Chuck Rudd explores the idea that female ‘goodness’ is the standard of morality in reactive society.
GMP founder Tom Matlack is getting a lot of heat from feminists for his article “Being a Dude is a Good Thing”. Amanda Marcotte calls him a whiner; David Futrelle casts doubt on every anecdote that Matlack provides in his piece, such as this one:
One close friend jokes, “When speaking to my wife I always make sure to look at the ground in deference. And I make sure not to make any sudden movements.” I’ve watched him. He loves his wife.
He’s a very competent human being. But with her he’s decided the only way to survive is to submit. The female view is the right view. The male view just gets you into trouble.
I’ve dealt with this dilemma in many posts, and it’s the same argument that got Dilbert creator Scott Adams in trouble with the same feminists cramming their hate down Matlack’s throat. Adams wrote:
The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?
The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.
Men are square pegs in a round world. Female ‘goodness’ is the standard of morality in reactive society. And make no mistake, 99% of what we do in our day-to-day lives is either reactive or mere listless wandering – ‘going through the motions’, to borrow a phrase. Thus, women hold the moral high ground in most facets of our everyday life. With that knowledge, your regular Joe Blow is quickly marginalized because he pretty much knows that he cannot compete with women on this score. Men fall on the wrong side of this divide in a multitude of ways, much of which causes the women in our lives to jump down our throats. From being overly crude or ignoring some minor domestic detail or wanting to stay out with friends or wanting to watch football or stay on the internet or our ‘disgusting’ fantasies that flow through our sexually-explicit minds (which we mostly keep to ourselves but buttresses the criticism we’re getting on other fronts) – in so many ways it is women who are criticizing the men they are dating or married to. Matlack’s observation is this: why the ‘nag gap’? Why is it that women nag more at men than the reverse?
What does it mean that women have a greater ‘reactive’ morality? First, before someone accuses me of being a female supremacist, I’ll argue that a high reactive morality is offset by a low active morality. I’ll try to explain that a little, though the concept is still being developed in my brain. Well, men are good at creating, building, and exploring. They are good at making moral pronouncements too. But men are less good at just being ‘good’ – at staying static and in line with polite society. Moreso than women, men emit radioactive particles which set off stochastic gamma ray sensors. Being more passive then men, in general, womens’ behavior is a non-value. As such, it cannot be bad – though it is also not really good in a more metaphysical sense. It is good but in a particularly dull and sterile way. It is polite. But polite shouldn’t really be confused with goodness. It certainly isn’t bad, but polite is, again, a non-action. But polite is the preferred mode of conduct in “polite society”. Being more active and more dynamic, whatever it is that men do or think often falls outside the circle of good that polite society has drawn.
♦◊♦
A couple of points are dying to be made. To my knowledge they haven’t yet.
Which men and women are we talking about? There are a lot of bad men in the world and a lot of women who’ve been harmed by those bad men. But Matlack is not talking about those people. He’s talking about a certain subset of men and a certain subset of women. The women that some men are criticizing are the ones who haven’t experienced any overt pain and suffering at the hands of men. These are well-adjusted and privileged women who have ridden the coattails of women who have suffered in the past.
What is the frame of reference for what is good and what is right? Futrelle points out that women get blamed for divorce. Though they do initiate 75% of divorces and though some anti-feminists criticize women for this, women are generally not blamed for divorce by anyone that counts. That is the important point. The people who do criticize or blame women are on the outside of the decision-making, resource-wielding, agenda-setting bubble. Some people might blame women, but the only people who are actually listened to – academics, bureaucrats, lawyers – are not blaming women for anything. Men get the sense that their only allies in all of this are considered crackpots by the same people who already hold the moral high road.
This is the best way to sum up the problem that Matlack addresses and which his feminist interlocutors refuse to even acknowledge: some men experience a certain soft despotism at the hand of their wives and girlfriends. This soft despotism erodes their spirit in many untold ways. They come to believe that they are inferior on the home front. That is a true story of many men’s lives. Those men aren’t in the same group as abusive husbands or cads (not that either is related). Matlack asks “why”, and, because he deigns to ask the question, is slapped on the hand by the storm troopers.
About Chuck Ross
“Though they do initiate 75% of divorces and though some anti-feminists criticize women for this, women are generally not blamed for divorce by anyone that counts.”
It is a useless statistic (number) which merits further study to determine the circumstances under which anyone (men/women) initiates divorce. Obviously the person electing to end a bad situation is not necessarily responsible for it. Has this been looked into here (or elsewhere) than anyone knows of?
“Obviously the person electing to end a bad situation is not necessarily responsible for it.”
True but this goes both ways. Some MRAs have argued that 90% of divorces are initiated by women who are no longer turned on by their husbands and that many men that initiate because they know their wives want out. I agree with Mike and Occam’s razor, the simplest thing to assume is that 75% of women are the responsible for ending marriages given that they are the ones filing for divorce in the absense of any other information.
Isn’t that his point? Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought he was saying that that statistic is as bogus as the “all men are rapists” nonsense.
Brad, it’s not a useless statistic. If “further study” shows something different, then so be it. The evidence we have is that 75% of divorces are initiated by women. The fact that women are initiating the divorces shows that it’s women who are choosing to end the marriages.
You’re speculating that there is some other evidence that might show that this inference is incorrect. The 75% statistic is fact. Speculation cannot be allowed to compete with fact if truth is what we seek.
My speculation, and it applies to life in general, is that the people who create problems are not usually the ones who try to end them. And thin facts are a poor basis for conclusions of any sort, let alone “truth”.
Who says those divorces are about “ending problems” rather than say “running away from problems they created”?
Neither spouse “causes” problems in marriage. Both do, and both must work to address those problems. It’s silly to think that problems are 100% her and 0% him, or 100% and 0% her. It’s never that way, and when either he or she thinks that way, they stop working on whatever their % of the issues are, and that will never work.
Brad is clearly skirting around the “men are cheaters, men are abusers” accusation. He is likely wanting to point out that if 75% of women are initiating divorce, a large portion of them must be victims of cheating and abuse. Of course, this ignores the fact that when men are abused, they are forced to endure it, and don’t get the option to leave as easily as women to, due to having less resources and the concern the woman will get the child/ren. It ignores the possibility that men may not wish to end a marriage over cheating as easily as a woman does, for any number of reasons, including because men often have more to lose ending a marriage (wife taking everything, including kids). It ignores the fact that studies show women are more willing to initiate divorce because they are confident they will get the kids.
Chuck: “He’s talking about a certain subset of men and a certain subset of women.”
Actually, I think he is making a statement about a broader group, but what confused most people was that he was talking about them as individuals.
Stereotypical examples abound;
Women complain if you leave the toilet seat up; men don’t complain if they leave it down.
Women complain that men keep messy bathrooms.
They complain if you leave clothes on the floor, or don’t make the bed, or leave dirty dishes in the sink, or don’t vacuum, or dust, etc., etc. etc.
This is a BROAD spectrum of people.
Now, what do men criticize women for? (When I say criticize, I mean directly criticize her to her face.) I am honestly asking for examples.
My spouse criticizes me very openly to my face; in contrast, I rarely, if ever criticize her. I try to point out to her that, it is not because she is perfect, and it is not because she doesn’t do things that annoy me. It’s because they are little things that really don’t matter.
I think those were the sorts of things Tom was talking about. Yet, the ManBoob (I believe) parroted all the things women, writ large, were blamed for (completely missing the point). Amanda, showing a complete lack of empathy, or, perhaps hiding her own nag qualities, jumped down his throat about how women don’t nag. Of course, you look on her site and she regularly complains about just the sort of things that I mentioned above. Her reason: because women should not have to put up with lazy, dirty, substandard men.
Getting back to my question: what do men criticize women for? Think, individual man criticizing his female significant other. Here are the stereotypes that I came up with:
She’s too fat.
She can’t cook.
She spends too much.
Any others? Please share, because I am not coming up with much. As some have observed, lots of times, men don’t criticize women because they don’t want to hurt their feelings.
But, look at the examples I gave. Amanda or ManBoob would probably say that such a man is an abusive asshole. And, maybe they would be right. Of course, they would also say that the man who leaves the toilet seat up is an insensitive jerk. Fine, maybe he is.
But, if that is the case, don’t come back and criticize Tom for asking why men are always to blame.
Sorry if that rambled a bit. I just think so many people have not really understood Tom’s point that I figured it was my turn to throw out my own misguided interpretation of what he said.
-Jut
Hm. Well money is the biggest source of conflict. To be a conflict both sides have to decide it is worth a fight. If the guy doesn’t seriously bother to contest the criticism (because it isn’t worth the fight) that would be the definition of “nagging” I suppose?
But no doubt the ladies will know what they get shouted at for. What else beyond money do men criticise women for and also, what things do women generally consider not worth a fight about? What stuff (if any) do they see themselves as constantly deferring to men’s complaints about? ie what do they see themselves “nagged” about by men?
Good points, all.
But I want to point out that calling men “whiners” for voicing a complaint or opposition to something is a hardline conservative tactic. Asking men to be stoic and show no feelings is what they do in the armed forces to keep their troupes compliant.
It’s not surprising this is how Amanda Marcotte chose to rebut Tom Matlack’s ideas. Rather than pick apart his points and explain why their wrong, she instead went the way of Ann Counter and company in “shaming” the man.
But I want to point out that calling men “whiners” for voicing a complaint or opposition to something is a hardline conservative tactic. Asking men to be stoic and show no feelings is what they do in the armed forces to keep their troupes compliant.
it is also a key feature of traditional western masculinity. would have thought that the marcotte would wanted men to break out of that masculinity, and be more expressive. i guess not
Only so long as it is beneficial to her and/or women at large. if men stand to benefit rather than women, silence must be observed and enforced.
But I want to point out that calling men “whiners” for voicing a complaint or opposition to something is a hardline conservative tactic. Asking men to be stoic and show no feelings is what they do in the armed forces to keep their troupes compliant.
And then on top of that when the same is done to women all of a sudden its gaslighting, an extremely heated conversation breaks loose, and people start leaving spaces.
Feminism is a conservative movement.
The feel that your always going to be in the wrong……That whenever you deal with women she gets the benefit of the doubt in any disagreement.
After 30 years with the same woman….If we have a argument and I’m right, and My feeling were hurt……the price of expressing those emotions is, I have the make up to her for her feeling bad about my pain……totally screwed up…..And I spoken to many other guys……it’s pretty common….and cruel.
Tried to comment, but the webpage keeps refreshing itself on its own and clearing out the comment that I’m in the middle of typing. It’s pretty annoying.
The comment is not lost. It is moved to the bottom of the page. I’ve found if you click on the “reply” button again it will move your typed partial comment back up to where you were intending it. Still I am thinking this is a bug.
I call upon the name “Lisa Hickey” to log a bug
We are looking into it — thanks for the heads up. I agree it must be some sort of bug.
I was seeing it with Firefox 3.5.1
The moral standard of society is partly, or maybe even wholly, founded on the monogamous family unit. This paradigm is much more closely aligned with the natural wants and needs of women than it is for men. Men, despite the GMP’s stated goal of showing that men are not “sex-obsessed buffoons”, ARE sex obsessed. Yes we have other thoughts and interests, but let’s get real, men think about sex way more than women. The buffoonery that stems from this is sometimes actual buffoonery, but more often it is simply behavior that has been misinterpreted by women who cannot possibly know how men think. Much as we cannot really know how they think about sex, despite all our best efforts at mutual understanding. When a man and a woman talk about sex, it’s like two people trying to prove that when they each say ‘green’ they are describing the exact same color. Actually scratch that- men and women can easily describe to each other the ways we think and feel about sex and the other gender, but it’s just that when men are honest about their sexual urges and desires- “Yes I think Kim Kardashian is hot and I would fuck the shit out of her in spite of her annoying ass voice”- we are labeled as perverts, deviants, evil, scum, etc.
So as Chuck and Scott Adams point out, men are indeed square pegs in a round-holed world. The only solution is for men to be honest. [And I am being a complete hypocrite here because I never admit it when I am checking out a hot chick and the most I ever say when my wife asks me for the 100th time whether or not I think some celebrity is pretty, I will say something lame like “Yeah…she’s pretty” instead of what I’m really thinking: “Of course she’s pretty, she wouldn’t be a fucking celebrity if she wasn’t! Although I wouldn’t describe her as pretty, I would describe her as hot because “pretty” doesn’t fully capture the deeper truth which is that I want to fuck her.”] I don’t know where along the way I fell into the habit of being afraid to share my true sexual thoughts. I guess it started when I was young and didn’t want to offend girls, or when I met my wife and I didn’t want to make her feel insecure. But you know what, not being honest about it has created more trouble than it’s worth and despite my sheepish answers to her questions about other girls’ hotness, my wife is still insecure like most women are. So, men, or rather young men…be honest. Don’t hide your feelings on this subject and for those of us for which it is too late, make sure you teach your sons to be honest.
There have been a number of posts recently about men being insecure about dildos and women being insecure about porn and so forth. The bigger issue to me is, why is there so much insecurity around being able to talk openly?
Why on earth would a woman ask a man “Do you think X celebrity is pretty?” We pretty much know the answer is yes. It seems passive aggressive on the woman’s part because either she is baiting him into a “You don’t find me as hot as her.” fight or she wants him to lie.
Another reason could be, in the best possible world, is that she is truly curious about what turns her man on. And he could ask her, Do you think Viggo Mortensen is hot and then not freak out at the answer. And then maybe they could find erotica or costumes for some Kim/VIggo fan fic mashups.
Better for each partner never to ask, or to enjoy the other persons enjoyment. My husband knows how much I dig Ewan McGregor. I know he finds actresses hot. I don’t feel like his finding someone else is attractive is the end of the world. I don’t think a man is sick for wanting to fuck Kim Kardashian. I mean, I don’t find her attractive but I do understand that other men do.
Women often see men that they think “God, I’d like to fuck the shit out of him.” True Fax.
@Julie Gillis: “My husband knows how much I dig Ewan McGregor. I know he finds actresses hot.”
Julie, you often take your own experience as a paragon. But IMO you’re the exception, not the rule.
You and your husband have a beautiful , healthy relationship, and both of you seem quite self assured (thus your freedom of expression above).
Most people are quite insecure about themselves (and, on a physical level, especially the women): hence questions like “Do you think I’m fat?”, “Did you like it?” – or – “Did you come?” (after sex), “Do you find her pretty?”, and the like. Questions that look for reassurance, not truth. Questions that are calling for hypocrisy.
In our society, most people are somehow neurotic, have low self-esteem and are relatively unhappy. On this ground, being honest is difficult, and usually not rewarding.
When your partner is insecure, you have to lie to him/her, otherwise s/he will go bananas. (I don’t mean lying all the time, of course, just when it’s about the insecurities)
I had a partner once, with whom I had such level of honesty like yours. But she was the only one in a lifetime (49 years and a dozen meaningful relationships).
Just wondering. How can “most people” be “relatively unhappy”? Its a somewhat meaningless statement unless you say what they’re relatively unhappy to.
As Julie says your options are not honesty or lying.
Your options are honesty, lying or challenge the premise of the question.
Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a nag gap is a delusional fool. Most women, however, believe they are the moderating force in a man’s life that needs to be tamed.
I was at a bar association conference a few months ago. When a couple left, it was always initiated in the same manner. The wife/girlfriend would say, “honey, it’s time to leave.” Full drink or not, the man would just agree, put his drink down and say goodbye. I then notice something important– the best attorneys, the ones you would want to hire were either single and heavily drinking, or with a girlfriend/wife who was not nagging them at all. They were having a good time together.
There definitely is a nag gap, but a “good” man sets up the parameters, or picks a girl who moderates her nagging.
Zatarra,
What you saw at the bar event was the simple Alpha male vs. Beta male dichotomy. If you understand that concept, you will understand what you saw. This is such a common and prevalent theme in the manosphere that you might want to take the time to do a bit of research. Start w/ Athol Kay’s blog.
K-Dog
There is indeed a ‘nag gap’, but that doesn’t even tell the whole story. “Nagging” is often just a euphemism for emotional abuse. It’s been pointed out time and again that popular women’s magazines and relationship books give as advice tactics to use on men, things that need to be watched for when coming from men because they are abusive.
Marcotte’s “whiner” comments are a cut at Matlack’s masculinity and are an attempt to control him by appealing to his sense of shame. The top feminist go-to insults are all related to sexual inadequacy, rather it be penis size, latent homosexuality, or whatever. That’s the first place most feminists will go, and it shows how in tune women, and that movement are in undercutting the male ego for the purposes of emotionally manipulating men.
Women, in relationships, are often worse than strangers, especially because the commentary is coming from someone who has ingratiated themselves to you, is more finely tuned to your actual perceived faults, are more subtle and she is ostensibly trusted and respected.
Nagging is abuse. It’s absolutely no wonder that many men in long-term relationships display all of the pathologies of an abused partner, and that’s something feminists want you to ignore. Anyone that lives in fear of another’s tongue lashing if they step out of line is someone that is not in a healthy situation.
Some young feminists have come up with ‘nice guyTM’ to attempt to mock and silence men.
Expect to see ‘whining guyTM’, and inshort order ‘feminine guyTM’
Interesting point and it brings to mind a question since men and women often see things differently no two people see everything the same but – what do men see as nagging? What is the definition of nagging? My definition of nagging is repeatedly asking someone to do something without giving them time to do what is asked and the benefit of the doubt that they will do what they said they would i.e. that they lack the willingness or skill to do what has been asked or personal integrity to honor a commitment.
There’s probably room for an whole article on what constitutes a ‘nag’. I don’t think yours is the only kind of nag, and I would probably count your example as the most innocuous type of nagging; but even there it shows off the power dynamic at work. For someone to treat someone else like that they have to be very comfortable that the other party doesn’t have much they can do in the way of retaliation.
These types of nags are common in non-romantic relationships. Father’s do this to their sons, older siblings to younger ones, bosses to their employees. The relationship is clear though. It’s a passive-aggressive way of displaying frustration at a subordinate, or wishing to drive them to please you by getting them to obey frivolous commands with haste.
There are certainly men that deserve the treatment that our current system can dish out: no default divorce, loss of children and property, alimony, jail, etc. The problem is that this is a small subset of men and the system simply steamrolls all men without distinction. A woman can divorce her husband and break up her family for good reasons or simply because she has become bored and needs to “find herself” a la Eat, Pray, Love. Even where never acted on, just the possibility of this changes the whole dynamic of the relationship.
Good post. Hopefully the Good Men Project can now serve as a resource for men trying to better themselves, and those around them, in a constructive manner..instead of being just another echo chamber so common at the typical feminist/mra website.
Lets hope.
Color me confused – but why do men need to better themselves? Granted everyone can do better i.e. eat healthier – work less enjoy life more, make better choices – but essentially with some exceptions most people have value and worth just as they are and it may just be habits that need changing w/out changing the inherent nature of the person. It sounds like that statement is saying the at the core there is something wrong with men that needs to be ‘fixed’ and I do not see that as being the case. Am I missing something – different is neither good nor bad it is merely different but it still has value and worth.
Thank you. That is one of the problems I have with this whole website – the name. “The Good Men Project.” Right off the bat there’s the implication that the “good” man is somehow distinctive, i.e. most men are bad. And as most women will tell you, you’re best advised to run not walk from the man who says he’s especially “good” or “nice.”
This is not to say men can’t do better as a gender, and that everybody, man or woman, can improve – there’s lots of work to be done. But it gets the conversation off on the wrong foot.
It’s so strange to me that people would take the name as implying all men are bad. The whole point of the name was to say that men are good, and a heck of a lot more “good” than they are usually portrayed. For people who think otherwise, it seems like there is some lingering doubt or guilt that *most* people don’t think that way.
Most men are good but so many of the comments seem to imply that they are broken and need to be fixed and certain strains of feminism seem to come from that perspective.That is what puzzles me. The Good Men Project at least the name seems to conotate good guys vs bad guys where men get together and discuss/express themselves – their concerns/interest in masculine terms and context. Men have a frame of reference that is different from women and it has it’s own language, context and meaning where women are able to talk discuss and or observe with the goal being better understanding among men. Just thought maybe I am reading it wrong.
Lisa, you asked, so here’s my answer — It is because this is a “Project.” One does not take on a “project” unless one is looking to make a change. I believe it is the interplay between “Good Men” and “Project” which implies that Men need to be Made Good, that sets up the reaction.
Ok, that makes sense. But what we meant by “project” is that not that we were attempting to change men individually. It was that we *collectively* are trying to build something of value. That what we are trying to build is an ongoing, sustainable and at times deeply provocative discussion of what it means to be a man in this day and age, as well as what it means to be good.
We are glad to have you a part of that.
I see it as a project of Good Men.
I go back and forth wondering what it means.
It’s a koan.
Hmmmmmm.
This sort of hypothesis is so hard to test empirically isn’t it?
Or again maybe it isn’t a hypothesis at all but a framing for facts we hope are held in common – namely that men in relationships get called out for a lot of silly little shit by women. One of the problems is that as individuals we don’t have that much experience. We have one life. We don’t get to redo it two hundred times, 100 as male, 100 as female. We don’t get to explore what this looks like outside of a heterosexual relationship, or how it changes if one or other partner is trans. We don’t even get all that much idea about what effect strength of personality, intelligence or dependence (eg one partner being physically disabled) has.
My take on this is that everyone has angst about bad stuff that goes down in relationships. But only certain groups get their stories told in popular media. All sorts of reasons but chiefly two: firstly if the group is simply very populous – for example straight women is the biggest demographic. Secondly if that group is already seen favourably by society as an object of sympathy and protection (instead of being seen as an object of power and danger). Again straight women are the best example. Those groups who get their story told have a position of privilege as a direct result of that fact.
We don’t have a society of square holes. We have a society which hears a lot about what it is to be a square peg (ie a straight woman). We know their problems, we hear about their issues, we understand their point of view and as a result the message put across is that their view is “right”, and any other view is wrong.
Hallo! Why do you think that’s what we’re trying to do here — get more stories told. It’s a way to solve marginalization issues of all sorts.
I think if men and women were to fully understand all of the intersectionalities which oppress the genders, there would be more sharing and caring in the world. The only think that matters is love! Understanding the story of Us, being together as we walk through this world on our journey – together – that is the essence of male and female synergies.
After perusing some articles on GMP and reading paragraphs such as the following:
“I have come to the conclusion that it is because it really is a mindset that has roots deep within our identities. And for men, it’s so much harder than most women seem to appreciate. It is a two-step process of realizing that parts of your personality that you valued and which are useful to you are genuinely harmful to society: we are (blamelessly) toxic, and it is then rejecting those pieces of yourself and persuading others to do the same. It involves realizing that you are born into a dominant position, and giving it up. Men involved in feminism have to preach their own deconstruction.” (Childish Men and Angry Women – Dominic Falcao)
I have to ask: what is the goal of GMP? What is the “ideal man” that the creator and contributors imagine? The general informational pages (about us, foundation, etc) seem to skirt around the issue, merely stating that the goal of GMP is to discuss manhood.
So, what is manhood, as the creator/contributors hope it to be?
Did you mean to post that comment here maybe?
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/childish-men-and-angry-women/
We don’t want to come up with a version of an “ideal man”. We don’t even want to define good. What we want to do is two things — tell first person stories, by men or about men — that have some sort of moral or ethical dilemma that gives the story it’s dramatic tension. So that people can see themselves in the story, and gain insights about how they might act in certain situations, particularly ones where there is not clear path to what is “good.” The other thing we like to do is to have in-depth, intelligent, thoughtful discussions around the big, provocative topics that are difficult to talk about — gender, race, parenting, class, unemployment, addiction, violence, etc. etc. If you have ideas on what you would like to see here, let us know!
What this article overlooks is that the standards for behavior in American society are set by the white, monied, Christian RULING class. They are above the law if they so wish, and a wink and a payoff gets their friends to look the other way if they do something taboo, but woe unto you if, as a regular citizen, you wish to engage in “improper” conduct.
The White Christian Ruling Class hates and wants to criminalize (if it already hasn’t) most of what I enjoy. Sex before marriage. Illegal drugs. Movies with swear words, sex, and violence. BDSM. Open relationships. Exchanges of anarchistic or nihilistic ideas. Content sharing on the Internet. And many more. If the author believes these heavily de-incentivized, frowned upon, and often, criminalized behaviors in society are solely the province of men, he is sorely mistaken.
Max, ironically, liberal feminists want to criminalize much of what you describe, as well, at least where males are concerned.
Noticeably some of those things are already criminalized, and criminalized with rather bipartisan and broad popular support. Also notable how for a faction with such ridiculous power as to be above the law they have so spectacularly failed to oppress you. I guess that’s just a sign that your ‘side’ is full of superheroic freedom fighter!
That or your conception of how society is ordered is that of a raving loon. We’ll be optimistic and assume it’s the former.
… and that’s the story of why premarital sex and curse words in movies is illegal.
Ruling?
“You keep using that word. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya
1/10 troll. Next time choose a more likely group to posit as a ruling class, like “The Jews!” or “The Gays!”
Wives really really *want* to respect their husbands, and sometimes believe in delusional notions of their husband’s importance and contributions of their work and status.
I’m reminded of the wife of a man who cleans chimneys in our city. Our community sustained a family death due to carbon monoxide poisoning. The newspaper interviewed her husband on the role of well vented chimneys ( actually not relevant–the deaths were due to furnace malfunction). The wife puffed up in pride at the attention given her husband _who_ saves_ lives.
Wives nag as a signal when they have lost respect in their husbands. A wife will never articulate ” you are a loser, overweight, unsexy, and I am ashamed of you.” Instead, she nag about the toilet seat and chores undone. Domestic habits are easy targets for nagging, esp. when wives have a strong nesting instinct. It’s her domain.
Hey are you male / female, married / single? Wondering about your comment there because it doesn’t reflect my experiences, but I like the concept. I bet even Barak Obama gets nagged by his wife sometimes… but perhaps less than might have been the case.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-michelle-obama-answer-10-personal-questions/story?id=15190535&page=2#.TwCyltX0gVk
What is your biggest peeve about each other?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Oh, I don’t have one.
MICHELLE OBAMA: My list is too long.
@David,
I am female, and 29 years married. I’ve nagged.
wrt. the Obamas: They are an interesting case. I suspect the years of maximal nagging occurred when IL state senator Obama was an absent-from-home, lowly-paid father commuting to Springfield. Michelle was the functional single mom, earning $300K+ (via her husband’s potential influence) at University of Chicago Hospitals as a community liaison for the community health clinics. She brought far more to the marital table than he, and she likely resented him. The nagging habit may have begun.
Now fortunes have changed. He’s the most powerful man in the world, and she’s his helpmate. I’ve noticed couples with Wide gaps in their marital contributions, sometimes do a faux act to pretend they are equal. This helps to stabilize the marriage.
To be precise, the situation you describe usually only occurs in one direction.
Men rarely nag their wives if the wives are suddenly pulling their own weight financially after years of letting him carry the burden.
Men nag about insufficient sex. Women nag when their husbands are losers.
Really? Don’t think the levels come anywhere near even……And when reversed many higher libido women are quite a bit more vocal…….men with loser wives…….Heck, I don’t think many can even define loser wife……women don’t get defined by what they accomplish the way men do….
@trey,
agree. Men are defined by their incomes, status, social competency, accomplishments. The female equivalent is “ugly and fat.”
Great piece, Chuck. What was left unsaid, I’m sure purposefully given the nature of this forum and the audience, is the necessity of modern men to study social dynamics and understand what we term ‘the charismatic arts.’ It’s just how it is.
Men, if you are henpecked, nag-addled househusband, it’s in your interest to demand she unclench her kung-fu grip off your testicles, and learn how these social interactions work. I recommend Athol Kay’s work as a great place to start.
If you are henpecked, nag-addled househusband, start putting money aside and prepare to fish or cut bait. And make sure your sons don’t make the same mistake you did.
I guess I lucked out. My Wife is truely an Anti-Nag type of woman. Example; when the children (daughters) were little she comes to me one day, and instead of nagging “Put the toilet seat down when you’re done , will you already! She says “Listen, I appreciate that you flip up the toilet seat when you ‘take care of business’, you think you could put it down when you’re done? She then explained to me how one of the girls almost fell in when she went to use the toilet. From that day foward, I’ve always put the seat down when done. The moral oe the story? We men , believe it or not Ladies, are logical creatures. If, instead of nagging, you take the time to say what you want us to do or not do, and explain why, it probably will work much better.
The old toilet seat issue……very simple…..the proper non-use position is CLOSED……Leaving it any other way is wrong. lid up seat down is just as wrong as lid and seat up.
Actually, that doesn’t always work out so well. Especially with half asleep gorggy preschoolers using the toilet in the middle of the night ( They tend to just sit and go)
great work, chuck!
My comments are all caught up in moderation.
Some of them 3 days old.
What’s up w/ that?
Sorry, freebird. Moderation is done by volunteer humans and sometimes we get backlogged. If you’d like to know more about our mod guidelines, see this page: http://goodmenproject.com/commenting-policy/
I think this article is pointing out the tension among the most common ways that “good men” gets defined on this site:
1. “Good man” meaning a morally positive adult who just happens to be of the male sex or male gender, also known as a “decent human being.”
2. “Good man” meaning an adult male who has qualities that many women look for in a mate, also known as a “good catch.”
3. “Good man” meaning an adult male who conforms to what his society idealizes as the best form for masculinity to take, also known as a “good example of a man.”
These definitions are not mutually exclusive, because they have a lot of overlap, but they are not the same. I think a lot of the disagreement on the GMP is between people who are coming from very different approaches to the definition of “good man.” A lot of the hostility is from people who feel like the definition is being set the “wrong way” by the “wrong people,” when it’s really just people coming at the subject from very different angles.
I generally prefer focusing on #1, but I recognize that the site is about wrestling with all the possible definitions. I admit I sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction to definitions 2 and 3, because they somehow seem more conformist, manipulative, and totalitarian to me. That’s mostly because of my own internal stuff, but it does rub me the wrong way.
@wellokaythen: very good point.
I agree that, many times, the issue is with different approaches to the same point, or different meanings attributed to the same word.