren’t listening because their pain was more important.

            • Lisa Hickey says:

              That was what I said to someone this morning — “there were five feminists in a room with Tom and not one of them appeared to be listening to anything he said.”

            • Five Blind Men And An Elephant Comes To Mind!

              “So oft in theologic wars,
              The disputants, I ween,
              Rail on in utter ignorance
              Of what each other mean,
              And prate about an Elephant
              Not one of them has seen! ”

              It’s even worse if you put five blind elephants in the room!

              Not only do they Prate about what has been going on – they Also Never Forget! P^)

            • Lisa Hickey
              Am I banned from this site now? If I am then you need to change your policies so that you actually tell people when they are banned. It’s rude to make people guess. Yesterday you asked me submit an article… it’s not exactly easy to guess.

              If I am not… guess I have to make a bug report. Every comment is failing to show up. Don’t think it is censorship because if it’s automated it’s hitting some very “vanilla” comments. Could be a bug in the filter though. I could try a different browser etc etc.

            • Lisa Hickey says:

              Hey — sorry David. For some reason, you got stuck in our spam filter. We get 100′s of spam comments an hour, so we don’t check them as a matter of course. The only reason I figured it out was that an author was trying to reply to a comments on his post and *his* got stuck, so he emailed me. If it happens again, feel free to shoot me an email — lisa at goodmenproject dot com — any time. But you should be all set.

            • Wow. So Roseanne proudly talks about how women have all the real power and men can’t solve problems and women are the ones who fix everything (both ludicrous *insulting*). But she’s angry that men haven’t dismantled the patriarchy which gives men all the power. What?!?

              These discussions of privilege always make my head spin. “Well, privileged allies then get some privilege for being allies so maybe they actually have *more* privilege” or “Whoa, ally, you disagree with me as a woman/transperson/POC?!? Check your privilege!” or the incessant debate about who has more privilege between a white woman and male POC. Goodness. I think it’s important to check one’s own privilege and be aware that your general privilege may blind you to some problems but, sorry, membership in a privileged group is not the end of the story when it comes to life’s power structures and to human interaction.

              I would even identify it as part of privilege that I can generally assume people who don’t like me have a reason other than my race or sex or sexual orientation (outside of the social justice circles). But because I can assume that, I know that these interactions happen with non-privileged groups as well. From the outside looking in, though, it seems that the constant us vs them mentality of many social justice movements tends to make everything about the issue: “Oh, you don’t like/respect me? It must be because I’m POC/trans/female/gay!” Well, maybe. But sometimes it’s just that you’re unlikable or not respectable. Being a victim doesn’t make you a saint; it’s a morally neutral state.

              The point I’m trying to make is that society does not consist of one monolithic power structure. We have millions of little sub-societies at local and smaller levels. So there are many places where a woman will be dramatically more privileged than a man economically and socially, or a POC than a white person, or whatever. And that structure will have more impact on her daily life than society at large. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some broad social truths to white or male privilege, but it’s ridiculous for a nationally privileged person to be shut down simply because they’re saying that privilege doesn’t always go one way.

            • Sorry, this was intended to be a response to the article not to Julie. Apologies.

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          “Actually officially? Like academically? Allies listen and take the back seat to the whichever group they are allying. So let’s use an example that isn’t about women….a gay man fighting for marriage benefits, expressing his experience. For me to be a good ally as a straight person, I wouldn’t tell him where he’s wrong per se, or tell him, don’t you worry, I’ll take care of things for you.”

          No, if I thought a member of a group was wrong I’d speak up and say so. If allies are just mouthpieces and handpuppets then what the heck kind of good are they? I can do alot more good for a movement than pointing out flaws than by parroting them.

          Also, the analogy is inaccurate: A straight man isn’t hurt by his heterosexuality, society doesn’t deprive him of privileges on the basis of his orientation as it does a gay man (or woman). Male feminists are not a privileged elite stooping to help the less fortunate, they are fellow human beings who have also been hurt and privileged by gender and whose voice is every bit as necessary in order to find equality.

          If I see a sexist call themselves a feminist I fully intend to call them on it, to do anything less is to be complicit.

      • “Feminist ally” is a term sometimes used by feminist men who feel they are not worthy enough to be called feminists (because they are tainted with the evil of maleness).

        Not sure if that was the meaning intended here.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Reese, I love your thoughtful comment and thank you for offering it. I agree that men’s feelings belong to them and there shouldn’t be permission granting back and forth. People should listen to people. But I also think there is room for argument and discussion. I think what I felt most confounded by in that thread (though I can’t say I enjoy watching a pile on no matter who is being piled on) is that I felt (and could be projecting) that the language of “wrath of the feminists” was really dismissive. LIke, I know men like a good fight right? There’s a whole thread in race about fighting and it’s role in sports (or not). A dust up isn’t a bad thing for dudes if I’m understanding correctly. So why dismiss the ladies for fighting. Don’t have to agree with them or their methods but anyone starting up a twitter battle with Amanda or Jenn (and Jenn did offer the first move in that) is in for quite a fight. They fight well and hard. I enjoy seeing women battle and well…I don’t dismiss their abilities even if I disagree with things they might say.

      I hear that the title was designed to reference the phrase Tom used. Still makes the argument seem all the more like sniping rather than what could have been a great fuller discussion if not for the tweet limit.

      As for the gatekeeper comment. That’s a good start for another conversation I don’t have time for but started to address to MediaHound.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        I don’t begrudge feminists (male or female) for fighting what they believe in. I do have a big problem with other voices not being allowed room, its like watching the many attacks civil rights activists have made on gay rights activists. Its almost as if they feel their victimhood is being diluted.

      • I hear that the title was designed to reference the phrase Tom used. Still makes the argument seem all the more like sniping rather than what could have been a great fuller discussion if not for the tweet limit.

        It never would have become a discussion because a discussion implies an exchange of ideas and a consider of different positions, and none of the people arguing with Matlack seemed remotely interested in considering anything he wrote. They heard him, but they were not listening. Rather, they were simply waiting for their turn to speak.

        I think in that sense the title “Wrath of the Feminists” is accurate because what we saw simply resentful indignation that Matlack challenged a view those particular people hold. While I can see how you might take the title as dismissive, I do not think the feminists dismissed for fighting, but for why they were fighting and what they were fighting over.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          I’ve read it several times and I’m not entirely sure anyone was listening and responding after absorbing information. To me that’s one of the biggest issues with arguing online. Even here in a paragraph form, there is too much missing to (in my opinion) really get where the other person is. Are they joking, sparring, angry, listening, digesting, spewing. I think that’s what I find frustrating about comment sections in general. Sometimes there is dialogue, but more often I see a great deal of “drive bys” sarcasm etc which really derails any conversation happening and lowers the general tone. People often leave the conversation altogether. My guess is that people are much less apt to do that in person as the social stakes are higher.
          Thank you for engaging me kindly, Jacob, I appreciate it.

          • Julie, it is not just online. This happens offline as well, and the common factor tends to be when someone challenges a fundamental belief or worldview that another person or group holds. In Marcotte and Schwyzer’s responses, they paint themselves as victims of bigotry and misogyny, yet never once consider that their statements towards men come across as bigoted and misandrous. They outright dismiss that anything they write or any of the views they hold are wrong or hurtful. That goes far beyond people just wanting to make snarky remarks. It is a simple “I’m right, you’re wrong” or “Shut up and listen” assertion, and that simply is not and never will be a discussion. And to be honest, I do not think some people want to have a discussion. When I read some of the feminist responses to men’s criticism of the twitter-beef, they are condescending and dismissive. It is as if people just want others to listen to their views and accept them without question.

            If people want a conversation on gender, they must set aside their preconceived views. If they cannot do that, they should not participate in the discussion.

        • Lisa Hickey says:

          For the record, “The Wrath of Feminists” did originally come from one of the tweets of Tom Matlack. But Jenn Pozner, one of the people in the discussion, then posted the whole discussion publicly, with that title. I was the one to make the decision to re-post using the same title that she did.

          • Julie Gillis says:

            And I see from her tweets she thinks it would make a good book title (tongue in cheek I think), so I can’t say I’m impressed with her use of the phrase either. I’m curmudgeonly today.

          • Lisa

            I just want to point out that what has been posted as the supposed definitive history of the dialogue is not correct.

            Some tweets are missing – other tweets between parties as side dialogue are not included.

            Personally I find what has been compiled and presented to be disingenuous and I have to most definitely question the motives of those who have done so – as well as the motives of those Net Savvy types who have sought to exploit it.

            Some have made comment about shaming Tom – yet I see a great deal of Shameful Activity.

            I don’t agree with Tom’s original Post which is being brandished with such glee by some. I produced a Jokey Response in relation to what I perceived as Tom’s distress at his own experiences. I personally considered it a manly thing to do. Also coming at things from a different angle opens up ideas and communication where a full on attack does nothing but cause carnage.

            I do note how some have attacked Tom’s own experiences and attempted to invalidate him – Shameful – Totally Shameful activity.

            !I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
            François-Marie Arouet – Voltaire

            he also said

            “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”.

            I have seen a great deal of supposed certainty from some – and with it, a great deal of abuse.

            One can hope that some may reflect upon their own attitudes and conduct – but as with such certainty, it has no capacity to look it’s self in the eye in front of the mirror.

            Certainty is one hell of a Privilege that some give to themselves – and as will all such, they are blinded by their own Privilege. It’s funny how that gets preached by people who don’t even listen to themselves.

            • Lisa Hickey says:

              I want to be clear on this again — we *reposted* the entire tweet stream from a place where Jenn Pozner had posted it. We were not trying to say that it is the “definitive history of the dialogue” by any means. In fact — one of the best things it does, IMO, is highlight just how easy it is to take things out of context.

              What’s important is the ongoing, continued, open, honest discussion around these issues that validates everyone’s experiences.

              And I totally appreciate all of those who are working here to make that happen. Thank you all.

            • Lisa

              Sorry if you mistook my meaning concerning the accuracy of the Tweet Stream. I am very much aware that what has been created and presented is not the product of GMP.

              Do You Think That if I saw GMP was editing to change reality I would not speak out?

              That Is why I am so angry. If this was evidence in court, not only would a Judge be obliged to Throw It Out – he would have to consider Contempt.

              In my experience, those involved in that Contempt should be praying that the judge is not in a hanging mood!

              Again – I have no issues with a single thing said by Tom – But I am more than scornful of those who have misused it for personal interest.

            • Lisa Hickey says:

              No worries! I am certain you would speak out out any inaccuracies, MediaHound — that’s part of the reason we like having you around!

    • DavidByron says:

      This site *already* implements plenty of gates to keep things on a very pro-feminist / female footing. Those many gates are just not enough for the feminists. They want more and more power. They want more of a boot on men’s necks.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        And comments like this one are the reason I don’t think you’ll read anything I posted for you after you asked for things to be explained to you. I don’t know anyone, aside from the occasional dominatrix ;) that wants a boot on men’s necks. That’s just silly and inflammatory, DavidByron. If I had that much power I’d have my name on the masthead myself. It’d be the Good Julie Project! I should see if that’s TM’d already!

        • DavidByron says:

          Thanks for calling my opinion silly and inflammatory. I think you’ll find it is an opinion shared by many here.

          As for me not reading you— that comment was posted before you talked to me the other night. It was held up in moderation. It was not intended as a snipe against you. I did not even know you were a mod at that time.

  8. Wow. The privilege is STRONG with so many here.

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      Alex, THAT is a great summation! ;-)

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        Morgaine… you have no idea how right you are. Although I suspect your own privilege wasn’t the one you were referring to.

    • Alex – I find it comical that so much that is said has to be filtered through a Lexicon before it is considered. And before that all ambiguity has to be nailed down to figure out your meaning.

      Does that use of “here” imply the thread the whole site or all people who read, have read and even will read the site?

      So many? How big is the implied group – the 7 who have posted responses as I write – is that “many” to be taken as the group of 7 Quoted from Twitter?

      I love the ways that language get used – and how meanings can be explicit or implied – and through ambiguity twisted!

      I also note that so many are happy to take a twitter feed – look at so few characters – assume so much and then run to any corner of the Internet where they can claim control and then dissect to their hearts content. IN so many ways the Internet is the biggest obstacle to communication ever invented!

      I love the Allies lexicon – which reads as “I want you to agree with me – and if you don’t I will not treat you as equal – but still imply you are Ally”.

      The question that always comes up is how is that word Ally being used. It is both a verb and a noun and as a verb it actually has two different ways to use it.

      Some think me annoying – because when there is ambiguity in language I like to get it nailed down so that misunderstandings are avoided – and so many don’t like that because they like to be able to play games with that Ambiguity!

      Privilege? Is that The VERB – the NOUN – Is it being played with as a VERB to make it TRANSITIVE or even INTRANSITIVE?

      The most comical thing in the whole twitter feed is how references get misused – and then assumption and presumption is built by some into a massive Privilege where they assume all references have been read .

      I had a teacher at school he was like that – they just assumed that everyone knew what they were talking about. They got very uppity is you asked them first to explain the reference – and even more uppity if you actually pointed out that they were wrong to keep on making assumptions.

      I saw so many shadows of that teacher in the twitter feed – and “Privileged” attitudes they displayed.

      That word Privilege has so many meanings – and it also has so many implications – such as arrogance, haughtiness, disdain and assumption of Privilege is even linked to behavior such as Bullying!

      So could you clarify – what do YOU mean when you say “The privilege is STRONG with so many here.”? P^)

      As I keep saying Language is a very poor tool for communication!

  9. MorgainePendragon says:

    Overall, I enjoyed (what felt like authorised eavesdropping on) the content of the conversation; but I (shockingly) must agree with MediaHound and others that Tweeting doesn’t seem a great forum for such complex and preferably nuanced subjects.

    If it’s called Twitter and what you’re doing is Tweeting, doesn’t that make everyone Twits?

    • Morgaine

      I agree that so many end up looking like twits!

      Twitter also has another marked disadvantage – it allows much language that fits the definition of “Thought Terminating Cliché” to be used. They do tend to be less than 140 characters long! P^)

      I do think that some should make sure that any word that is being used in it’s specific Jargon Form is marked as [JARGON TERM] ® or ™. On twitter they can even just throw a HashTag in front – but some would be so unhappy being deprived of characters.

      So many use terms interchangeably – and assume that others can read their minds and intent.

      Maybe Twitter and other social networking systems need to come with a Warning “Assume Clairvoyance Of Other Users At Your Own Risk!”.

  10. I love it when feminists say that privilege is invisible to those that have it… as if they are completely 100% aware of their own privileges as women. (yeah yeah, “there’s no such thing as female privilege.” blahblahblah)

    Schwyzer saying that Men’s goodness hinges on their rejection of “traditional masculinity” (whatever the fuck that is) pretty much tells you everything you need to know about him. I really hope that this means Tom is finally waking up to what a misandrist little White-Knighter Schwyzer really is.

    Also: Amanda Marcotte calling for empathy= HILARIOUS

    And finally: To whoever made the claim that MRAs support rapists and murderers and generally not-nice people (which they have, no denial here) I give you the beams in your own eyes

    Exhibit A: Valerie Solanas
    Exhibit B: Lorena Bobbit
    Exhibit C: That nutjob who chopped of her husband’s bits and put them in the garbage disposal a few months ago
    Exhibit D: Mary Winkler
    Exhibit E: Crystal Magnum
    Et cetra et cetra

  11. I’m curious about whether male writers/commenters would prefer there be no female writers or commenters on the GMP site. Sometimes it seems that the female view (and this is not monolithic) might be considered helpful to the dialogue since women are 50% of the population and are men’s sisters, wives, mothers, daughters, etc. Other times the message seems to be clear that men would prefer this site to be their own space, free of women. As a female writer, this is something I’m thinking a lot about this week. This is a straightforward question.

    • Lori

      Personally, I see no issue with any writer publishing here, and as I have said I would like to see a greater diversity of writers across age groups. I am concerned about the Middle Age Spread in the writing! P^)

      If writers and commentators wish to join in it is up to the site owners to decide if voices should be heard or not.

      GMP says of itself “We are fostering a national discussion centered around modern manhood and the question, “What does it mean to be a good man”?”.

      Would it be acceptable as a foster parent to say only boys acceptable? If you are a foster parent you provide structure and safety for the child to explore and grow.

      It does seem that the seas round hear are rather high at the moment, so I’m not surprised if some are wondering about having embarked on the Good Ship GMP. No one ever said it would be plain sailing. No-one said it was a luxury cruise ship either – with room service and a spa.

      It’s more likely to be an old schooner type – rigging – sails – cramped bunks. But on a ship like that there is team work, and it also can go places that other vessels can’t.

      In the mean time I’m wondering about this even being a schooner. It may be best of we even look at it as a canoe – and paddles get used to explore.

      It’s one thing to be a man – and even let your inner child have some fun.

      I see no sign saying No Girls Allowed – and if there was one I’m sure you would claim you are a Tom Boy and still find a way to join in! P^)

    • Lori, I certainly like having female voices on here. I just don’t want to see this turn into the comments section at sites like Feministing, where dissent is either not tolerated or dismissed as “mansplaining,” “what about the menz,” “check your privilege” pissing contests, etc. I don’t think GMP is in danger of that, obviously. I suspect most men just want a safe space to talk about being men honestly.

    • I do not see any problem with comments from female writers, more the opposite.
      Why not? What is wrong with comments written by females?

      Men’s Rights Forums – as far as I know – welcome female posters.

      Most of these women who are singing up and who are supportive to MRAs were living with their father or brother when young and had a good time with them, or there are mothers with young boys facing problems, etc.

      I think, men (not only MRAs) react most angrily against a certain small group of ignorant men – we call them ‘mangina’ – who have nothing else to do but to make fun out of the personal problems of men.

    • Graham Phoenix says:

      “I’m curious about whether male writers/commenters would prefer there be no female writers or commenters on the GMP site.”

      It’s an interesting question, Lori. My reaction is to question what the site is about, really. It increasingly seems to be about the men vs women debate. This is a worthwhile debate, I am just not sure this is the right place. Men need a space to find the answers to the questions they face today, questions about being men, without heckling by feminists—and I mean feminists not women. The problem with the heckling is not that it’s wrong, but that it diverts the discussion away from men trying to find answers. As Tom’s spat on Twitter shows it descends into political haggling about who’s right. This is not helpful to anyone.

      Men have a lot to talk about and a lot to resolve, women should be part of that discussion to help men see it from the female perspective, but when the discussion is highjacked nothing gets resolved.

  12. Arturo Pendriago says:

    Ahh, a bunch of leftists arguing over which one is more progressive and egalitarian, which group deserves the halo for shaming Marxism. Tom Matlack, when you try to boast of your egalitarian sanctity among your cultural Marxist brethren (and Sisthren), attempt to redeem men and especially White men, you will be reamed a new one. Love it!!!!

    Just stop pretending, drop the mask, and come to the other side.

  13. 1.Egalitarian relationships: this equal relationship between client and therapist models for women personal responsibility and assertiveness in other relationships. 2.Power: women are taught to gain and use power in relationships and the possible consequences of their actions. 3.Enhancement of women’s strengths: so much of traditional therapy focused on a woman’s shortcomings and weaknesses that feminist therapists teach women to look for their own strengths and use them effectively. 4.Non-pathology oriented and non-victim blaming: the medical model is rejected and women’s problems are seen as coping mechanisms and viewed in their social context. 5.Education: women are taught to recognize their cognitions that are detrimental and encouraged to educate themselves for the benefit of all women. 6.Acceptance and validation of feelings: feminist therapists value self-disclosure and attempt to remove the we-they barrier of traditional therapeutic relationships.

  14. Does ANYONE here know what this male privilege is? An example of it? It’s basically like the tooth fairy except evil, right?

  15. I never went “pro-MRA”. They called me a Mangina about a thousand times over by now.
    TMatlack 1 day ago
    ——

    LOL,
    MRAs consider you as a feminist and mangina, because you are one of the founders of a feminist website called the Good Men Project supported financially by MS. Magazine.

    I have to admit however after watching this website since several months, that you are not openly into editing and deleting of comments which do not agree with feminism. –
    I never remember to read any scornful remarks from you related to the Men’s Rights Movement.

    This makes you somewhat different from many other feminists.

    Anyway, most MRAs are not much interested in writing articles or comments for this GoodMenProject for various reasons.

  16. http://goodmenproject.com/press/ms-magazine-talks-shop-with-lisa-hickey/
    Back in June when the Good Men Project Magazine had just launched, Ms. magazine took us under their generous wing…
    ————————————-
    http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2010/11/16/good-men-media-nabs-funding.html
    Good Men Media Inc., which focuses on creating content geared towards men, has received $500,000 in funding, the firm said on Tuesday.
    ———————————–

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      Ah, I can see how you would make that connection. “Took us under their generous wing” meant nothing more than they wrote about our magazine launch and helped promote our existence. Any all and funding we have received has been from a group of private investors (and, for the record, all men).

      We receive zero funding from Ms. Magazine, and have no more connection with them than the fact that they wrote about us precisely two times.

      I will change that phrase since it is confusing.

      • I agree with Lisa.

        Ms. Magazine vouched for Good Men Project. Doesn’t mean they provided funding for it.

        Thanks for clearing it up, Lisa.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      There is no connection to MS in the second link is there?

      • Of course not, and this is exactly the problem. Who are these donors?
        Do you have USD 500.000,- as a give-away?
        It would be good for the GMP to publish an annual report in details, to make clear from where all these funds are coming from.

        • Lisa Hickey says:

          It actually is a matter of public record. Here is one of the links: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101116006535/en/Good-Men-Media-Secures-500000-Financing

          It is all private angel investor funding. We used the initial funding to set up the technology behind the website, hire editors to set the editorial direction and put processes and systems in place, and pay for other business-related overhead (accounting, ad sales, legal). We now have just two full-time salaried people on staff. We get a small amount of revenue from the advertising on the site.

          Noted on the annual report, thank you.

        • Yohan – I understand that as GMP is in fact as stated:

          “The Good Men Foundation is a registered New York State nonprofit charitable corporation dedicated to helping organizations that provide educational, social, financial, and legal support to men and boys at risk.”

          Further details can be obtained as published from;

          The Good Men Foundation
          143 Newbury St., 6th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116

          However, as a nonprofit charitable corporation, I understand that it is not mandatory for the information you seek to be supplied. It is discretionary, and may possible be obtained from the relevant officers by use of a formal and polite letter sent by land mail.

          I personally don’t have USD 500.000 to, as you put it, “Give Away”. However many nonprofit charitable corporation’s are gifted amounts, some far larger, by generous benefactors who as a condition of gift do request anonymity.

          A persons personal bank balance is not a good place to judge another persons bank balance from – or any level of generosity that a person exhibits from their own personal circumstances.

  17. You just can’t have a decent debate with these people. They’ve already made up their minds and won’t budge at all from their views, treating every little voice of dissent (such as yours) with contempt.

    Looking at what they’ve said and how they treated Tom during the debate, their voices reminded me so much of the very feminists, the very strain of feminism, that told me my pain didn’t matter because I benefited from instituionalised sexism as a pure, white, priveledged male. That my struggles were piffle compare to what women go through. It’s like I said, the fact that I was bullied and hurt by girls and women meant absoloutly NOTHING to people like the ones in the Twitter feed highlighted.

    I’m sorry but again, people like the ones in this article, are the reason why I don’t call myself a feminist. Because I’d be sharing the same space as them considering feminism isn’t a monolith so their views are welcome. Do I want to be exposed to the kind of triggering garbage they spew about “All men are guilty until proven innocent in rape culture” and the like?

    NO!

    So I decided “Forget it. Never in a million years.”

    Face it, they’re just not going to listen. Believe me, I’ve tried myself and had to stop myself from having suicidal thoughts due to the kind of triggering accusations levied my way about “Checking my privledge” amongst other things.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      This could have pronouns exchanged and you’d hear feminists saying the same thing about MRAs. Or pick your groups. I see posts here and on Spearhead and other places where decent points by women are brought up and doors are slammed just the same. “won’t listen” “not going to listen” is a disease of pride I think, no matter what side of the fence one is on.
      There are issues on both sides. We both need to listen, argue and accept the feelings of each other. We need to find solutions, but I fear it’s gonna be a hell of a lot of work.

      • “We need to find solutions, but I fear it’s gonna be a hell of a lot of work.”

        I think it could be easier than you think – but it may mean some people being made redundant.

        All you have to do is remove the (o)fences and it creates a large area called common ground. It’s surprising how easily people explore and utilize it one the (o)fences are removed.

        Of course those who have invested in facilities to build (o)fences will object, as their product does have a limited market. Loosing life long employment can be hard, especially as the export market is also drying up! P^)

        What was that Cole Porter Song – “Don’t (o)fence me in.”?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuMvkNDuOuQ

        “Just turn me loose
        Let me straddle my old saddle underneath the western skies
        On my cayuse
        Let me wander over yonder till I see the mountains rise
        I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
        Gaze at the moon until I loose my senses
        I Can’t look at hobbles and I can’t stand (o)fences
        Don’t (o)fence me in”

      • http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/03/12/child-brides-femme-pens-and-misogynist-trolls-editors-picks-36-312/

        The Good Men Project has taken on the daunting task of introducing, unlocking and dismantling the so-called Men’s Rights Movement in a special series of posts this week. My top pick, naturally, was Amanda Marcotte’s, in which she debunks the feminist-scapegoating delusions held by so many misogynist trolls men’s rights activists (MRAs)…
        ———————————-
        @Julie Gillis
        Excuse me, but what kind of reply do you expect, if you approach the Men’s Rights Movement with arguments like those above?

        Anyway, I write a few comments just now, but most MRAs are not interested even to try to post a comment with the GMP.

        BTW, all of my comments are obviously ‘awaiting moderation’ .

        We have our own forums and I agree with you to find any dialog is very difficult.

      • DavidByron says:

        I’m don’t know much about the MRA but I know that’s not true.

  18. “Probably not since black men DON’T commit more crimes on average. They are arrested and prosecuted at higher rates.”

    Wrong.

    Assumptions:
    1. Most crime is intraracial, not interracial.
    2. Blacks are less likely to report crime due to a bad relationship with police and crime against black is less likely to be investigated due to racism
    3. Black victimization rates to due to crime are higher than white victimization rates

    Conclusion:
    Simplest explanation to explain higher black victimization rates is that blacks are committing more crimes against their own people. Even if blacks are arrested and prosecuted at higher rates it does not explain the higher black victimization rate.

  19. Can we stop giving these feminist clowns such a privileged position here?

    Feminists don’t define what men are. Their articles and misinformation is usually well discredited whenever they post here.

    Stop position them as some sort of authority on men, they are not. Let them continue to contribute, but stop treating them like they are any authority.

    Try to patch up the bridges with the mens movement, they are far better informed than these feminist charlatans with their convoluted research, abuse denial and Mary Dalys’ rape culture ideology.

    • DavidByron says:

      And how come the feminists can be as abusive as they like with people constantly complaining about their abuse and they get their stuff highlighted but men’s rights people get kicked off the site?

      • Julie Gillis says:

        I’ve seen a number of female’s comments placed in permanent mod (I’m a mod) because they were abusive. Just FYI. If anyone is being abusive, name calling, etc doesn’t matter to me if it’s a man or woman.

        • DavidByron says:

          I didn’t say “female”.
          I didn’t say “women”.

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Way to be nit picky. Point is if I see someone acting cruel and out of the guidelines, I’ll mod them. I believe I already noted it didn’t matter if they were male or female. Would it make you feel better if I said feminist or masculanist? You’ll note that your posts are showing up, yes?

            • DavidByron says:

              NIT PICKY?
              Are you kidding me? You just had two people going on about abuse by feminists here. I noted that people are always complaining. You responded with misdirection and then dismissal. Let me be plain: there’s a lot of bias here and I don’t believe you are acting on the guildlines. Abuse by feminists — FEMINISTS — not “women” — is acceptable here. There’s an entire article somewhere that basically says men are all rapists. Several others hinting at it. Why is that acceptable? In what possible world is it considered OK conversation to negatively stereotype an entire birth group on a web site supposedly trying to get that birth group to open up and talk???

              And, no, my posts are not showing up. Some of my posts show up some times. But when none of my posts show I’ll be sure to place a comment here saying that.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              Well that one showed up! Who do you feel is abusing you/in the thread? I can’t read all the comments all the time and I have no idea what other mods are around. I believe Lisa noted that you had been in a spam fllter and that was fixed, is that right? Please feel free to comment here if you have someone you want to specifically discuss.

              If you have problem with content, I’d suggest you email Lisa or Tom directly and take it up with them. I suspect if you have a piece in mind you’d like to offer they’d look at it and talk with you.

            • DavidByron says:

              What about this entire article?
              http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/why-are-so-many-good-men-accepting-of-rape-culture/

              The author even recognises it is offensive. Read her first three words. An entire article saying men somehow endorse rape.

  20. FAO Julie

    Railroad Tactics and how not to get Railroaded.

    Sorry had to go digging in me archives! The dust was terrible.

    Fighting Fit – Jason Jarrett won’t just compromise any more

    Bombarded with headlines about conflict, we have an automatic tendency to associate it with negativity, violence and war. This association, made by large sections of the media as well as leading figures in society, can easily lead us to confuse conflict with violence. Conflict and violence are not the same thing. When asked about conflict prevention during a seminar at Taplow Court, Professor of Peace Studies Johan Galtung said:

    ‘Some of you used the word conflict prevention. It is not a very fortunate term. What you mean is violence prevention. So when I am listening, be kind enough not to say conflict prevention because I am going to try and convince you that conflict is marvellous. It is the salt of the earth but written on it are the words, ‘Handle with Care’
    (Course on Conflict Transformation, 1997).

    Conflict exists when various parties with a common interest have goals which appear to be contradictory. The more important the goals are, the more the parties may feel frustration. If the conflict is not resolved, it may fester as aggression and later erupt in violence. If the conflict is taken seriously, and is worked through in a creative way, then it represents an opportunity for a better future that satisfies everyone’s goals.

    Co-operative solutions

    This kind of thinking is at the heart of Galtung’s ‘transcend’ method of conflict transformation, which holds that all the parties are responsible for the conflict that has emerged. This premise is similar to the Buddhist concept of dependent origination, according to which everything is integrally related. Buddhism teaches that all phenomena exist or occur only because of their relationship with other phenomena. Nothing can exist in absolute independence of other things, or arise of its own accord.

    To see how this is related to issues of conflict, imagine a sinking boat with a full complement of crew. If individuals amongst the crew spend their time blaming each other, instead of bailing out the boat and repairing the damage. they will sink. The parties involved (the individual members of the crew) need to act collectively to prevent the conflict (the sinking boat). Attaching blame and denying responsibility only make the situation worse. Similarly, if the world is consumed in violence, arguing about whose fault it is will not help us to survive. Like the crew in the boat, we can all contribute to create a future where everyone’s goals can be satisfied.

    No compromise

    This approach is markedly different from compromise. Compromise means that everyone has to give up something in order to find a middle ground that everyone can agree to. Given that the goals were important enough to form a conflict in the first place, what chance is there of a sustainable agreement resulting from compromise?

    Here’s the word from this corner, “Ditch the word compromise from your vocabulary”. It is a justification used when people cannot come up with a creative solution. Some might take issue with this, saying some conflicts are more complex than others. I say. “Question the received wisdom!” Compromise is not a solution. It is a stop-gap measure that will not produce lasting results.

    Often, complex situations become deadlocked because those involved are not soliciting the creativity of all the parties affected. Human beings tend to simplify complex situations into separate bite-sized chunks that the brain can easily understand. This tendency is reinforced by sound-bite media which reports conflict as if it were sport, one side against another. The truth is that nearly every conflict involves more than two parties.

    In mapping out the 1992 Gulf War, Professor Galtung identified forty-four parties and thirty-two goals. Most of us might remember it as a war between the UN and Iraq, with Kuwait involved somehow! Galtung explains that the more complex the problem, the more potential there is for a creative solution. It is, he says, the very complexity of a conflict that provides the fertile ground from which new ideas and creativity can spring forth.

    Railroad tactics?

    Professor Galtung used the following example as an illustration. He and his wife have a house in Oslo. It is on an estate of about 200 houses. The people in the southern part of the estate live closer to the railway. Consequently, they are affected by more noise. They wanted compensation, namely, that there be no car parking outside their accommodation. That was fine in 1977, when the estate was built.

    As people’s standard of living improved, families began to have two cars. These were gradually parked further and further towards the south of the estate, so the southerners stood up in revolt. The conflict became quite nasty. People discussed building a parking area in the north of the estate, although the site they had in mind was already used by the kindergarten. The matter was complicated further when a letter arrived from the Norwegian railway. They needed a major part of the southern territory to build a third track.

    Then somebody came up with an idea, ‘OK, we accept a third track, we build a roof over all 3 tracks and on it, we will build a parking place’. The Norwegian railway said OK. So suddenly, although there were several parties and the problem looked messy, it was exactly because of that that there was a solution. Everybody was satisfied. One person with imagination can transform a conflict into an opportunity that can benefit everyone.

    Creative Vision

    Conflict, then, is an opportunity to create a new and better future. In practical terms, how can we use conflict to bring about the positive change in society that meets everyone’s needs? For this to happen, and to prevent violence from developing, everyone involved must be treated with respect. At the heart of the ‘transcend’ method of conflict transformation is the idea that all parties should be inspired to strive for higher goals. These higher goals, or visions, should transcend the differences that emerge from small conflicting issues. In talking about vision, first SGI-UK General Director Dick Causton once said ‘Big dreams carry many small dreams within them , small dreams carry only themselves.’

    Similarly, conflict should be directed towards creating visions of peace, where everyone benefits. If this overarching vision is established as a firm goal, then it becomes simpler to work backwards, to know what action to take. To use a Galtung phrase ‘ Create peace by peaceful means.’ The enormous energy that is generated by conflict can be used for the betterment of humanity as a whole, rather than for the benefit of a few. The energy of conflict is the stuff of life itself. Where there is life, there will always be conflict of some kind. We can use it to create either suffering or joy – the choice is always ours.

    WIN / WIN STRATEGIES
    When faced with a conflict situation there are a number of ways in which we can react. . The most common strategies are: withdrawal, suppression, win/ lose, compromise and win/ win. If we examine these we will be able to see that we may habitually use one of these strategies to deal with a conflict. There are certain times when each of these could be appropriate, but most people tend to rely on only one strategy whatever the situation is. This is limiting because it restricts our ability to achieve successful and satisfying results. Win/win strategies are often not entered into because we are so used to our old habits and because it requires creative work.

    Withdrawal: This can defuse the immediate conflict, but can also allow the problem to escalate. It can also lead to people who withdraw, punishing themselves.

    Suppression: This can preserve the relationship, but can be a refusal to acknowledge that there is a problem, and does not reach a solution.

    Win/Lose: This is an unconscious compulsion to protect oneself – it can be necessary, but seldom provides a long-term answer.

    Compromise: This is a product of skilful negotiation but sometimes all the options are not explored and there can be a lack of commitment.

    Win/Win: This is an attempt to find better and more creative solutions.

    There are 4 stages which are employed in a win/win strategy.

    Find out why each party needs what they want.
    Find out where the differences dovetail.
    Find out what the options are.
    Co-operation – the parties work as partners not opponents The attitude is that everyone can be used to resolve conflicts.

    So, if we can start from the viewpoint that each person wants something and that there may be a way in which everyone can achieve something, we can avoid the traditional means of resolving conflicts – that is, one side as a victor and the other as a victim. It may not always be obvious how a solution with which everyone is satisfied can be achieved, but it is often surprising how often a discussion carried out with this seeking mind can yield a resolution by which all parties do feel that they have won a victory.

  21. I dared disagree with Amanda Marcotte in that conversation. Because I did so, she went on to claim that I “police” women, don’t allow them to feel anger, cast aspersions on my marriage and then told me I was “gross.” Go ahead, look it up. It’s right there.

    I never personally attacked her, I certainly didn’t tell her how to feel & I would never presume to question the nature of her romantic relationships. Yet I was somehow fair game, all because I had a differing opinion. Because apparently with feminists like Marcotte, if you’re not with them 100% or if you question even a part of their “logic,” you’re against them. And it’s open season.

    Feminism, to me, is about equality. Equal pay, equal rights, equal treatment, etc. In that vein, I am absolutely a feminist. Hell, I feel that way about everyone so technically I believe that would make me a humanist. So feminism = good. Some feminists on the other hand, not so much.

    A lot was made of the word “wrath.” If you cant’ see the wrath readily apparent in that conversation, then you’re blind. That, along with the condescending sarcasm, derision and pompousness in which their words are soaked, repels moderates who would ordinarily be allies. So if the goal is to alienate, well done. Mission accomplished.

    Normally I’m a big fan of having a discussion take place and trying to take something away from both sides. In this case, not so much. You’re with them or against them. Which is unfortunate.

    • DavidByron says:

      I find it offensive that you claim feminism is about equality.

      You say feminism is for equal pay? If you’ve discussed that issue much you know that feminists actually demand equal pay for women who don’t work as hard as the men they are compared with. You know they dishonestly misrepresent the figures.

      You say feminism is about equal rights. So explain to me why the feminist movement lobbied congress to pass a sexist bill that discriminated against male victims of domestic violence in the 1990s (Violence Against Women Act). Why did they demand male victims receive no aid?

      You tell me one single thing that feminism stands for today that is about equality.

      • DB: I don’t think that’s true about equal pay. C’mon. Women currently make 79 cents to a man’s dollar. That’s unfair any way you cut it.

        Now, if you want to talk about how men are treated in domestic violence cases and by the courts during custody battles, that’s a different story. But my point is, there are “privileges” on both sides. As a white, heterosexual male I know I enjoy privileges. More than most I’m sure. But there are advantages and disadvantages no matter who you are. And I don’t think those should be discounted just because one side has more or less.

        • 79 cents? It would be incredibly unfair if it was actually TRUE. You seriously saying you don’t know the truth behind that feminist lie? I don’t know. I just sometimes assume that people on these boards know about all this stuff you know? It’s been explained so many times. If you really don’t know it’s a lie then I apologise for jumping on you like that. I don’t mind explaining it once again, or I bet anyone here could, or you can Google it. eg “Gender wage gape fraud” would probably do it. Your choice.

          Now as for DV did I say anything about family court? We all know men get screwed there but I didn’t. You said feminism was for equality and I said they passed a bill that explicitly discriminated against men. Now maybe you never heard of VAWA before. It was big in the 1990s. It was probably the single biggest “success” of the feminist movement in the 90s. All the feminist groups backed it. A billion dollars for helping the victims of domestic violence. and they made sure it said no male victims can be helped. If you help male victims? Not a penny for you.

          So you tell me. How does a movement that believes in gender equality lobby hard for discrimination? That would be like the NRA accidentally passing a law that bans handguns.

          Come on. You said feminism is for equality. I say it’s a hate movement. So we disagree. But it’s not exactly hard to tell the difference is it? Those two things aren’t exactly close are they? It’s pretty easy to come up with stuff that an equality movement would never do, but a hate movement would. Examine the evidence.

          Like with that gender wage gap thing? What if I’m right and it’s a big lie? What kind of movement would pass of a huge lie like that about men? What kind of a movement would deliberately try to cause women to resent men like that? An equality movement? Or something else?

          Now feminists are always going on about “male privilege” but can never say what it is. You may have privileges (I don’t know, maybe you’re rich) but I mean privileges all men have just because they are male. I keep asking but no feminist can ever tell me what those privileges are. Funny huh? I mean their entire reason to exist is to complain about stuff men have that women don’t, right? But when someone actually asks them for a single example? Nothing.

          And I’ve been asking for over twenty years.

          Now what do you think? Does that sound like an equality movement or a hate movement?

          • Re: women’s wages compared to men’s: “79 cents? It would be incredibly unfair if it was actually TRUE.”

            Er. It’s definitely true, if not underestimated. Yes, i do have personal experience with this.

            • DavidByron says:

              Jill I’m sorry to have to do this, but I’m going to have to use my male privilege here to use mark up. What women earn on average is a statistic. You cannot have personal experience of a statistic. Personal experience is an anecdote.

              I know you ladies can’t do that italics stuff. Sorry about that. Perk of being a man.

              But seriously the 79 cents on the dollar stuff has been represented as for when men and women are doing the same work. That’s false. You know? As in “equal pay for equal work“? If all you mean is that when a woman doesn’t do as much work as a man then she might get paid less, then I agree. Sure, women get paid less if they do less work. Is that what you meant?

            • This has been debunked. You can calculate it in various ways but the wage gap remains in most groups when comparing apples to apples. You sound like an MRA (although you are actually right about personal experience being anecdata).

            • How revealing – if you correct error and point out that there are fundamental differences between anecdote and for want of a better word facts – it makes you look MRA!

              And some wonder why Tom got attacked when he provided anecdotes of his own expediences and some decided to attack them as factually incorrect.

              I personally have never subscribed to ideas of genders and planets – but I can see why some do – and I can also see why warfare metaphors and even use of the term Wrath have their place in discussion.

            • That’s misleading, because there are so many variables that go into determining how much someone is paid that you can never be sure you’re making an apples-to-apples comparison. We’re talking about human beings, after all.

            • DavidByron says:

              Feminists celebrate “equal pay day” supposedly as a representation of how much less money women get for the same work as men. It even has a web site and an organisation all of its own.

              http://www.pay-equity.org/day.html

              Do you happen to know how that date is calculated? It is not calculated in “various ways” but in one way. Do you know how? Are you willing to stand behind that calculation? Or will you concede that it is a lie?

            • You would do well to read this link posted in the above conversation. http://derailingfordummies.com/#opinion

            • I have personal experience too. I’m a tax consultant. I have access to complete income detail for tens of thousands of clients. Feminist claims are bunkum.

              Analysis of federal government data in Australia for 2008-2009 shows the HOURLY rate of pay for women to be 98.7% of that of men. Women average about 34 hours/week while men average more than 44. Total incomes for women working full time are about 88% of those for full time men.

        • DavidByron is right — that statistic is completely bogus. (Not to mention completely outdated – women have earned around 80 to 81 percent of men’s earnings for years).

          It’s worth learning how that statistic is actually calculated. It’s just the median wage of all female full-time workers, compared to that of male workers. But men work longer hours (as calculated on time-use surveys); earn a much greater share of “professional” degrees (e.g, MD, JD — the ones that really increase your earnings); work in more dangerous professions, as measured by workplace deaths; work in higher-paying professions, like engineering; are much less likely to leave the labor force for a few years; are more likely to work overnight shifts; etc. etc.

          • GirlGlad4theGMP says:

            Ahh, I wrote a research paper on this a few years ago…as hotly debated several years later, I see.
            This is actually correct, mostly. There are a number of attributable factors as mentioned (danger pay, more mat leave taken than pat leave, more women work part time hours than men, etc.)
            It also doesn’t take regional and/or industrial factors into consideration to show how well women are doing in some areas (which is a travesty, frankly). Example: in my area of work, women now outnumber men in the executive cadre. However, a wage gap still exists as there are more traditionally ‘pink collar’ positions still held by a majority of women than there are executive positions. SO if you look at the thousands of employees, the dollar figure by gender, women make more. But if you look at percentage earnings over all position categories, the middle management men (there are always more middle management positions than executives, and they earn more than support staff), it appears there is indeed a wage gap. This is biased reporting.
            That said, once the adjustments are made to incorporate these differences, there is still an unattributable gap (in terms of cents on the dollar however, it is, or was several years ago, single digit cents). Yes, we should be striving towards eaqual pay for equal work…when these are precisely the circumstances…and yes striving because while close, it’s not there yet.

            • An “unattributable gap?” Only when you’re using extraordinarily crude means to measure wages. There are like thousands of different factors that go into how much some earns. How good a negotiator they are. The size of their firm and how prestigious or profitable it is. How persistent they are in asking for raises. How good they are at sucking up to the boss for promotions. How often they have left the labor pool. Etc. etc. etc.

              Basically, I’d say any kind of macro wage survey is useless for trying to prove discrimination. It’s like trying to take a survey of earth from in orbit. It can’t really be done.

            • once the adjustments are made to incorporate these differences, there is still an unattributable gap (in terms of cents on the dollar however, it is, or was several years ago, single digit cents)

              So you agree that the feminists are lying when they go on about 75 cents on the dollar and so on?
              http://www.pay-equity.org/index.html
              This is their “official” site for the lie and it says 77 cents. You agree that is a lie?

            • GirlGlad4theGMP says:

              DB: I would NEVER, ever call someone a liar, nor am I saying their stat is incorrect specifically. All I am saying is that, depending on the methods of research and mathematics used, the factors involved, the market measured, people get different answers. I also gave my research as an example. Of note, it is NOT the same market as the site quoted above. However, it is comparable and affected by the same external factors, and there are some sites and stats that have wrongly measured THIS gap NOT accounting for the aforementioned factors, so its not an equal pay for equal work situation.
              Not all data is collected and/or measured accurately…that’s all I’m saying.
              ANd thanks for the link, but how on God’s Green Earth is this as official site? It’s run by an interest group…and there is nothing denoting their credentials in the realm of statistical analysis (even the partner sites listed, few with credentials have those that are related), nor their method of data collection. I’m not sure I’d trust this as being official.

              Yes Derek, it’s not MICRO, and such surveying cannot be (but neither can job turnover, illness rates, etc be accurately measured). But to dismiss it without the MICRO-level proof that is does not exist is also inaccurate. Among the millions of private employers in North America (of varying firm sizes), there’s no way to prove that those mere (singular) pennies are truly being equally distributed.

              You know, you’re preaching to the choir, right??

            • DavidByron says:

              So you know they are putting out false facts that help negatively stereotype men (the 77 cents thing) but you refuse to call them out as liars? To my mind that makes you complicit.

              These people have been lying for forty years. Millions of feminists repeat this lie every day. Millions of innocent people unknowingly repeat it daily. This is the biggest lie, the most prejudicial lie told today I think. You actually looked into the issue so you know for a fact what they are saying is false and you refuse to call them out.

              Can you explain why I shouldn’t draw the obvious conclusion about you?

            • DavidByron says:

              “so its not an equal pay for equal work situation”

              DaddyFiles, Jill, meerkat and millions of other people think it is an equal pay for equal work situation because millions of feminists tell them that every day. You know that is false. But instead of pointing out the lie you refuse to do so. Why?

              You don’t even say that the statement is false. But let’s face it the idea that the entire feminist community has repeated this factoid for four decades and not KNOWN they were repeating false information is ridiculous. Of course they know. People like me have been telling them for four decades. Of course they know.

            • DavidByron says:

              Btw I have 2 degrees in mathematics (specifically statistics) so I know all about the details you think are important. I’m not responding to that stuff because it is not relevant to the question at hand which is that it is false to claim that these 77 cents figures — created from simply averaging wages across all jobs — are “equal pay for equal work” figures. You know that is false. I know it is false. But millions repeat that lie every day, many unknowingly.

            • GirlGlad4theGMP says:

              David, let’s not get on the personal…that does nobody any good. Look at what happened to poor Tom the other day.

              I said I wouldn’t call someone a liar…and I still don’t think it fair to place a label on someone who is doling out false information, because I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt…it could be a misguided belief.

              What we are getting away from is that I have no findings on the figures quoted on the site you gave. My stats, although under similar conditions, don’t speak to the American market specifically. There are a litany of issues with that, and I don’t feel right making an outright statement because of that. Like I said, the conditions/situations are too similar to ignore, and I do believe you are right that this is the situation in the U.S. as well.
              When that lie is perpetuated on the ground level (in my community and peer groups), I do indeed speak my piece, relate my findings. It changes alot more minds on a one-to-one basis.

            • DavidByron says:

              That’s not good enough. This is a terribly destructive and prejudicial lie that has been passed around for decades. You’re in a position to counter it. When you don’t then people will take your silence as agreement.

              And even if you really think it is possible for a movement to just “accidentally” issue false information for forty years, then you could still loudly point out that the information is false. This is a moral duty.

            • GirlGlad4theGMP says:

              I.Cannot.Comment.On.The.U.S.Statistic.
              I really don’t get how much clearer I have to be on that.

            • Well, I agree that a wage survey can’t prove or disprove discrimination. And I’m sure that with what, 60 million or so women in the workplace, there are some that have been discriminated against. But I don’t think that severe discrimination (as opposed to crude office comments) are exactly an everyday occurrence, either. Especially as you get up the food chain, women workers are pretty prized and fought after. Well, nearly all good skilled employees are, really.

              If you had to hazard a guess, what percentage of women do you think have been denied a job or promotion just because of their gender??

            • GirlGlad4theGMP says:

              Where I work? Not many!!! Because the hiring processes are so stringent, it is near impossible to discriminate based on gender.

            • Yeah. In my industry, good workers (both male and female) are lured away by competitors with promises of promotions and higher salaries. Not based on their gender but based on their abilities. I’ve never heard a friend or coworker complain or voice suspicions about being denied a job or promotion.

  22. Joanna Schroeder says:

    Amazing discourse!!! I am incredibly impressed with sjjphd for raising an argument I’d never heard and teaching me something totally new.

    Nice work everyone. Really interesting!

    • Thanks Joanna, I was saddened that the point I was trying to make about using accurate and sensitive comparisons was received so defensively but I’m still glad I brought it up. :)

      • Sarah, it was received insensitively because you seem to fail to realize that the door swings both ways.

        To you, the comparison is inappropriate because it fails to appreciate the actual experiences of people of color.

        Yet arguing that it is an inept comparison reveals a failure on your part to truly understand the experience of being male.

        You can argue that the primary difference is oppressed-vs-oppressors, but this implies a word view that others are not required to share, and is likely tautological (who is oppressed is taken on faith, we assume men are not oppressed because of salary figures or political representation, yet homeless population figures and life expectancies paint a different picture: you cannot prove definitively that men hold privilege in the US without resorting to tautologies).

      • Sarah, just wanted to let you know that your point was totally apt, and I was appalled to see him call it ‘demeaning’ since he ‘has his own views.’ Thanks for bringing it up!

    • Also thought that discussion and point were RIGHT ON! Thank you! Agree that it was meant with unwarranted defensiveness – you were correct to step in there.

  23. MediaHound says:
    December 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    …..However, as a nonprofit charitable corporation, I understand that it is not mandatory for the information you seek to be supplied. It is discretionary, and may possible be obtained from the relevant officers by use of a formal and polite letter sent by land mail.

    ———-

    I know that they are not obliged to disclose such information in public, but on the other side, I ask for your understandings, if they refuse, and certain feminist websites cheer their publications with Hugo and Amanda, are mentioning donations of USD 500.000,- and writers calling the MS. magazine to be geneous and the GMP under their wing, MRAs will ask if this is really a website for men or if it is totally controlled by feminists in disguise.

    As I said already, the GMP is acting somewhat differently from other feminist publications, as it is in general not into deleting and editing of comments from MRAs, who disagree with the authors or blog-owners.

  24. DavidByron says:
    December 17, 2011 at 8:05 pm
    I find it offensive that you claim feminism is about equality.

    ———-

    I find it offensive too.

    I see the feminist movement merely as advocacy groups which are looking for privileges and advantages for certain women, not even for all women – feminism has nothing to do with equality.

    • DavidByron says:

      Thanks.

      It seems like two sides disagree on this board, but only one side gets to say the other is being offensive. That’s got to change. People are so used to feminists saying incredibly insulting things about men it’s as if it has become acceptable just by repetition.

      Btw, I’m not a MRA (I’m a lot meaner ;-)
      I’ve already had stuff deleted. I probably deserved it — but I see far worse stuff posted by feminists here.

      Seriously though my motivation is more equality and justice whereas MRA folks are the guys who really have to care about people at the level where it hurts. I come at this from the angle of studying hate groups and prejudice more than individuals suffering. I don’t want anyone blaming MRAs for me being an ass. I’m not an activist. Just someone who can’t stand to see hate masquerading as equality.

      • “Just someone who can’t stand to see hate masquerading as equality.”

        Amen to that!

        I too suffer under the burden of not being in one camp or the other. I find it highly amusing how to one group I am an extreme feminist laden with Misandry and the other some form of unreconstructed male laden with Misogyny.

        To Paraphrase Capt Jean-Luc Picard – when he was assimilated by The Borg and named Locutus,

        “Projection Is Futile.”.

        I also object to those who seek to exploit others under the guise of concern, friendship and help. When that happens I have a different view – Resistance is not futile – it’s “Man”datory.

  25. I cannot believe you just implied validation for the (violent+misogynist) MRA guys, @TMatlack. Or typed the phrase “wrath of the feminists.” jennpozner 2 days ago

    ———————————————-

    I do not know, who is ‘jennpozner’, but I can say for sure, she has no idea about the Men’s Rights Movement.

    We are neither violent or misogynist, and many of us are married and have children.

    We always advice disappointed men who were badly treated by women in their past not to look back but to move on. We advice them always to refrain from hate and violent actions, to move away quickly to avoid disputes which are going to nowhere and to start a new life with entire new people.

    What maybe is so difficult to accept for ‘jennpozner’ is the advice, we give to young single men. We strongly support prevention, we advice young men to learn how to avoid mistakes in their future.

    We advice young single men to study carefully existing laws AND how these laws are executed in court decisions.

    We tell them to be careful and to avoid legal situations which might bring them into serious legal and financial trouble over decades.

    If ‘jennpozner’ considers such advice as ‘misogynist’, so let it be.

  26. This thread made me really, really like Roseanne Barr.

  27. MorgainePendragon says:

    Based on the comments here– the whole thread about Ms Magazine– I went and read Amanda Marcotte’s piece, The Answer to MRAs: More Feminism.

    BRILLIANT!

    Anyone who reads that and doesn’t see the validity of her points really has no interest in becoming a “good man” (or woman) or entering into a discussion about it.

    • “Anyone who reads that and doesn’t see the validity of her points really has no interest in becoming a “good man” (or woman) or entering into a discussion about it.”

      Anyone who doesn’t see the imagined validity that you’re associating with Marcotte’s insane drivel is a sane person who refuses to be manipulated.

    • Anyone who reads that and doesn’t see the validity of her points really has no interest in becoming a “good man” (or woman) or entering into a discussion about it.
      And that’s where you lost it. That piece you’re talking about was damn near a cheap shot hatchet job of MRAs (and if I’m not mistaken that was one of those pieces where Marcotte opened with a personal insult against MRAs, great way to profess your good faith….).

      Yeah she had a good point or two in that piece but brilliant is not the word I’d use.

  28. Wow. Shocking. I am so shocked that no feminists wanted to debate the gender wage gap myth.
    It’s all the more surprising because they all sounded soooo certain they would win that debate too.
    But… none here now.

    Yep. Gone. Wonder why?

    • Probably because they are going to their fall back spot of “it doesn’t matter how big the gap is the problem is the gap”. Not sure how that translates into holding onto the most desparate sounding number possible (remember how for the longest time only 2% of rape allegations were false?).

      • DavidByron says:

        You mean they actually gave up defending the 2% thing? They admit rape is unique in the high number of false accusations — vastly higher than any other crime?

        Really???

        • Hold on slow down DavidByron. I didn’t say all that. All I’m saying is that from what I can tell mention of that 2% stat seems to have faded into obscurity. But I’m pretty sure there is still the usual “false rape allegations don’t happen anymore than allegations of other crimes” talk.

  29. Most fascinating on the overall. Though I’d say Roseanne and some of the other women in that discussion need to check their heterosexual privilege. That “closet-case whiners” joke was homophobic. Want to talk kyrirachy? Walk the walk and decline to laugh when being gay is treated as an insult. Small moments add up.

    • Nice Point! Well Made!

      Small moments add up. – is very true! Some Build Mountains from the little bits and then claim a higher perspective from what they have built.

      I wonder if flat earth thinking shouldn’t have a resurgence?

  30. Oh em gee. This. This right here. There is SO MUCH in this dialogue. SO MUCH.

    One thing I can’t help but point out is that twitter (and blog post comments, for that matter) are not always the best place for this kind of dialogue. People can easily read text how they would like; context and tone are difficult to convey. How do we create a dialogue face-to-face, or in another medium where we don’t get bogged down being defensive and taking things the wrong way?

    Regardless – there are a lot of underlying narratives (my new fav word, clearly) in this, so many subtle things that are quite literally unseen by those perpetuating them. I think we *need* to engage at THAT level. For one, I’m planning on writing about it with a fellow blogger, yet I’d welcome any additional discussion, mediums for discussion, people to join our conversation, etc. It shouldn’t end here.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] The Twitter discussion in response to Tom Matlack’s Being a Dude is a Good Thing has been fascinating. Much of it is archived here, summarized in the unhelpfully titled “The Wrath of the Feminists.” [...]

  2. [...] on twitter my friend Brennan linked to an article that linked to this twitter stream. I don’t recommend you read the whole thing a) because it’s very long, [...]

  3. [...] a recent Twitter debate between a bunch of people, including Tom Matlack, Hugo Schwyzer, and two well-respected feminists, [...]

  4. [...] for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginThe Good Men Project has been a real sh*tshow lately. The site’s founder, Tom Matlack, found himself labeled an ALLY FAIL by radical [...]

  5. [...] neerhaalde als vijandige vrouwen die mannen verbaal in elkaar zouden slaan. De site sprak van The Wrath of the Feminists, een taalgebruik waarbij apocalyptische beelden opdoemen, van schuimbekkende dragonders die met [...]

  6. [...] from his position as editor and contributor to the website). The debate started after an intense Twitter back-and-forth which was posted on GMP under the title “The Wrath of The Feminists”. Schwyzer [...]

  7. [...] However, there is an element of humor to this story, as a clearly clueless Roseanne Barr rises from the morass to take poorly-aimed potshots at men through Twitter. [...]

  8. [...] blow-up between GMP founder Tom Matlack and a number of well-known feminist writers. (For more, see here, and here, and [...]

  9. [...] I simply wanted to have a conversation with Hugo about it first 2) The name of another post, “The Wrath of the Feminists”  came from Jenn Pozner herself — if it is “disrespectful and dismissive” [...]

  10. [...] snow white and the huntsman snow white and the huntsman philip rivers 11 11 11 meaning miracle berry billy crystal veterans day thank you Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  11. [...] decide to have these tough conversations over Twitter is beyond me, but it happens.  Recently a highly-publicized conversation took place on Twitter between The Good Men Project founder Tom Matlack and some feminist and anti-racist women and men [...]

  12. [...] Marcotte, Jenn Pozner and a few others joined in this row with Tom and Hugo in a now-very-famous Twitter war where I believe a lot of people acted in ways that were not productive, or even healthy. No, I [...]

  13. [...] won’t write about the event in great detail here (you can read about it here and here and all over the GMP site) other than to say that articles about the presumption male [...]

  14. [...] decide to have these tough conversations over Twitter is beyond me, but it happens.  Recently a highly-publicized conversation took place on Twitter between The Good Men Project founder Tom Matlack and some feminist and anti-racist women and men [...]

Speak Your Mind