How The Wall Street Journal Is Spreading Negative Stereotypes About Men

No sooner did I put down Hanna Rosin’s insulting piece in Slate about stay-at-home dads (read our response to her story here), than a friend of mine told me I’d better go get a copy of this morning’s Wall Street Journal—and I’d better sit down before reading it. I was also advised to keep firearms, blunt objects, and breakables out of arm’s length as I dug in.

The cover story “Where Have the Good Men Gone?” is adapted from the forthcoming book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys. In it, author Kay S. Hymowitz laments the fact that men today refuse to grow up—and that’s making it difficult for women to find a decent mate.

“Women in their 20s are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace,” she writes. “In a number of cities, they are even outearning their brothers and boyfriends. Still, for these women, one key question won’t go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks, or grubby slackers.”

It’s a prisoner’s dilemma of sorts. What are we to do? According to Hymowitz and the WSJ, a key issue of gender in the 21st century is men’s loserdom—and the desperate situation in which they put single women.

Hymowitz seems to have thrown in the towel on guys altogether. Here, the piece ends with this uplifting bit of analysis:

“Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.

They might as well just have another beer.”

For the men who are part of the Good Men Project—guys fighting wars in foreign lands, working diligently to be good dads, recovering from economic hardship, striving to be loving spouses, searching their souls trying to figure out what it means to be a good man—the piece is one more example of mainstream media portraying us in an egregiously negative, quasi-sexist light.

Women are often described in the same universal, equally pernicious stereotypes. But combating the media’s outmoded, misogynistic logic doesn’t mean putting up with dreck like this. Why the free pass on a female writer’s conclusion that the opposite sex is a bunch of “aging frat boys, maladroit geeks, or grubby slackers” who “might as well just have another beer”?

None of this is to say that men can’t always be working harder to be better husbands, fathers, workers, and men. But women need to be there for us, just as we need to be there for them. So let’s work on this together—and leave out the stereotyping.


See more:

I’m Proud to Be a Slacker

Slate’s ‘Breadwinner Wives’ Misses the Mark

About Tom Matlack

Thomas Matlack is a venture capitalist.


  1. Transhuman says:

    “Growing up” or “Manning up” is just the latest attempt to shame men into behaving the way some women want. I think it has the most effect upon boys and young men as the “reward” for being good is the possibility of sex. What truly Good Men can do is counter this BS with assertive reinforcement of what good men are to those who are vulnerable to this form of harassment.

    Women don’t define whether I’m a good man; I measure myself against other men I deem to be good men.

    • CajunMick says:

      “Women don’t define whether I’m a good man; I measure myself against other men I deem to be good men.”

      Well said.

  2. If feminism were truly about equality, the gender education gap would be on their agenda. But, since it’s boys and men who are being discriminated against and suffering, they don’t care. In fact, they are privately celebrating as if they won the world series.

  3. In 2011, young men have insanely higher expectations of women than they did in the sixties and nowhere near the obligations. Strange how the young men aren’t complaining as loudly about all of this no-strings attached sex, women’s sexual expression as performance art, insane demands on women’s appearance and the ability to get this all done while playing Halo and eating T-Bell. Progress isn’t pretty.

  4. The Wall Street Journal is the least of the offenders. They did publish the Hymowitz article, and received about 1500 readers comments, mostly negative, that were readily available on their site.
    The worst offenders are in the mainstream media, publications like the NY Times, the Washington Post and most of the liberal cable news and academia. I have a form letter I send to the Times and the Post every fathers day exhorting the feminists dominant at those publications to let the men off of their hands and knees one day per year and allow them to say a good word about fathers. Never happens.
    Just about all the mainstream media articles on parenting, family, men, boys, fatherhood, sex, women and girls are written by women, and feminist women at that. That feminists aren’t qualified to speak for or about men and boys is like water off a ducks butt for the media and academia. There is little new information in any of the treatments I’ve read. One can’t solve a problem until it is identified and discussed, so for now we just have the official politically correct party line discussions and the official politically incorrect responses with no real interchange going on.

  5. If the article author would be so kind as to provide a list of pre-approved jobs, hobbies, and beverages for men, it would be most appreciated. I could really use a Do List and a Don’t List so I can more easily transform my life to meet her exacting standards. Such a simple prescribed list would we perfectly consistent with the _Cosmo_ level of analysis expressed in the article. I see I have been trying to develop my own sense of the appropriate life to live, but in doing so I have failed to conform to what an entire gender has wanted from me. Please help me by informing me about what I’m doing wrong and educating me about how I’m disappointing the women who want to change me.

    Thanks to this article, I can see that when my wife says she loves me the way that I am, she is really lying. Maybe I can show her this article and confront her with how she really feels, or show her how she is supposed to feel as a modern woman. My wife may just be settling for less than what she deserves. Thank goodness for her there are consciousness-raising articles out there from bastions of gender equality like the Wall Street Journal.

    • Me again.

      On second thought, I can see maybe I’m being disrespectful and unrealistic. Of course it’s impossible to fit all the prerequisites onto two short lists, and these judgments need to happen on a case-by-case basis anyway. Forget the lists.

      Instead, I’ll make a different request: could I get the address of the Central Committee in charge of these matters? I would like to send in my personal information, fill out the requisite forms, and get a ruling about my “goodness” level. (I assume there is a quantitative rating of some kind?) I hope the Committee could also recommend areas in which I could improve, so I can purify myself of false gender consciousness.

  6. I fail to see how that isn’t a description of what you are doing.

  7. Amen.


    Awareness, among us all, is always a good thing.

  8. Why should I be a “good man” (as defined by this article) when there is a distinct lack of “good women”? But of course, you’ll never see that article, will you?

  9. Dana is a such a sweetie. I hope she’s st ill single. I am going to set her up with my ex. He deserves a sweetie like Dana. ……ROFLMFAO.

    • Awww shucks. Aren’t you sweet? And SO clearly serious about this and in no way being a jerk. Yeah.

      Anyway, I’m married to a Marine. He thinks I’m pretty fabulous and that’s all I need to know.

  10. 8dozenroses says:

    Men built this society. In fact, they have built, currently build and will continue to build most everything in our world. Who are the engineers for the most part? The scientists? The laborers? The garbage collectors?

    I have no idea where would we would be without their contributions.

    I suspect we’d still be in caves – nicely decorated ones, but caves nonetheless.

    I do NOT hate women. I think we can be wonderful. I know there are many wonderful, generous, beautiful and loving women out there. I just don’t see much of it online anymore. I see hateful whiners who are, in reality, very lonely and unloved. Sh!t, I wonder why?

    When I was 16 in 1972, I was told I could not go into broadcasting because I was female. I fought that and rightly so. (I never did make it in broadcasting but it was a due to an unexpected pregnancy for which I took full responsibility Best, ladies, to learn to say no if you don’t really want to do it. You guys as well. But I digress.) Fighting for one’s rights is a fair and just thing to do.

    How feminism turned into this – this horrible anti-male movement, I have no idea. All *I* wanted was to be permitted a chance to work in a field for which I was very well suited. I just wanted fairness and opportunity and yes, my rights.

    How did this happen – where women have ALL THE RIGHTS and NO RESPONSIBILITIES?? This is a travesty and terribly unfair to the very men who helped US get OUR rights. Whom do you think voted in favor of WOMEN voting? Men.

    Yes, some men are slackers but let’s take a look at the girls. There are FAR too many women who are self-entitled b!tches who think men should worship them simply because they are female. And I have to say it – MANY are obese and do not take pride in their looks. Call me a catty bitch but this is what I see. And then they wonder why American men don’t want their fat, whiney, self-entitled bitch asses? Please.

    I’m middle aged. I’ve lived 55 years now. Fighting for the right to be a broadcaster was one thing. Attempting to turn men into second class citizens is quite another. I’m ashamed of what is being done to our men. It’s no wonder many want nothing to do with us and, quite frankly, I can’t believe they are still marrying us.

    Again, I’m not women-bashing. But I just wanted to point out that it’s getting harmful, all this male bashing. We cannot live without them, ladies, and they deserve the same rights for which many of you so loudly clamor.

    • I feel the same way as you in a lot of ways, but I think there’s a flaw in the argument here. Yes, men have done much of the physical building of society and much of social building as well. Leaving aside the fact that women have contributed a lot, too, there is a fault in that logic. Even if one could prove that everything society is made by men, there is still the possibility that maybe if it were all made by women it would be even better. (I’m not saying that it would be, but that is just as valid a conclusion.)

      Your message also runs the risk of implying that everything bad in society is from men. If men are the ones who did everything, then women won’t get any credit for anything bad or good.

      Besides, male-bashing makes me laugh. I think male-bashing is cute and sexy.

  11. ‘Dog can’t hunt’ is an expression that in no way alleges “mental health problems, misogyny, bitterness, living in moms basement, abuser, small penis ”

    But your response plainly shows your hate and bitterness which of course is quite often the basis for a lack of rational.. Please seek help.

  12. Site just refreshed and ate my comment. smh.


    She’s obviously wrong… doesn’t deserve our energy or time. The only men hurt by this article are the ones she’s talking about. Me, I’m too busy being the opposite of the guy she loathes to care. What’s important is that my daughter won’t grow up having this worldview because she’ll have seen a father live, love and sacrifice for his own wife and family in the manner in which the author’s apparent hurts and relationship failures preclude her from seeing.

  13. @ The Moderator

    Are you also going to censor all of the hateful comments and personal attacks made by the womynz?

    Or are you just White Knighting to protect the womynz feelings?

    I already know the answer.


    “Life is unfair, learn to cope”

    In other words, “take it like a man?”

    Carlos, that you take a clearly gender neutral statement and immediately asses it as an anti-male statement says more about you then me, or the statement itself. Let me be more clear. LIFE. IS. UNFAIR. and therefore the only thing one can do is: LEARN. TO. COPE. There is just no plainer way to put that.

    Yes, how totally un-profound and unoriginal a suggestion.

    If you want profound please look up the teachings of Buddha. Unoriginal perhaps, but fitting.

    For all your claims of sympathy I don’t see you calling any of the radical feminists posting her to task. Perhaps you should question your own biases and assumptions.

    First of all I don’t ‘sympathize’ or claim to sympathize with anyone. I assess a situation and call a spade a spade. Very different. I don’t need to pity anyone to recognize an injustice.

    Second of all, I answer the comments that speak to me. I’m not interested in any radical point of view. let the ‘radicals’ brawl with the ‘misogynist’, it’s just not my thing.

    I’ll worry about my biases and assumptions and you worry about yours. Fair enough?

    • Yes you’re right of course. Life is unfair, “learn to cope” is a totally gender neutral statement since men are no more oppressed than women in our society and both groups are equally well supported by our tax dollars. It’s not as though affirmative action, the legal system, liberalized gender roles, health care spending, media portrayals, selective service, tax-sponsored support services or anything else favor one sex over the other. Phaw.. LIfe’s unfair. You’re absolutely right and I don’t think you are making a gross over-generalization that happens to gloss over the problems of one sex by pretending they are both equally disadvantaged in our post-modern society.

      • A gender neutral statement is exactly that. Attempting to attach one gender’s issues or the other to it doesn’t change that. Nice try though.

        Men are oppressed differently. Trying to make a case for ‘more oppressed’ or ‘less oppressed’ is as ridiculous as trying to measure suffering.

        Affirmative action helps many men, just not white men usually, is that your real complaint? The legal system historically favored men until the last few decades – where were the male complaints then? Interesting huh? Not that this makes it right but it’s a point, and in order to make the legal system more fair it would do more good to speak to your representatives than rail against 52% of the population.

        Health care research and spending overwhelmingly favors men. If you’re going to spout information at the very least make it accurate. From the

        “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in 1977, barred women of childbearing age from clinical trials. Hence, for nearly a decade and a half, most medical research studies, including breast cancer trials, were done almost entirely on men.”

        So your ridiculousness has been proven numerous times now. Maybe you should find a hobby.

        • In case my name didn’t give it away. I’m not white. Nice try though.

          Blacks have complained for decades about how facially neutral policies, such as the war on drugs, are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased. Just because something is gender neutral on the surface doesn’t necessarily make it so sweety.

          You should really stop reading so much Women’s Studies ideological nonsense.

          Health care spending vastly over-emphasizes females who already live longer.

          You could say making men the guinea pigs for medicine discriminated against women. You could also say that not letting women die in war discriminated against them too (and in fact i’m sure you would.)

          Maybe you should try to get some real data that didn’t come from a feminist echo chamber?

          • Just saying something is biased doesn’t make it so.

            The ‘war on drugs’ is a farce in so many ways it’s hardly worth discussing but you brought it up so we’ll give it a go. The facts are that drug dealers, drug lords, etc. are overwhelmingly male. That law enforcement profiles minorities for arrest has nothing to do with gender issues.
            This is like saying it’s unfair that most serial killers are male. It’s just a fact.

            Please try citing facts. Health Care ‘spending’ is what individuals spend on health care personally, and yeah, women spend more on health care services, of course women have babies and men do not so that’s many thousands of dollars right there. Also, women tend to live longer and spend more in the geriatric years.

            Health care research, as I’ve already proven, is overwhelmingly done on men. If you want to call it using men as ‘guinea pigs’ just to prove your blind bitterness towards women runs so deep you can take any example of benefit to men and twist it into an attack on women just accept that you’ve shown your hand. Tipped it mightily some would say.

            ‘Not letting women die in war’ is a big theme in these comments. Of course no one bothers to point out that the elite men that made the rules also forbid women to go to war in the first place. Or, that until the U.S. had an established military women actually did go to war and fought right alongside men. Or that during the Civil war hundreds of women went so far as to costume themselves as men just to fight alongside men. Or that women served as nurses and war correspondents right on the front lines during every war, and that many were held as prisoners of war during WWI, WWII, the Korean war, and Vietnam. Or that women have been fighting in the U.S. for the right to go to combat for decades. Or the fact that the ruling men have used the term ‘protection’ to prevent allowing women to do most things throughout history much to the detriment of women. Nice try though.

            I would suggest you not only get informed but that you seek help. Anger and bitterness are a self inflicted poison.

  15. @Carlos

    Stating facts and using logic are two different things.

    You said:

    “And just who in society made the rules? Were they made democratically by all men or by the Alpha Males? Were the Alpha Males showing consolidarity with the men that were the work horses of industry and society and protectors of woman, children and country? Just because the man on top has a penis doesn’t mean he will show good will towards men. Here’s a new flash for you, men on top don’t feel challenged by women — they are pursued by hordes of them. They don’t need to oppress women out of fear that women will topple their regime.”

    That the men who made the rules were not looking out for their fellow males can not be pinned on women. It’s their fault and theirs alone.

    The idea that the men on top did not ‘feel the need’ to oppress women is ridiculous and inaccurate but I’ll play along. Why then did they oppress females?

    Feminists always look at a man and top and claim discrimination in favor of men. Just because I’m king of the hill doesn’t mean I will show mercy for the rest of my sex, many of whom are just waiting to topple me over and take my place to get access to the best women. Alpha males make laws to oppress the men just as much, or more, than the women.

    Women don’t have to ‘claim’ discrimination, it’s obvious and evident. Your repeated point that Alpha males make laws that oppress men as well does not erase the fact that women have been oppressed.

    Your other statement earlier about how men in the Special Olympics can out do any woman in any sport of the Olympic games shows you clearly for the sad, angry, little misogynist you truly are. It’s unfortunate that you choose to be and behave this way. All I can offer is my condolences and suggest counseling. Of course you wouldn’t take that advice unless a man offered it anyway.

    Guys, help a brother out!

  16. Peter C. (UK). says:

    “I think the idea that women look down on a man who stays at home is more a generational thing.”

    I totally disagree. It is not a ‘generational things’ it is a consequence of the natural human psyche. There will of course be exceptions to the rule – but for most male-female human pairings primarily reliant upon one income – no matter what they may say to others or even themselves – they will always be papering over the cracks in the reality of their sub-conscious if they proclaim satisfaction with a situation of a bread-winning female. Particularly when offspring become part of the equation.

    It is certainly a ‘generational thing’ to pretend that this is not so. But for the majority who undertake such lifestyles, they are something whose roots can never go very deep and are simply contracts of feminist, politically correct, social engineering which will rarely deliver long term fulfilment to most who embark upon them.

    This reality is something that is an instinctive and inescapable foible of humanity, not of generational zeitgeist.

  17. Reply from Feministe to this article:

    Where Have All the Good Men Gone? That is what Kay Hymowitz wants to know in her latest at WSJ. Her argument, which appears to be based largely on Judd Apatow movies and a (good) book about one woman’s dating life, is that the increasing success of women has let men off the hook when it comes to responsibility of any kind. She doesn’t go as far as to blame women explicitly, but Hymowitz is a well-known conservative writer whose work I’ve followed for some time — she’s particularly talented at not actually blaming women or people of color or whoever else for society’s ills, while still making an argument that requires that conclusion (see, for example, her piece on “the Negro problem” and how black mothers are the worst). So I’m not sure I totally trust her to address this issue in good faith.

    And really, she doesn’t seem to know what she’s talking about. Living and dating in New York, I’ve certainly come across a few man-children who don’t seem to have any goals or interests beyond video games and beer (though none with Star Wars posters in their bedrooms). I’ve also come across girl-women whose parents pay their credit card bills and who are looking for a nice man to marry them so they can live out their princess fantasies. But those people, men and women, have been few and far between. Maybe I’m hanging out at the wrong bars, but far more common is the twenty- or thirty-something dude (or lady) who has a wide variety of interests, a job he’s ok with but an eye for something better, a wide social network and few external pressures to settle for less than what he really wants, in love or family or career. He might also watch Comedy Central and enjoy a good dick joke and a beer every now and again. And you know, that describes me too. It’s actually pretty great. Dick jokes are funny. Good beer tastes good. I’m also a lawyer and a writer and I’m pretty self-sufficient and in no hurry to achieve any other traditional markers of “adulthood,” insofar as those markers are a husband and babies and a mortgage.

    Taking time to come into yourself, and to figure out what you really want, isn’t “extended adolescence.” It’s an intelligent and fair reaction to a new economy and new gender models. For the most part, young people in big cities no longer get their first job at 21 and move up the company ranks until they retire. We’re more mobile, less loyal to a particular employer, and more focused on finding a path that suits us — not one that we take because of lack of other options. We also don’t have the same pressure to get settle down and get married at 25 — and without that external pressure, a lot of us are choosing to delay or even forgo marriage entirely (which should tell you something about the way our culture has constructed marriage, not about our maturity). Those of us who do marry later have stronger marriages — marriages that are reportedly happier and longer-lasting.

    Also? I’m not sure if Hymowitz is aware of our country’s current economic condition, but a lot of people are unemployed. And a lot of people (I would venture to guess especially men-people) don’t want to get married without the financial security that a job brings. So if dudes are living in multi-resident proto-frat-houses playing video games all weekend instead of taking a lady out for cocktails, maybe it’s at least in part because jobs are hard to come by and playing video games is free.

    Of course, there are no doubt man-children across the country who are just lazy, and who aren’t trying to do much of anything despite the opportunities they have. Maybe there are even more men than women who fit into that category — I certainly know more than a few men who expect good things to come to them simply for existing. But to the extent that it is happening, is it new? And is it really the fault of female success, or is it because of life-long coddling of certain men?

    Hymowitz voices concern for women because there are no good men and we’re all apparently deciding to turkey-baster ourselves into motherhood. Our decision to go to school and get jobs have “allowed” men to languish as perpetual 14-year-olds, she says, because no one needs them to be responsible and head households. So, you see, women being responsible and smart leads to men being immature pigs.

    Thankfully, most of us don’t actually live the plotline of Knocked Up, and we can recognize that men (and women) delaying marriage until they’re in a position where they feel ready and until they meet someone they actually want to marry is a sign of maturity, and is a privilege that more of us should have. Hymowitz isn’t actually able to make the point that any of these changing social norms yield bad results — all she can do is point to the fact that fewer 25-year-olds are married today than were married in the 1970s. Which I think is probably a good thing? Of course there are people who, at 25, are both mature enough to negotiate a life-long commitment and lucky enough to find the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with (and are emotionally competent enough to know the difference between “a person I love” and “a person I can be with forever”), but I was not there at 25. I’m not there at 27. That’s not a moral failing; it’s a realistic assessment, and a recognition that, for me and many people in my demographic, marriage isn’t about settling. It’s not about hitting a certain age and deciding that It’s Time. Of course, that’s far from universal — I’d wager that more people settle into marriage because It’s Time than not — but for some number of people, it’s a good model. And even if people are going to get married because It’s Time, isn’t it better to set that Time back a little bit?

    I also don’t know many people who want to get married before they’re gainfully employed, and that takes longer these days. More people generally — not just more women — are going to college. One’s first job (or one’s second or third or fourth job) is very rarely one’s life-long career. People without higher education face new hurdles now that manufacturing jobs are drying up and well-paying blue-collar work is increasingly difficult to find. That’s a very different economy from the one my grandparents and parents faced. Toss an economic recession into the mix and it’s not hard to see why people aren’t chomping at the bit to make life-long financial commitments to another person when they can barely support themselves — especially in a culture where conservative views on marriage demand that the man is the breadwinner, and that he can support a wife and children.

    At the end of things, I’m not sure what Hymowitz’s point is. People aren’t getting married early enough, and that, in conjunction with Judd Apatow, is proof of men’s immaturity? Which is a bad thing because it means that they aren’t getting married early enough, even though everyone involved appears to be perfectly fine?

    Eh, not buying it. Hymowitz is a social conservative who thinks that the best model, for everyone always, is early heterosexual marriage and then babies. She has no problem with teen pregnancy, as long as teens are married (and white). She favors marriage, but only “traditional” marriages that cast the husband as the financial center of the family — a system that is increasingly untenable. She’s not particularly interested in helping women or men; she’s interested in holding up a particular social structure.

    Why? No idea. It’s an easy position to take? It doesn’t require a lot of thought? Perhaps it pays well, so that she won’t need to be dependent on an immature, emasculated man? Mystery.

    • Excellent!

    • From where is this article could you have possibly drawn that conclusion? I am one of those feminists, and I opt for a completely class-based distribution of state resources–that’s what the social safety net is for, and what is was designed for in the 1880s in the new German state (specifically for veterans and public health programs for cholera).

      Also, I am Canadian, so maybe things work differently where you are from, but I have never experienced affirmative action, nor have many other white women working outside of the public service since the 90s. The closest thing I can maybe guess is affirmative action is that I once had the chance for an employment equity seminar that I didn’t take during an internship at Environment Canada, which maybe I should have taken because I have been sexually harassed and assaulted at school and work respectively (but there were no means for recourse because my boss didn’t believe that his 35 year old employee would harass a 15 year old, or my teacher accused me of ‘teasing’ a boy and thus making him grope me).

      I suppose then I am just confused by your statement: I am a feminist, I live in Canada, I pay taxes, I make more than my common-law husband and have supported him through two degrees, I do a lot of non-profit work for men and women living under the poverty line, and I have never utlised affirmative action. What more could you possibly want from me to prove that I am not trying to systematically exploit men’s labour?

      • I think I would need a citation for that one, because after taking a women’s studies minor and working in public health, policy research, environmental consultations, and aboriginal affairs from a feminist perspective, I have never once come across this idea of deliberately slanting everything in women’s favour.

        I have come across numerous resources that aid in resolving endemic material disparities between social groups, and numerous resources for issues such as maternal health and mortality (which really benefits everyone), but other than that, nothing. In some public health systems, it is cheaper to get viagra than birth control–or acne cream is covered by medicare and breast pumps are not–so there is still a long way to go in terms of changing priorities at large in terms of looking out for people.

        For instance, right now I am doing a global case study/literature review on programs that transition youth with disabilities into employment from school for the OECD, and if you take a look at some of the the previous literature on the subject:

        …you will find that there is a huge gender disparity for youth with disabilities in terms of employment. My job, as a policy researcher is to address the “why” for that disparity and figure out how to provide better services for everyone in order to have a more equitable distribution of material aid. However, I don’t go into this only with a gender lens: instead, I look at rurality, class, race, religion, nation, sexual orientation in equal measure. Ask any third wave feminist, and you will find that that sort of intersectionality is the hallmark of the movement. You will notice that men are also included in the category of ‘people who have disabilities,’ and I am doing feminist work on the topic of disabilities, and therefore materially impacting the lives of men with disabilities. Again, I ask, how is this somehow depriving men? If we work for the economic and social betterment of all marginalised groups, how will that not make society at large a better place? Why does helping women somehow preclude helping men in your conception? And finally, what is up with the gender war mindset here? There is a lot more going on in the world than men vs. women, and it would do both feminists and men’s rights activists well to wake up tot the fact that there are more than two variables in this global equation of inequality.

        So no, I am not “deliberately slanting every available resource in society in favour of women,” (a bit of a melodramatic statement don’t you think?) because that is not only bad policy, but also does not take into account the other factors which marginalise people.

        From the sounds of this conversation, it seems like many of the Men’s Rights Activists would benefit from and “Intersectionality 101” course.

  18. candidcutie says:

    Here here @ Dad On The Run!

    Since we are getting all anecdotal – I have a lot of male married friends who are in creative feels which makes more sense for them to be at home with the kids. Their wives are grateful – I think the idea that women look down on a man who stays at home is more a generational thing. I get the feeling from reading these posts that some men got burned along with some feminist’s bra’s..

    Real talk, my male friends get more grief from other men. It would be interesting to hear a little about the pressure men get from men

  19. The denial of the vote for women was an extension of the denial to vote for the common man. In those days not only was there sex discrimination, but also class discrimination. In those days it was true women were not allowed to vote, it is true women were culturally denied education, work opportunity, but they were also denied the horror of front line combat.

    In the UK Common men were given the right to vote in England in 1918, that year in particular because over 700,000 British men had just given their lives in defense of democracy, a significant number of whom were denied the right to vote for the principle they had just given their lives to uphold .

    Women won the right to vote in the representation of the people act in 1928, but it has been overlooked all men had won the right to vote only ten years before.

    There were women handing out white feathers as a symbol of cowardice to men. The feathers were being handed out by women in general, but more specifically women of the feminist movement who were gathered at a rally to protest about the sex discrimination which they faced.

    They handed out their white feathers during a time when they were not required to fight, a time when It was inconceivable for a white feather to be handed to a woman by a man. With every feather they handed out, they handed out a token of their own sexist hypocrisy.

    Whilst those white feathers were being handed out, the Pankhursts, the undisputed leaders of the feminist movement were fuelling the call for men to fight and die for their country, whilst calling for the “industrial conscription” of women.

    Christabel Pankhurst was fuelling the call to go to war with Germany, the feminist movement was denigrating those who opposed the war, whilst deliberately popularising a culture of ridicule for those men who would not fight.

  20. Dana – “If history is one sided it’s the fault of your gender.”
    The wars of the early twentieth century (when women were worrying about not being able to vote) is the story of a few men in power sending millions of men to die as cannon fodder in defence of nations. The women of the time didn’t seem to have a problem with not being allowed to die for their country in this way.

    Dana – “Women didn’t even have the right to vote in the U.S. until 1920.”
    This type of thing is often quoted as evidence of “opression” of women, however (in the case of the UK) what this overlooks is the fact that all men were only given the vote after world war one, after millions have given their lives. They were FORCED into the trences in WWI – where were their “rights”? I guess a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, right? Remind me – what does a woman gotta do?

  21. Peter C. (UK). says:

    @Peter C.
    “A civilization that chooses to sneer in the face of its young males, sneers at its own future”

    “Sneer? Colleges around America are employing a young male affirmative action program desperately trying to keep up male numbers. “

    I am not American. But If what you say is true – what must have led to this ‘affirmative action’ ? – people may ask.

    Um, your various posts to myself and others are a series of feminist, one-dimensional, hackneyed sound-bites which treats common sense as a virus .

  22. Randolph Greer says:

    The Wall Street Journal is wondering where all the “good men ” are ?
    Did you expect to find them on Wall Street ?

  23. I have a 28 year old son, he is single and entering his 3 year of celibacy. He has no intention of marrying or conceiving children. To speak to the caliber of his personage, he left a business that he shared ownership in to spend two years personally tutoring his autistic nephew, my grandson. He is an intelligent man that completed his entire high school 4 year curriculum at home in a year and a half, basically on his own. I have explained to him in no uncertain terms that the choice to conceive or have children can be exercised right up to the age of fifty and that his biological clock serves his own purpose first and last. After reading briefly on this site, his impression was that it was improperly titled. He commented that the site should be called the “good husband project”. I was quite taken with his immediate insight, and found myself agreeing.

    I am left therefore to suggest, that a “good man” is not the result of a marriage, as masculinity survives that paradigm successfully in our culture. As too the article and the accompanying declarations and definitions of masculinity, so what. My food tastes the same regardless of the whining and the sun is forever shining in the sky. It would seem that the best solution too such claims of masculine unworthiness is simply to take another ten years and refine it. Certainly the reduction in population would be no greater than those lost currently to abortion.

    “the desperate situation in which they put single women” why make a bad situation worse?

    Besides after all the accusation, shaming and distortion, what does any woman know about being a man, beyond their own unqualified projections. Misandry by the pound? I’m all stocked up thanks.

    • Are you giving him realistic advice though? Who is going to wanna have a kid with a 50 year old guy? I can say as a 26 year old woman, it’s not at all something I’d ever consider for multiple reasons.

      #1 being that men over 35 have sperm that is at risk of having serious chromosomal problems that can cause down syndrome or autism. Science has proven this. Time to stop onesidedly blaming women’s fertility. Men supply 50% of genetic material and theirs ‘spoils’ at the same rate. You’re not doing him any favors by supplying him with outright falsehoods.

      2# Someone who has a kid at 50 or older unless they plan on being immortal will miss a lot of milestones and a good chunk of their kid’s life because they will probably die at around 70-80 years old. Which puts their kid in their 20s. What if they don’t live to see their kids wedding? Their grandkids. Selfish if you ask me.

      • Really?

        My sister had a son aged 46, a (female) cousin is pregnant aged 46 and already has a 2 year old, her sister had children when she was 39 and 41. Different people make different choices, sometimes they work out, sometimes….

        When you are a 36 year woman you will be a lot more interesting. (I hope) Not your fault, just your age, you’ll understand when you are older. You are right that having children later will be a different experience for all concerned.

      • I think the simple solution is to freeze his sperm. As to the milestones, all of those milestones can be removed from a man by a disenchanted partner. As to giving bad advice, I don’t believe having children requires a one sided social contract that leaves a man vulnerable. Nothing prevents him from being a single father.
        I think what he sees is a disconnect between his personal security and the law. I happen to agree with him, the state no longer reflects his interests and concerns or mine for that matter. As a consumer I wouldn’t buy the product being offered. Characterizations by the WSJ simply miss the mark, with no true insight into the minds and hearts of younger men. These guys aren’t stupid and I would venture to guess they will survive the social disconnect much better than most. The media can rant all it likes about men, there are other channels and an off switch.

    • “He commented that the site should be called the “good husband project”. I was quite taken with his immediate insight, and found myself agreeing.”

      I agree with your son. This place does seem, for the most part, to be concentrating it’s efforts not on how to make things better for men, but rather, on how to make men ‘better’, i.e. more docile, more agreeable, more ‘presentable’ to polite society. For all the hype, it seems to be just a regurge of the same old male improvement projects that are going on worldwide in a suburb near you.

      • Keith and Natasha,
        I agree this site smacks of the “Good Husband Project”, but this article and a few others do signify a positive shift. Let’s hope it continues.

    • candidcutie says:

      LOL um OK, as a sperm donor a man has no rights over his biological issue. And another point, who is going to want to be impregnated by 50 year frozen sperm?

      • LOL.. Um.. like yeah!

        Men and women who have the sperm or eggs used in the conception of a child can have biological rights over the child. It’s actually pretty common. Ever heard of invitro fertilization or surrogacy? LOL

  24. Man Up?

    Why should us men ‘man up’ based on the demanding terms of modern women and the anti-male media? Forever women were protected and cared for. Now they have supremacy on top of their previous special class rights. Why should men give women anything as all it will do is spoil them even more. Boycott marriage and providing women with kids. Be careful, many women will sabotage the birth control and then demand your money for decades.

    Men are learning to embrace their freedom from women. Women and government need us more than we need them. Each day, more men are waking up to the raw deal we have had forever.

    • Oh Joe,

      What you’ve written here is so sad and pathetic.

      That you consider oppression the equivalent of being ‘protected and cared for’.
      That you consider the position women as a whole stand currently as ‘supremacy’.
      That you consider propagating the species as ‘providing women with kids’.

      It’s all so very telling and I really do hope you will seek serious emotional help.

      • Code green and white.


        • Call it whatever you like Denis, it doesn’t hide the fact that this person needs serious emotional help.

          • What are your professional qualifications to make such an assessment of someone that you know nothing about and have never met?

            Apparently anybody who thinks marriage is a bad idea needs some brainwashing.

            Here’s another idea, MYOB and let people live their own lives.

          • I agree Dana, he appears to have been emotionally abused and is unwilling to enter into another abusive relationship.

          • Most likely emotionally abused by a mentally unbalanced and/or vindictive woman and then financially, emotionally and psychologically raped by a system that enforces a presumption of male guilt and female innocence rather than protect him.

      • rumplestilstkin…………………… can wake now!!!

        • Denis,

          The blind could see this man has issues. Also nowhere did I mention he should get married. Heaven forbid.

          I would happily MYOB but he put it out for the world to see. If more people got involved when someone seemed on the edge many bad instances could be averted.


          The key you’re missing in this – and an astonishing number of women as well seem to miss – is that of self responsibility. A person being mentally, emotionally, or physically abused by their partner can get up and leave at any time. They chose not to. The consequences of their not leaving are manifold – perpetuation as well as suffering. Burnt once, shame on them, burnt twice, shame on you.

          If it’s true your fellow human being has been abused in any way and still suffers from it, the kindest thing one an do is direct them to help.

          • Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program. A little over a quarter of them were given a reference to a local program that helped.

            Overall, only 8% of the men who called hotlines classified them as “very helpful,” whereas 69% found them to be “not at all helpful.”

            Sixteen percent said the people at the hot line “dismissed or made fun of them.” One abused man said:

            They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.

            Another said:

            They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.

            Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse. One abused man said:

            They told me women don’t commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault.

            Another said:

            They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.

            Of the men who sought help by contacting local domestic violence programs, only 10% found them to be “very helpful,” whereas 65% found them to be “not at all helpful.” One abused man said:

            They just laughed and hung up the phone.

            Another said:

            They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.


          • What about the children…


            “You’re disgusting, just like your mother. Why don’t you go join her?” My mother spat the words at my father. Though spoken many decades ago, those words still ring in my ears. He had loved his mother very much, had agonized as her health had deteriorated, and now that she had passed away, he missed her. What could possibly hurt him more than just attacking her memory? Why, wishing him dead too.

            My mother’s attacks went beyond emotional devastation. Though her weight of 100 lbs. was no match for my father’s 170 lbs., he never responded with violence. And secure in the knowledge that he never would, she kicked and punched him with impunity.

            One incident in particular sticks in my mind. My father had chosen paint for the kitchen that was a shade too dark. My mother started out by insulting him, then yelling. As her rage grew she escalated to hitting him in the face with her fists. I watched him raise his hands, not to strike back, but merely to protect his eyes. But she wasn’t expecting it and her hand must have hit a bony part of his wrist. She immediately stopped, and then started whimpering, “You hurt me!”

            My father was not my mother’s only target. I was a small child when she shook me by the shoulders while my head hit the wall. But spending our entire childhoods walking on eggshells to avoid her wrath was even more destructive to us children than physical attacks. All of us, including my father, were driven to suicidal depression. After several attempts, my sister did take her own life.


          • Denis,

            Again, the key here is self-responsibility. I heard stories like this myself from women back in the day. I can recall even in the 80’s women in the neighborhood going to the police to report domestic abuse and being told by officers ‘Well your husband says you walked into a door. Let’s not get hysterical.’ So these women stayed and tolerated further abuse because they didn’t have support, or jobs, or money, or what have you.

            This is no excuse. It’s horrible of course, the lack of support. Still no excuse.

            You do not stay in a abusive situation. EVER.

            You do not allow your children to be in an abusive situation. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.

            You do what you have to do. Leave with your children and go to a shelter, go to child services, a church, a friends house, a hotel. Go to the police and report the abuse. Go to a lawyer. Go and keep going, tell and keep telling your story until someone listens.

            If you have no money, apply for welfare and food stamps, go to a food bank, soup kitchen, offer to sweep the floor of the grocery store for a bag of apples, whatever. You do what you have to do.

            If you stay the wrong is two fold – perpetuation and suffering. And now you are also to blame.
            Don’t give me any ‘blaming the victim’ crap. If you are physically able to leave and don’t you have chosen to be a willing participant. Case closed.

          • Dana, you’re blaming the victims.

            They have no social supports and nobody who cares.
            Even worse, dominant aggressor profiling will put them in jail.

          • Dana,
            Is the first response to abuse to run and hide? People have a lot to lose when they leave relationships, men in particular can take the abused kids and run, only to have the tables turned on them with custody returned to the abusing mother and with them out on the street paying child support.
            I can’t help thinking abuse is the symptom of a larger underlying problem. The system objectifies abusers and seeks to dispose of them. I work in manufacturing and understand quality principles. Every strategy that is used in abuse prevention has been tried and proven to fail in quality management. When you have a culture of blame the truth disappears very quickly and all you are left with is ass-covering.
            I haven’t got the answers to abuse in relationships, but I’m sure people are asking the wrong questions.
            Denis is right, you are blaming the victims.

          • The presenting case, that of David Woods and his daughter Maegan, now in her early 20s, was compelling because the evidence was irrefutable, the worst case of gender bias in this area I have ever seen. David Woods is a handicapped man in a wheelchair, incapable of livingAdvanced care directiveson his own, and dependent (or was during the relevant period, the 1980s, when Meagan was a young girl) on his wife Ruth, who is bi-polar with violent tendencies. David frequently attempted to get help from a Sacramento DV agency, who always told him “We don’t help men,” explaining that men were perpetrators of violence, never victims, the usual mantra so clearly inapplicable to his situation. Churches and various other programs were equally unhelpful.

            If David had fled with his daughter, he would have been arrested for kidnapping, unlike women with children who are offered shelter and sympathy. He would certainly have lost custody in a divorce, so neither flight nor divorce would have served Meagan’s interests. Bias in the law enforcement system exacerbated the problem. In one 1995 incident, Ruth aimed a shotgun at Meagan. David managed to wrest it from her. Ruth called the police, telling them she wanted to kill her husband, but when the police arrived, they immediately handcuffed him.


          • Sorry guys, the ‘blaming the victim’ story won’t hold.
            The ‘victim’ is a grown adult with the capability to leave.

            A parent leaving and taking their child is not ‘kidnapping’ under the law. If that were true anyone could call the cops on their wife/husband every time they left the house with children in tow.

            Again, I’m not saying it’s easy or that the justice/social services/welfare system is fair in these cases (or any cases), just that it must be done.

            I’m not buying into the victim crap, and it only enable those who see themselves as victims to do so.

            When I was in Junior High a friend of mine told me her father had been having sex with her. We told our teachers, parents, her brother, the principal, etc. NO ONE believed her. She went to social services, the police etc. NO ONE believed her. She didn’t stop – and we were 13 year old girls at this time, the early 80’s – she just kept telling anyone that would listen. Finally, after about a year, social services put her in a foster home, meanwhile her entire family ignored and abandoned her. Many years later, during our senior year of High School, her oldest sister came back to visit from India – where she’d lived with her husband for about 10 years – and during an argument with their mother screamed that her father had forced sex on her for years and ‘No one bothered to keep me away from him like they did my sister!’ Making it clear there hadn’t been just one victim or just one way to get out of the situation. She chose to get married young to get out, my friend chose to tell, and tell, and tell, deal with the fallout and the wrath of her family.

            As a grown adult your job is to separate yourself and your children from the abuse. Do what you have to do. If you need proof – tape record it, take pictures, hide a video camera – whatever.

            Get up and get out.

          • “As a grown adult your job is to separate yourself and your children from the abuse. Do what you have to do. If you need proof – tape record it, take pictures, hide a video camera – whatever.”

            On this I agree, but what I was trying to explain and you were trying to avoid is the FACT that men need evidence to take their children and women only need accusations.

          • Denis,

            I have quite obviously NOT avoided any FACT. I have stated that there is unfairness in social services – in fact I said it is horrible the lack of support. I have stated that the unfairness swung from being less on the women’s side to far more on the women’s side, (when in truth it should be on the side of the children).

            The only thing I haven’t done is give in to this ‘blaming the victim’ nonsense. And I won’t.

            As I have already said – No matter the circumstances it is NEVER, EVER, O.K. to allow someone to hurt your babies. I don’t care what it takes.

            I will admit to barely any sympathy to grown adults of either gender that choose to stay in abusive relationships, (as long as there are no children involved of course). You’re an adult, you can leave.

  25. The biggest problem, to me, with this article (not the one you wrote, Tom. Yours are always fabulous) is that it assumes that to grow up, you have to become boring, which is exactly what I got from that hateful article. Seriously. Men can still be “children” and hold down jobs. There is nothing wrong with acting that way, especially if you’re a contributing member of society. I realize this article is saying that men are apparently waiting longer to get careers, but what is growing up anyway? Because if it’s becoming someone incredibly boring, who’s life revolves around work, I don’t want to grow up. I’ll party, drink, whatever, AND I’ll be a contributing member of society to boot. This article also seems to imply that in order for men to grow up, they have to get married and have children. Why? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a single male who still does “childish” things while being a contributing member of society. What is adulthood, anyway? Frankly, this article paints adulthood in an incredibly boring light. I’ll play my video games well until my death, thank you very much, and I’ll still pay my taxes on time.

  26. It amazes me how emotional we tend to get over issues of gender, politics and religion. I LOVE IT!!!!!! The article is written from a very biased point of view and is obviously the opinion of someone who has not been exposed to the joys of immaturity in some our men.
    My husband is a very responsible and settled individual but I love him even more in those moments when he seems somewhat childish.
    Women tend to want to settle down earlier because we are so conscious of our biological clocks but we should not hold the luck of our men for not having such issues against them.

  27. Tom Matlack says:

    Wow, I have to admit that this conversation is pretty amazing given the post I put up. I had no idea it would set off so much interest. But our mission at GMP has always been to “spark a national conversation on what it means to be a good man,” so this is indeed gratifying.

    I will say that the few incidents of name-calling (Yes I am a Mangina, and proud of it, so not sure why we need to keep going there?) aren’t appreciated. A “discussion” by definition means that we aren’t going to agree and that the disagreement is good and informing to all involved. But let’s try to keep it civil.

    As followers of my posts already know I have managed to make enemies amongst both feminists and men’s rights advocates, which is all well and good. But I do hope that at the end of the day we can ALL agree that a discussion about what it means to be a good father, husband, worker and man is crucial for all involved, men and women alike.

    Like everyone else, I am still learning as I participate in this discussion, write, listen, and read the many great posts and comments here and elsewhere on the topic of manhood.

    The one thing that I have been struck by recently, however, is just how slanted, and frankly cynical, the popular media has become about manhood. As the son of a father who risked his life to fight for civil rights and a mother who did the same for women’s rights, I know what bias looks like when it comes to gender or race or ethnicity. The fact that the Wall Street Journal would publish this thing on Saturday (or Slate on Friday) is just mind-blowing to me. All of us at GMP, men and women alike on the staff, just couldn’t believe how insulting the piece was to the men we know who are honestly trying to do the right thing.

    I hope all in this string will stay engaged as we collectively discuss what it means to be a good man realizing full well that there is no single answer but that we all, men and women alike, have an equal stake in moving beyond negative stereotypes to substantive models for manhood.

    We have a whole generation of boys in our country desperate to sort out how to be men of honor, integrity, compassion, and courage. We owe it to them to provide some answers that are a hell of a lot more illuminating than those articulated by Hanna Rosin and Kay Hymowitz. Hannah and Kay, I founded The Good Men Project based on the belief that men are and can be good and I stick by that belief. As the father of 6 and 15 year old sons I will not back down from that mission.

    • Tom, thanks for the great post. The problem with the GMP is that the comments are overrun with the same 3-4 male privilege activists and He-Man feminist haters club who exist to troll websites. You haven’t yet found your audience yet. Sites like are still peddling feel-good advice as opposed to make-good advice. You gotta penetrate the spheres of where men actually go to online, on a daily basis.

      • Code red, brown and black.


        Why are women commenting at a men’s site anyway?

        • Come now Denis. Since when do sites have genders?

          Shouldn’t men be thrilled that women are on a ‘men’s site’ seeking to learn about their brothers?

          • If that’s what you think Denis, then you haven’t been paying attention.

            Plenty here are crapping all over women. Funny how you have no issue with that.

          • “Plenty here are crapping all over women. Funny how you have no issue with that.”

            Actually, they’re crapping all over feminists. Not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. Feminism is a political group, not a gender.

      • “Life is unfair, learn to cope”

        In other words, “take it like a man?”

        Yes, how totally un-profound and unoriginal a suggestion.

        For all your claims of sympathy I don’t see you calling any of the radical feminists posting her to task. Perhaps you should question your own biases and assumptions.

  28. The contemporary feminist discourse tends to focus exclusively on the fact that important and influential roles in society are filled by men in a patriarchy, and use this observation to conclude that patriarchy is about male dominance and male power. Through this generalization, the power of a small subset of men, is taken to represent all men, without investigating whether other men really have any power. Another factor that also isn’t investigated is whether the small subset of men with power use their power to help other men. If not, it cannot really be said to be a male power.

    Today’s feminists therefore misinterpret patriarchal societies in a number of ways:

    -The power of a tiny subset of men is taken to represent all men, instead of seeing the powerlessness of most men.
    -It is assumed that the men at the top helped other men, but in reality they used other men for wars, mining, construction, etc. There is no evidence that the men in power were reluctant to use other men to build society, regardless of the hardships, injuries and deaths that were required.
    -So called male networks were really networks for the rich and powerful. Women didn’t ask to be part of these networks, since gender roles were still fused with biological sex in the cultural awareness.

    • Hi Denis,

      I completely agree. Still, the fact that it was but a small group of affluent men only that made the rules in no way changes the truth that women did not, for most of history, make any rules at all.

      The point I’m attempting to make is that while the rules were certainly not made to benefit the common man, they most definitely were not made by women or for women. To be angry at women, or even hold women slightly accountable, for rules and legislation made by elite men is just ridiculous.

    • “To be angry at women, or even hold women slightly accountable, for rules and legislation made by elite men is just ridiculous.”

      You need to recognize that elite men can only make laws if they have public support. All political parties pander to the women’s movement in some way to maintain their power over men. Even the most traditional patriarchs are chivalrously protective of women. Looking only at who is in power neglects how they maintain their power.

      • Denis,

        I’m sorry but I have to disagree.

        That elite men can only make laws with public support is definitely not true. For instance, the public is overwhelmingly against genetically modified food and yet the elite rulers just passed legislation twice in the past month favoring it.

        If all political parties have ‘pandered’ to women I have certainly failed to recognize it. Republicans especially seem to not include women in their thinking. What exactly is the definition of this political pandering? If by ‘pandering’ you mean considering womens rights and issues, I have to disagree with that too.

        No offense, but I’m so sick of the idea of old world ‘chivalry’ being implemented to ‘protect’ women. That’s the same line the Taliban uses. That they are ‘protecting’ their women by forcing them to cover up – and therefore ‘preventing’ rape -, not allowing them to earn a living – because they are to ‘cared for’, etc. I’m sure you don’t mean it in that manner, but seriously?
        You know how welfare is supposed to take care of people down on their luck but instead just keeps them down? So too is chivalry.

        Sorry but trying to blame women for the reportage of history doesn’t hold up. Trying to blame women for how the majority of laws affect men just won’t hold. The laws were made by elite men, whatever influence women had would have been negligible at best.

      • I’m not fond of chivalry either, because it gives women special rights and privileges.

        Feminism has enjoyed remarkable success, in an historically short period of time, reshaping society to eliminate the disadvantages suffered by women under traditional gender norms. This success has been possible only because feminism preys on a powerful, natural inclination of deference to women that is bred into both men and women alike. If women feel passionately about wanting something, it just isn’t manly or prudent for men, individually or collectively, to deny it to them. In the ideological battle of the sexes, it is of the first importance to understand the origins and power of this innate inclination of deference to women.

  29. Dana,

    Men a not a political class. Think Libya, is it all men ruling, or is it the Gaddafi clan? That is the feminist fallacy, that small male elites are representitive of all men, it is also true that women in these elites wield power. For example, Nancy Regan and Hillary Clinton both had huge UNELECTED influences on their husbands’ presidencies.

    Women from elites can also became the official ruler, Queen Elisabeth, Queen Mary, Queen Victoria, for example. How about Catherine the Great, Empress Wu, Indira Gandhi, Cleopatra and many more. So much for the feminist lie of HIStory. Sure women were under-represented, but hey there were no tractors, trucks, steamships and there was limited machinery to make work male or female friendly. In the home there were no automatic washing machines, no potable water on tap, no dishwashers, electric light. No refrigerators, microwave ovens, no vaccinations, no antibiotics, no obstetrics and no oral contraceptive. Infant mortality was high and death in child birth was a real threat for mothers. Until FEMINISTS invented all this technology people was busy just surviving.

    Universal suffrage did not exist for MEN or women until the end of the 19th century. Only elites of men and sometimes women had the right to vote. Many soldiers who died in WWI did not have the right to vote.

    The point is that men have suffered too from their enforced gender roles, possibly worse than women, feminists deny this this and that is to their eternal shame. To the extent that women have benefited by modern life, it is more due to male created technology than to the struggle of the women’s studies departments.

    I believe that a better indication of been grown up is to take responsibility, to give credit where due and to act fairly. Merely sitting up straight and falling into line is not growing up.

    • Hi John,

      I’m aware that men are not a political class. That elite men are representative of all men is simply a fallacy. It is NOT a ‘feminist fallacy’. Let’s not be ridiculous. It may be a fallacy that some feminist use to the advantage of the movement but to imply more than that is silly.

      Your naming the very few female rulers the world has seen, – lets face it, the numbers pale in comparison to male rulers – does not lessen the fact of history being written mainly by men, for men, and about men. I suggest men in general give this argument up.

      Your statement that ‘FEMINIST’ invented technology to help people do other than just survive in the world is bewildering. I submit for your perusal the technology you mention and the inventors:

      Microwave – Dr. Percy Spencer
      Dishwasher – William Livens
      Electric light – Thomas Edison
      Refrigerator – William Cullen –
      Oral contraceptive – Frank Colton
      Antibiotics – Edward Florey
      Washing machine – William Blackstone

      These items were all invented by men and I’m unaware of any historical reference to any of them being feminist. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intention with this statement?

      And, as an aside, infant and mother mortality rates in the U.S. are astonishingly high even today given all our modern technology.

      I completely agree that men have also suffered from enforced gender roles. To add ‘possibly worse than women’ is really taking it to far however. How exactly does one measure suffering? That SOME feminists deny that men have been shafted in different – and possibly less obvious – ways than women is a shame, but again, let’s not go overboard.

      It’s really hard to say to what the greatest benefit to women in modern life can be credited. I would say womens studies can be credited to a large degree. One of the most important things – if not THE most important – in liberating the oppressed is changing the mindset. Much like stockholm syndrome. Sympathizing with your oppressor seems unthinkable but it’s a real issue.

      I haven’t made any comments about men not being grown up in these comments but I will say this: “Growing Up’ has a lot of different components. Yes, I know some men that behave in the manner the article characterized, I can think of one offhand: 46 years old, works 4 days a week as a bartender, spends the rest of his time playing his XBox, World of Warcraft, having sex with random women he picks up at work, and drinks beer only and constantly. Nice guy, I’ve known him for 20 years. Do I consider him grown up? More or less – I mean after all he pays his bills and keeps a steady job. Do I think he’s using all – or any – of his potential? NO. Would I talk to him about it? Not unless he asked directly. It’s his life to squander as he wishes. Do I think he should get married. Lord no.

      Then I know men like my fabulous husband – 43 years old, former Marine, keeps a steady job, didn’t give a damn when I made more than him, doesn’t give a damn now that I make a bit less than him, takes care of himself and doesn’t expect me to cater to him, and we pretty much share all household chores including repairs and cars. Do I consider my husband a grownup? Absolutely. And way more than the first example. Because he’s married? No, because he’s much more mature.

      • Dana,

        Feminist and sympathizers almost always talk about male privilege in relation to any notion of male disadvantage. Male privilege means male privilege as a class.

        Sure female rulers were a minority, while there were more than I named, and that was not my point. The point is that women, whether rulers or people of influence are mentioned in history. The fact they were a minority is not surprising given the technology at the time and that women often have other priorities.

        “Your statement that ‘FEMINIST’ invented technology to help people do other than just survive in the world is bewildering.”

        Not bewildering, just sarcasm. It never ceases to amaze me that all the changes in women’s roles over the last 100 years are seen as a victory against male oppression, when most are the result of mainly male developed technology. Scientists and engineers have done more to release women from domestic drudgery than any feminist.

        Just look at the effect that communications technology is having in the Middle East right now.
        “I completely agree that men have also suffered from enforced gender roles. To add ‘possibly worse than women’ is really taking it to far however.”

        Think Civil war WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. not just the men that died, the survivors were scarred for life. Think mining, power generation, forestry and worse things did happen at sea. The point being not that men necessarily suffered worse than women, rather that the suffering was of the same order more or less and that women cannot claim to have been substantially worse off than men. Feminism does not acknowledge male suffering. Both men and women are affected by the grass is greener in the other paddock fallacy.

        There is no significant counter group to feminism and that is why the rigor of women’s studies is appallingly low. Feminist theory goes unchallenged, because it is presented as self-evident. Falsification of research and selective quoting of data is normal. Now men are getting angry because they are not being heard. A lot of “the trolls” are shouting because no one is listening.

        I’m glad you have respect and love for your husband and I hope he feels the same way about you too. (not sarcastic) Just remember that not all men and women are that fortunate.

        • Again John, no one can say that men haven’t suffered under the ruling class. But for men such as yourself to say that women haven’t suffered, or that our suffering has been different and therefore somehow lessor is ridiculous. Again, how does one measure suffering?

          Yes male invented technology has done the most to release women from drudgery but how is that not a victory for women? That it’s a victory won by for us by men makes it no less wonderful. Are you under the mistaken impression that if all leaps forward are not by females only then it is a step backwards somehow? It was a female that patented the technology that eventually became the cellphone, a technology I use everyday. You won’t find me dancing in the streets because a female invented it. A human being invented it much to my advantage. A woman also invented bullet proof vests. Do you think I go around to every police station demanding that they thank my ovaries for their ‘life saving abilities’? I mean seriously, let’s be for real. I certainly don’t bow to my husband every time I switch a light on because someone in his gender invented the light bulb. People are individuals for Pete’s sake.

          What you and all of the men here seem to be missing is that feminism does not say that men have not suffered or that women have suffered more. Feminism says that women have not historically had the same political, economical, legal, etc. rights as men. Which is true. Like it or not. And, as I keep pointing out repeatedly on this thread, to demean the oppression of others only demeans your own cause.

          Yes my husband and I love, adore, and respect one another. It is unfortunate that this is not true widespread. I see it even in the relationships of my closest friends that this is not the norm. Do you know why? Because people do not choose for it to be the norm. When you look around it’s easy to see how many individuals are caught up in their egos, their need to be catered to in some form or another, the need to justify their bad behavior, fall back on old, childish, tiring ways etc. Very few people, – despite protest to the contrary – want to behave like a grown-up.

          It’s all “But he did ‘this’ and she did ‘that’, and ‘Why should I have to tell him or her?!’ and so on and so on. No one wants to recognize that they are damaged – as we all are in some way – and do the work it takes to get back to their true self. Nope. Better to take it all out on their partner and then when things go horribly bad and they split up, to rage against them.

          Saddest. Thing. Ever.

          • Dana,
            Thank you for a civilized discussion. I think we actually agree on the first point. Men and women have both suffered and today are still suffering due to different types of problems and oppression. It is impossible to tell for sure who has suffered more. Therefore, women don’t deserve a special status as the primary sufferers in society. When people suffer, the suffering should be treated on its own merit, and not judged through the lens of class.

            I have only mentioned the male inventors as a counterpoint to the claim of men as oppressors, to the extent that men are the primary oppressors outside the home, men are the primary liberators too. Feminism does not recognize this. Feminism is riddled with special pleading that requires manipulation of data to support. I am grateful for Stephanie Kwolek’s invention of poly-paraphenylene terephtalamide (aramid) fiber, known as Kevlar or Twaron. I use Aramid fibers several times a week and my life is better for it. Kwolek is an old-school successful women who achieved what she did on her own merits.

            “What you and all of the men here seem to be missing is that feminism does not say that men have not suffered or that women have suffered more. Feminism says that women have not historically had the same political, economical, legal, etc. rights as men. Which is true.”

            Dana that is what YOU are saying. Feminism, in contrast, says that men are the oppressors of women. Feminism sheds not a tear for the men that have suffered, and does not give a damn for the men that have done so much for women. (Unless they were part of their movement and even then the support is grudging) . Problems such as shorter life span, higher suicide rates, enforced military service, less access to children, the obligation to protect women and a general acceptance of male disposability are all real issues. I have been surprised by the lack of compassion that women have for men over these issues. When I contrast women’s attitudes to men’s issues with men’s attitudes to women’s issues, it reverses my assumption that women are more compassionate than men.

            I agree with your statement above, EXCEPT, that it misses the point that women have not had the same responsibilities and obligations as men. The women’s movement does not demand that 50% of combat troops are women, that 50% of miners are women, that 50% of trash collectors are women or 50% of maritime workers are women, rather it demands quota on the Officers in the military and quotas for the boards of these corporations and for senior executives and professionals.

            Dana, I don’t think you are a feminist, you are too reasonable and fair. Think of the Men’s Rights Movement less as a challenge to women but more as a challenge to the unchallenged assumptions of feminism. Maybe men’s right’s goes too far, but it provides a voice for the majority of man who are not privileged in today’s world and it reminds us of the many men who fought so hard to give us the freedoms and comforts we have today. There are plenty of groups that speak up for women, men need a voice too.

            “Saddest. Thing. Ever.” Women have more control over relationships than men, but they are told otherwise. If most women could show the positive leadership in their relationships that you seem to, domestic violence, child abuse and rape would halve overnight. These are rarely the problem, but rather the symptom of a larger relationship problem.

      • Dana – “These items were all invented by men and I’m unaware of any historical reference to any of them being feminist. ”

        Yep. You hit the nail on the head there.

        • Jimmy,

          Perhaps instead of showing yourself to be an complete jerk you could just state your case plainly?


          • Code red.


          • My case (that Denis brought up) is simply that without modern technology and infrastructure – the vast majority of which was invented and manufactured by men – most employment would still involve heavy labour and unpleasant conditions, as it did in the past. It is clear that this has improved the quality of life for men and women much more than feminism has done (or ever will).

            Modern technology massively reduced the time and physical effort needed to perform household tasks, giving women opportunities to pursue other activities. Women entered the workforce in high numbers after modern technology had provided safe and comfortable working conditions and where the need to perform hard manual labour was no longer part of the job.

            Second wave feminism also emerged around this time – and due to housewives starting to become bored and seeing a lack of women in the workforce at the time, this wave of feminism gained a large following. A core principle of the movement was that women were being and had historically been opressed by men – citing the discrepencies beween the sexes regarding household and workforce participation as the modern day evidence of this.

            Interesting that even at that time, the Equal Rights Amendment was being opposed by womens groups and labour groups because they were worried that under equal rights, women would lose labour legislation designed to protect women.

            And btw Dana, I am not a complete jerk. I am definately less than 50% jerk, so there. :p

        • HI JOHN,

          Sorry for the placement but there was no reply button under your last post.

          I thank you as well for a civilized discussion. We really do agree for the most part.
          It truly is impossible to measure suffering and it comes in all different forms.

          I can’t completely agree that women shouldn’t hold a special status as sufferers, – I mean it makes logical sense, but then I become wary of the fallout. Will it be like the African American rights movement where they fought for legal freedom and so forth only to continue to be held back by racism, prejudice and stereotypes?

          As far as feminism goes, there are many different types as there are in any field I guess.
          There is empowerment feminism, lesbian feminism, angry bitter anti-male feminism (and wow, I’ve met those women and they need some DEEP psychological help), victim feminism, etc. Much like some in the male empowerment movement I would guess. There are obviously misogynist in the men’s movement, and every degree through to the rational minded. I guess what I’m saying is not to think all feminist fall into the ‘men suck’ category. Remember, a lot of us have brothers (I have three!), husbands, fathers, nephews, sons, etc. We’d be hard pressed to hate our male loved ones.

          I do want to say to this part:
          “Problems such as shorter life span, higher suicide rates, enforced military service, less access to children, the obligation to protect women and a general acceptance of male disposability are all real issues.”

          Some problems, such as shorter lifespan and higher suicide rates may possibly have to do with specific gender biology/health, (I have no idea for sure of course), rather than men’s issues being ignored. Some things seem to be more likely for one gender than the other, like the ability to live without food and water for longer periods is more likely in females (or so they say), or that depression is more likely for females. That a man of my height, build, and weight, would be likely stronger than me. That sort of thing. Of course it could have to do with specific gender stresses. Just can’t say for sure.

          Military service. Ah, lets talk about that! My husband is a former U.S. Marine and he can tell you that women in the military complain about not being allowed in combat all the time. I’ve been to Israel and the women there serve and it’s a non-issue. But this is one of the things I mention in other posts. This seems like a form of protection and privilege, but in reality it’s keeps women down. If a war hits your homeland who will have the training and ability to fight back and survive? Not the women folk.

          Enforced military service – I think – only happened once, and for an illegal war that won nothing. It’s a sin. Also, I’m pretty sure that the signing up for selective service bullshit is unconstitutional. How great would it be if the people demanded a law that if you vote the military into war then you must sign up your children or go yourself much as George Washington did? That would ROCK!

          The less access to children thing is a weird one. On the one hand I, and so many people I know were abandoned by their fathers so ‘access’ was not these mens issue. My best friends husband just left her after years of cheating, divorced her, and hasn’t shown up to see the kids in months – he lives a block away. Of course I also have an ex-friend that abandoned her daughter (Hence why she is no longer a friend). So I know this one plays out on both sides. More a matter of people’s childish, selfish, horrible issues coming into play – because clearly, no matter which gender it comes from the victims are the children. But the parents are too busy taking their rage out on one another to fathom this. Remembering that you love your children more than you hate another would go a long way on this one.

          “The women’s movement does not demand that 50% of combat troops are women, that 50% of miners are women, that 50% of trash collectors are women or 50% of maritime workers are women”

          Hot dog! I can tell you for a fact that this one is not true! Now I can’t speak for all forms of feminist, or the entire U.S., but I can tell you that in NYC this has been a huge issue for years and I am not completely in agreement on either side. Gloria Allred (a bit of a nut in my book), has sued the NYPD, NYFD, etc. about this many times. Unfortunately she makes the stupidest of arguments. For instance, ‘If most women can’t meet the physical requirements to become a fire person then the requirements should be lowered.’ WHAT???!!!! People should die in flames because a woman that met the lowered requirements couldn’t carry them out?! That’s not equality! That’s insane!!! Plenty of men don’t meet the requirements, should they lower them across the board and then everyone can just die a smoke and fire filled death?

          I swear to you that I am a true feminist in the proper sense of the word. All it really means is that men and women, while different, are equal. Or as I tell my nieces and nephews ‘Girls can do some things that boys can’t (Give birth, grow breasts,), boys can do some things that girls can’t, (fertilize an egg, write their name in the snow with urine), what we each can do is enough.’
          Many of us can see the need for equality on all sides (I swear it’s true!) Men certainly need a voice but it seems men more need to fight the male elite rather than fight feminist – even if said feminist are wrong -. Of course that’s a fight that would be supremely beneficial to all, especially feminist, and the one’s that don’t realize that need to wake the hell up and get on board.

          “Women have more control over relationships than men, but they are told otherwise. If most women could show positive leadership in their relationships, domestic violence, child abuse and rape would halve overnight. These are rarely the problem, but rather the symptom of a larger relationship problem.”

          I preach this to my women friends constantly! You would be amazed the mindset – I certainly am. In another post I spoke of the need for Women’s studies in order to change the mindset of women and this is EXACTLY what I was talking about! Who are these people, that stand for this?! This is stuff we learned in kindergarten for pete’s sakes. ‘Keep your hands to yourself!’ If every person left their partner the first time they raised a hand to them domestic violence would end immediately and with it lots of child abuse. Absolutely these behaviors are symptoms of much larger problems.

          I have to say that in our relationship the key is partnership a bit more than leadership. My husband is practical, level headed, kind, and strong minded. I am impulsive, passionate, outspoken, and idealistic. He leads in what he better at navigating, I lead in mine. It’s about what works best rather than what either of us wants, or think we need, or must have, or whatever. Of course we both purposely waited to marry until we were in our mid-thirties and that may have the most to do with it out. Experience and maturity beat all.

          Take care John. I wish the best for you.

  30. Great article Tom.

  31. Men don’t grow up!

    Like Van Gogh, Mozart, Beethoven, Einstein, Ford and many others. Think creative genius and you see people, usually men who have not grown up.

    The modern woman, in contrast, has social skill, sits down, shuts up and gets her job done in a satisfactory manner. The modern female college graduate is ever so slightly above average, but definitely not brilliant. Genius is out there, on the edge. Genius is not multitasking, genius is the ability to focus on one thing to the point of obsession.

    What the women’s movement worships is mediocrity. Their idea of “grown up” is conformity, if grey is too boring, let’s live in the excitement of beige. Women’s grown up is high school grown up. All about appearance, not about substance.

    • Van Gogh while a great painter… was also a schizophrenic who made violent threats and cut off his own ear. Not the best example of a “good man” by his behavior alone. (It wasn’t his fault necessarily, had the proper medications been available back then.)

      • Those men were not “good men” they were geniuses. I chose Van Gogh precisely because he was not grown up. By making everyone conform to a strict conformist role we lose something.

        The dilemma is, to medicate and have a mediocre man, or to not medicate have an eccentric, maladjusted, tragic, genius?

    • WOW…. “Women are not brilliant” or capable of brilliance. You are exposing yourself as the total misogynist we’ve all suspected you are. Get out of town. Seriously. You’ve lost all credibility.

      • WOW…. “Women are not brilliant” or capable of brilliance.

        Um… did I say that? I think not. Lets see, when you quote someone the convention is to put the exact same words in the inverted commas. You did not. When I said “The modern female college graduate is ever so slightly above average, but definitely not brilliant.” I meant the typical female collage graduate, otherwise I would have said “All modern Female Collage …” I think that is easy to understand.

        Now we come to brilliant women, I know a few in my family; none have achieved their potential, not for lack of opportunity, but for lack of ambition. In history there were, Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, Chien-Shiung Wu, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth I and others, more recently in music Dame Joan Sutherland. Are these women the product of modern collages? No and most of them would not have been welcome there. Sure some brilliant women will get through, they are exceptions, more exceptional than brilliant men, but they exist.

        Misogynists hate women, I don’t hate women, I oppose a political movement that uses the pretext of gender equality to impose a new and largely unwanted structure on society. If I hate anything, it is dishonesty and dishonesty is the foundation of feminism.

    • He just stated the opposite of Hanna Rosin’s end of men. Is it offensive?

      • No, he didn’t say the opposite he said the same thing. I didn’t like the article either. I thought she was extremely short-sighted and biased….

        But two wrongs don’t make a right…

        Apparently the pro-men movement is really just a shallow cover for the same historical anti-woman stance. K.

      • Oh, so if someone says something offensive about men that’s not o.k. but when someone says something offensive – not to mention outright wrong – about women they are correct and anyone that opposes them should be mocked?

        Showing your hands.

      • I think it’s an unfair stereotype with some elements of truth, but not the whole truth.

        How does it feel?

        • Asking a member of the truly and actually oppressed gender how oppression, or any kind of unfairness feels is just kind of pathetic.

          You’re better than this.

        • candidcutie says:

          @ John A

          These women ( full disclosure I have female relatives in Afghanistan) who signed up protect you, your family and friends are more at risk to be raped by their fellow soldiers than they are to be killed by the enemy. Also the percentage of men being raped by other men in military is disturbingly high – way above the civilian numbers.

          I’m not sure how this thread turned so negative.

          • Women aren’t in the front lines of war and die in numbers massively disproportionate to their percentage of the armed forces. Just one of the many areas where women get equal pay for unequal work. Somehow totally unsurprising that you’d take an area that benefits women and twist it into a statement of their oppression.

          • Women are a big problem for the military:

            A longitudinal study conducted by Professor Eugene Kanin concluded that over a period of nine years, 41% of rape allegations studied were fraudulent, concocted by the alleged victim to either create an alibi, seek attention and sympathy, or to seek revenge.

            And there is the McDowell Study cited by Warren Farrell in The Myth of Male Power, which concluded that of 1,218 reported rapes on Air Force Bases around the world, 45% were discovered to be fraudulent.

            This 45% of cases are not ones that could not be proven or for which a suspect could not be apprehended, but cases that were proven to be fabricated by the person filing the complaint. 27% of the false claims were admitted after the accusers were asked to take a polygraph test, or having just failed one.


  32. It’s ok to be a bigot if you’re a woman, especially if you’re a feminist.

    If you speak positively of men or boys, though, you’re a male chauvinist pig..

    Welcome to post-feminist America.

    • OHHHHHH! As a staunch feminist I completely disagree with this!

      To be intolerant of a different creed or belief only makes one undeniably ignorant. Women who are angry at men, or hate men, may call themselves feminists. Then again, I can sit in the garage all day but that won’t make me a car.

      I can only hope EVERYONE can speak positively of the men and women in our lives. We may be female and feminist, but we still have fathers, brothers, husbands and sons we love dearly.

      “Chauvinist” is a very clearly defined term. If you are unfairly accused of being one, pulling out a dictionary would surely prove your defense.

      Welcome to reality.

      • “Welcome to reality.”

        Are you sure you’re a feminist?

        • Quite sure. As I actually know what the term feminist means.

          Most of the men here do not.

          • The problem is that very, very few of those who identify as feminists actually are feminists. The vast majority are just women’s rights activities who want to advance women’s interests and achieve the greatest possible advantage, nothing to do with equality at all. They also have an anti-male perspective, which impacts their overall agenda.

    • What’s Wrong and What Right with Contemporary Feminism?
      By Christina Hoff Sommers.

      A worthy read for anyone who cares about justice and equality.

      “gender feminists tend to see conventional masculinity as a pathology and the source of much of what is wrong in the world”

  33. Jay Hammers says:

    “Women are often described in the same universal, equally pernicious stereotypes.” No, not really. The only stereotypes attributed to women are accurate ones.

    • Yes really. You haven’t been paying attention.
      And your remark about female stereotypes being accurate only show you for what you are. It’s not a pretty color on you.

      • You make so many claims yet cite so few examples.

        In this case I actually somewhat agree with you though

        The only stereotypes of women that are allowed in the mainstream media are ones that portray women as innocent, nurturing, empowered, educated, capable, etc, etc..

        But not all women are like that. In this, we couldn’t agree more.

        There are no “pernicious stereotypes” of women in the media. If there were the politically correct fembots would, albeit rather justifiably, go batshit crazy, but yet when they see men continually denigrated they just smile knowingly (indeed they are quite often the source of that denigration.)

        • I’m not sure specifically what it is you refer to as a pernicious stereotype – whether you mean deadly or evil – but you are a bit off on this one.

          It’s also not clear whether you mean people in any media, or media portrayals but I’ll run with this a bit.

          If you mean real people – not entertainment characters – then I’m assuming the men you refer to are the Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, David Berkowitz, Charles Manson’s, of this world.

          Let’s be clear that – hope and pray – NO ONE considers these types as examples of human beings much less the male of the species. No offense to your male sensibilities intended.

          Innocent, nurturing, empowered, educated, capable?

          Well let’s see, just perusing the newspaper to find a few names:

          Hilary Clinton – not innocent or nurturing, although the last three fit.
          Jackie O – Educated may be the only one that fits here.
          Paris Hilton – None of the above.
          Lady GaGa – Capable, . . . um, . . . that’s it.
          Malikah Shabazz – None of the above (Just arrested for identity theft, her father would be ashamed)
          Kim Kardashian – Gag me.

          • Citing individuals is not citing stereotypes.

            I specifically didn’t name names for that reason.

            The stereotypes of men are rapist, dead-beat, batterer, pedophile, jerk, pig, etc

            Try referring to women, as a group, with something like one of those negative stereotypes and you’ll get, justifiably, shouted down just as fast or faster than you would if you did the same for any other identity group like Jews, blacks or gays. Say it about men though and everybody gets a good laugh out of it.

            To clarify:

          • Sometimes one has to face reality.

            The vast majority of pedophiles, batterers, and rapist are men. That’s just the way it is.
            ‘Jerk’ and ‘pig’ are not stereotypes they are descriptions of a persons behavior. Anyone can behave like a jerk or a pig, doesn’t mean they are that characterization at all times.

            Many women are referred to as pedophiles, – how many movies of the week are there about female teachers sleeping with their student?

            Citing Jews, blacks, and gays, doesn’t hold. There is no equivalency.

    • This site needs moderators. ASAP.

  34. I’m just gonna continue to read your articles. Makes me happier than the mainstream drivel about how men are useless.

  35. Female Feedback says:

    Good article.

    I am fed up with women saying “where have the good men gone” and romanticizing the often abusive, abandoning and aloof patriarchs of the past (you also see this in the weird obsession with Don Draper on the TV show Mad Men.) Yes, many of us had “bad dads” and were conditioned to think this was an attractive man. But, if women can get out from under that programming, we’d all be better off.

    I also find Michael Kimmel’s presentation in “Guyland” helpful:

    1. Most women have changed, many men have not. To become a parent, a man now has to show some means for earning money for himself and the family AND parenting skills, including emotional availability, AND the capacity to manage work/parenting balance. These latter two have always been needed but have been neglected, suppressed and unacknowledged. Now it is on the table.

    2. In the culture, there is still a fantasy that boys don’t have emotional lives. For those that dare show it, it is still shamed out of them on the playground, and even around some girls, boys out of developing parenting skills, including emotional availability, on the grounds that this is “gay.”

    So boys are hit with a double whammy. It’s become more complicated to attract a mate (not that many men don’t do this well) and they have to overcome cultural (and often family) conditioning not to show the very thing they need to to attract the mate.

    I would feel sorry for them EXCEPT for the fact that many women manage this complexity and have overcome societal and family taboos against earning money, developing careers, etc. And families thrive when both parents have dual skills of work & parenting – plus the ability to balance them and balance matters with a mate.

    Life has always been hard and children have always needed BOTH these things from BOTH parents; we’re just now getting all the difficulty of it on the table rather than suppressing it.

    We can do this, though. As always, thank you to the GMP and Tom and other writers for getting these issues on the table for discussion.

    • “Most women have changed, many men have not.”

      Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.


      This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).

      Blaming men for women’s choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them.


      Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.


      Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.


      • Female Feedback says:

        I think the goal is shared parenting, shared earning, not men becoming economic dependents or “primary parents.” You need to learn to negotiate, to share power, to be accountable, to trust, etc.

        This seems to be a trend in your posts, Denis – the desire to be taken care of like a baby, the claims of victimization and being blamed “by women,” and the need to be “in charge” of parenting.

        Also, you don’t grasp the concept of emotional availability/empathy in parenting.

        • I’m simply proclaiming the original goals of feminism, equality.

          Maternal gatekeeping determines father involvement. I don’t have any illusions about men being in charge. It’s clear that women are holding all the cards and have all of the funding and privileges.

          • There is not a crisis level of men being kept from taking care of their kids.

            There is not.

            The vast majority of women who are single parents are doing so because of men who have litte to no desire to take care of their kid. Financially or otherwise.

            To make a mountain out of a molehill is classic diversion.

          • According to psychologists Joan Kelly and Judith Wallerstein, 50 percent of mothers “see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children” after divorce (Surviving the Breakup, p. 125).

            Researcher Sanford Braver notes that “40 percent of mothers reported that they had interfered with the noncustodial father’s visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse (“Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1991).”

            Research recently published by Ohio State University professor Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan and graduate student Elizabeth Cannon indicates the importance of mothers’ actions and decisions in influencing the degree and nature of fathers’ involvement with their children. “Mothers can be very encouraging to fathers, and open the gate to their involvement in child care, or be very critical, and close the gate. . . . This is the first real evidence that mothers, through their behavior, act as gatekeepers by either fostering or curtailing how much fathers take part in caring for their baby.”

            As Schoppe-Sullivan sums up, “Mothers are in the driver’s seat.” So, while we’re in the process of making calls to personal responsibility, we must not call only fathers to task. We must also call mothers to task and condemn behavior that excludes or hampers fathers’ involvement with their children. When a mother getting a divorce seeks sole custody, we should question the reasons for this attempt to exclude the father from any decision-making role with respect to the children.


        • Code blue, green and white


    • Female Feedback says:

      Also Kyle Pruett, Marc Vachon, Jeremy Adam Smith, John Badalament.

    • Compare and contrast the male feminist Michael Kimmel with the radical feminist Valerie Solanas.

      “It’s feminists who are really “pro-boy” and “pro-father”—who want young boys and their fathers to expand the definition of masculinity and to become fully human.”


      -Kimmel is suggesting that traditional masculinity is not fully human. Is the same true about traditional femininity?

      Valeri Solernas suggests the same…

      “To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.”…“He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes”


      I wonder how Kimmel maintains his conscience, when he also describes historical attitudes about black males as such:

      “The “Brute” image of the African American male, on the other hand, represented him
      as an aggressive subhuman who needed to be controlled. This image, which has persisted
      since Emancipation and Reconstruction, was most notably associated with the theme of protecting the virtue of white womanhood. The Brute was portrayed as a primitive, animal-like creature, who was noted for his sexual prowess but unable to control his sexual impulses. In addition, the Brute was violent and prone to stealing, rioting, and fighting. Both the media images of the African American male criminal and the “driving while black” phenomenon of racial profiling are present-day carryovers of the Brute image.”

      So…what’s the effect of societal misandry then?

      • YES…. both traditional gender roles are not fully human.

        • Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an “enemy image” of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

          An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one’s own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one’s own group with the vices of the “outside” group. In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.

          While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

          Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

        • “traditional gender roles are not fully human.”

          Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an “enemy image” of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

          An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one’s own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one’s own group with the vices of the “outside” group. In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.

          While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

          Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

      • Bravo, sir. You hit the nail right on the head.

        The future of the American male in general can be seen by looking at the African American male today. Radical feminism’s handiwork can be seen right now; they sold the African American woman a bill of goods, telling them that they don’t need their husbands and men. They entered into a media campaign that disparaged the African American male as a source of revulsion and scorn. We were being portrayed as thugs, rapists, criminals, and other undesirables. And lo and behold, look at what our young men have become….

        They convinced our women that they didn’t need us in their lives and as a result, we have a new generation of fatherless African American women and men who disrespect themselves, and each other as a matter of course. We refer to our women as “bitches and hoes,” and our women only look at men as either a source of an illicit erotic thrill or a wallet to be exploited.

        And now the same things are being done to men in general.

        Welcome to the future, gentlemen of America…it’s been our present-day for more than 30 years.

    • Yep, don’t ever feel sorry for men. Women always have it way worse.

      I’m totally against the normal shaming tactics of feminist ideologues so if this appears to be one I assure it is not…

      I hope you have no sons. You are unfit to raise one and I doubt you’d let the father do so either.

  36. Well I think the aforesaid men are cute The unfortunate part is that I am not willing to break a nail, just to get a good pay cheque. (surely I jest I don’t do my nails.)

  37. Articles like this WSJ piece say more abut the writer than the subject matter.

  38. Peter C. (UK). says:

    A human civilization that chooses to sneer in the face of its young males, sneers at its future.

    Women, by deciding to board the social and political vehicle of feminism, have chosen a route that ends with a broken rail hanging over a precipice – for both their society and for the long term status of women in it.

    • Sneer? Colleges around America are employing a young male affirmative action program desperately trying to keep up male numbers.


      • Um…excellent name choice Um… I don’t suppose you’d care to cite some evidence for this affirmative action program that seeks out men?

        While we’re on the topic, why do you suppose the male number are down in the first place in our “male dominated society” where women are so oppressed and disadvantaged?

  39. @alpha_sahd says:

    A beer does sound good…

  40. Very well said, Mr. Matlack. I have generally been at odds with the what I perceived to be something inherent in the title “Good Men Project,” that might seem to infer that men, generally speaking, need some sort of overhaul.

    But today I get to see that title in a different light. And it is a pleasure to see a voice emerge in this publication that could indicate that “Good Men Project,” might just mean, at least in part, a badly needed rehabilitation of the mentality about men in the mainstream media; indeed, in the population at large.
    Bottom line is that most men are good, and looking to be the best people they can be all by themselves. They are good husbands, good fathers and good members of society; much more dominated by Einstein’s than Frankenstein’s.

    This WSJ claptrap has dominated the MSM’s take on men for decades, eclipsing any amount of misogyny that was ever there, a long, long, time ago.

    • Lisa Hickey says:


      This is a great articulation of what the Good Men Project originally set out to do, thank you:

      ” ‘Good Men Project’ might just mean, at least in part, a badly needed rehabilitation of the mentality about men in the mainstream media; indeed, in the population at large.
      Bottom line is that most men are good, and looking to be the best people they can be all by themselves. They are good husbands, good fathers and good members of society; much more dominated by Einsteins than Frankensteins.”

      Appreciate the comment and the dialogue.

      • “This is a great articulation of what The Good Men Project originally set out to do”

        I hope you take minimal offense when I say this then, but you’ve done an appallingly bad job at communicating that. Or living up to it.

      • I don’t know if most men today are good or most are not, and I’m not sure I care whether good men are in the majority or the minority. I was just hoping for a more reasonable approach to the issue than what the article uses. It could be that “good men” are disappearing from society, but the article to my mind does not present a good case to prove it. Whether or not most men today are “not good” is less important than some other questions:

        1) What does it mean to be a good man, exactly? Are these expectations realistic and healthy?
        2) How would you even calculate how many are good and not good? What counts as good evidence?
        3) How do they compare with men in the past? Is this really a population that has declined in numbers?

        Whether or not most people are fundamentally good or fundamentally not good seems to me a matter of philosophical assumptions that will probably never be provable one way or the other. Again, I’m not sure most men today are being the best they can be, but I SERIOUSLY doubt men are somehow far WORSE than ever, on the whole.

    • Female Feedback says:

      You’ve accurately summed up MRAs (or as I like to call them “men’s prvilege activists”) not the GMP.

      If men want to be “all by themselves” and not be in relationships then don’t be in them. But don’t cry “misandry” because people don’t want to take care of you like a little baby. And please, please get a vasectomy so you don’t subject a child to you need to “be all by yourself” and be treated like a baby.

      • Even more to the point, don’t have a baby because feminist ideologues like you will deny him the right to be a parent to the child and make him a wage slave to support the child’s abusive mother while she brings in a parade of gangsters and thugs to satisfy her “bad boy” craving with the full support of feminist groups that will give her pro-bono legal representation against the biological father and in support of her “alternative family” dynamic. All while making excuses for her abusive behavior like PMS, post-partum depression, battered woman syndrome, learned helplessness, etc, etc and claim that his efforts to prove parental alienation in court are based on “junk science.”

  41. I know you are out there because I read you journal, and I am very open-minded, but I can’t find Good Men Project men. So many of you commentators sound so angry with us. How will things ever improve?

    • “How will things ever improve?”

      Men in every civilized country have the right to claim:

      1. That paternity be routinely established using DNA testing.
      2. That an established paternity automatically enable the same rights and responsibilities as an established maternity.
      3. That the default arrangement after a separation be joint legal and physical custody of any children; only to be changed if the parents voluntarily decide to do so, or if one of the parties be determined unfit to be a parent by a court of law.
      4. That women’s shelters receive no government grants unless they are transformed into human shelters, where all victims of domestic violence can get the help they need (women, men, children).
      5. That all human shelters be run professionally, under the same strict standards as those of other social services.
      6. That the military be staffed by people who apply voluntarily, and who receive a fair and reasonable compensation for the risks they assume.
      7. That conscription be used only for extreme reasons of national safety, and that such a measure be gender neutral.
      8. That the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” be upheld at all times, including allegations of rape or sexual harassment.
      9. That gender research be as free from ideology as any other academic field.
      10. That male expendability be recognized as a major gender issue.
      11. That boys be allowed to be proud of their coming manhood.
      12. That schools recognize the needs of boys and the learning styles of boys, so as to give them a fair chance of performing well.
      13. That men’s groups be given the same legal and practical opportunities as women’s groups to obtain funding.
      14. That male sexuality be portrayed in a positive and encouraging manner.
      15. That male circumcision only be legal for adults who voluntarily choose this kind of surgery.
      16. That prisons be organized in such a way as to prevent rape and other forms of assault.
      17. That meritocracy be the governing principle in the labor market, and that all forms of affirmative action and gender quotas disappear.
      18. That misandry be opposed just as vehemently as misogyny.
      19. That all legislation discriminating against men be made gender neutral or removed.
      20. That the historical sacrifice of the male gender role be recognized to the same extent as the historical sacrifice of the female gender role.

      • Lisa Hickey says:

        Thank you for this Denis. It is helpful to see the issues spelled out so clearly.

      • I recently sent Pelle Billing an email encouraging him to submit to GMPM. I am in awe of his clarity and ability to articulate to the uninformed.

      • Denis, I have some questions about a few of the things you have proposed here:

        4. That women’s shelters receive no government grants unless they are transformed into human shelters, where all victims of domestic violence can get the help they need (women, men, children).

        This seems fair but unworkable to a large degree. Many women that are victims of domestic violence have not only been beaten, but have also been sexual assaulted, even sexually tortured, and are terribly traumatized. A women’s shelter is to be a safe haven from that type of abuse and from their husbands, hence why men can’t enter.

        I can certainly see the need for fairness on this issue. There certainly should be shelters for men, and also separate shelters for men with children, but to forcibly put them all under the same roof seems unnecessary given the circumstances.

        16. That prisons be organized in such a way as to prevent rape and other forms of assault.

        I have no idea how they would eradicate these occurrences other than to keep each prisoner solitary.

        19. That all legislation discriminating against men be made gender neutral or removed.

        Could you be specific as to what legislation you are referring to? The majority of laws have been written by men after all.

        20. That the historical sacrifice of the male gender role be recognized to the same extent as the historical sacrifice of the female gender role.

        Again, the majority of history has been written by men. White males specifically. One has to actively search to find information on most female historical figures, as well as African American males (outside of Martin Luther King Jr.).

        • “separate shelters for men with children, but to forcibly put them all under the same roof seems unnecessary given the circumstances.”

          Actually, the amount of women who are so traumatized by severe violence to create fear of all men is small and should be removed to different facilities. They should not be interacting in a family environment with children present. Otherwise, the majority of domestic violence cases are CCV aka reciprocal family violence. Separating genders only creates divisions and misunderstanding and reinforces gender bias of staff. One thing that I have learned is that men and women can find solidarity and understanding in their common experiences.

          “prisons be organized in such a way as to prevent rape”

          The status quo is that it is ignored and a normal part of confinement. Doing something is better than nothing.

          “that all legislation discriminating against men be made gender neutral or removed.”

          VAWA, mandatory draft registration to name a few, but most especially feminist jurisprudence and it’s effect on the presumption of innocence, evidentiary requirements and training of law officers. Where is the council on Men and Boys?

          “That the historical sacrifice of the male gender role be recognized to the same extent as the historical sacrifice of the female gender role.”

          This is a direct shot at feminist’s demonization of traditional male roles. That time has passed, but it should be respected.

        • “16. That prisons be organized in such a way as to prevent rape and other forms of assault.

          I have no idea how they would eradicate these occurrences other than to keep each prisoner solitary.”

          FYI, it’s only in America that prison rape is considered a normal part of detention. It doesn’t work that way in Europe.

          • So what is it that they do in Europe to prevent this? Does anyone know?

          • In groundbreaking reports, Human Rights Watch documented the failure of correctional leaders to take prison rape seriously. Complaints of rape were not investigated; victims who reported rape often suffered retaliation by the perpetrators. Staff who abused inmates were rarely, if ever, fired. Inmates who sought protection from brutal rape by other inmates confronted indifference and sometimes even staff complicity.

            “Prisoners will only be safe if they are confined in facilities whose officials have instituted zero-tolerance policies and are committed to rigorous internal monitoring and external oversight,” said David Fathi, director of the US Program at Human Rights Watch. “The standards provide a practical, feasible roadmap. All that is needed now is the commitment to follow it.”


          • Prisons are run by men and that most correctional officers are male. Seems like this would be a great focus for the men’s movement.

            The problem is clear. How to prevent it is not.

          • @ Dana, more funding per prisoner, just like the female prisons.

          • Dana, the MRM is well aware that men in power, and their attempts at “chivalry” are a large part of the problem. What is frightening is how little women are concerned by the adverse effects of feminism on men.

          • This is a human rights issue, it shouldn’t ignored by anyone.

            Chivalrous men in power are definitely a problem, but the root of their power are those that support them. Women make up more than 50% of the electorate. Do they not care about human rights?

    • “So many of you commentators sound so angry with us. How will things ever improve?”

      We sound angry because we ARE angry. We are getting angrier every single day we are ignored, misused, mischaracterized, and opposed. When ideology stops being the main concern of those who oppose MRAs, and actual discussion and more importantly CHANGE happens, then, and really only then, does anyone have the right to ask men to stop being angry.

      • Oh please. The idea that men are ignored in American society is beyond ridiculous.

        No one is saying that men don’t face challenges in our society, we all face challenges. The idea of the male of the species as somehow downtrodden is laughable.

        I agree, too many of the commentators sound unnecessarily angry. If you as a male think this society is set up to work against you, that you are treated like second class citizens, you couldn’t possibly handle being a woman for five minutes and you are definitely delusional.

        • Men die 7 years younger.
          Men are 93% of occupational deaths
          Men are 74% of homicides
          Men are 75% of suicides
          Men are 75% of homeless

          Boys are 40% of post secondary and dropping.

          When girls had problems in math or science, and were underrepresented in law and medicine, we asked parents, schools and political leaders to take responsibility. Now boys have problems. We need to take responsibility.

          One study, compiling the data from student satisfaction surveys which collected information about all aspects of student life including non school related experiences was particularly interesting. Male students always had longer work weeks in addition to being full time students. Male students also routinely reported higher levels of stress and lack of time for study. Female students rarely had such problems. Here is the real kicker: a higher percentage of male students regularly indicated that they felt discriminated against by administration and faculty.

          The scope of student support services available exclusively to female students in Higher Education ensures there is no shortage of crisis centers, hotlines, advocacy and student aid offices set aside exclusively for female students. If you are a female you can always find a shoulder to cry on if you are stressed, an administrator to help you out with your academic problems and, most importantly, a monetary handout from some grant organization set up specifically for female students if they need it. Male students get none of these things

          • Denis,
            I must say that most of these things don’t have any clear causal connection to the idea that men are ignored.

            Men die 7 years younger. – We’ve heard this for years, but the majority of medical research is done by males and done on males – outside of breast cancer of course -, I’m sure there is a reason for this but it’s definitely not because male health has been ignored.

            Men are 93% of occupational deaths – Very possibly true, but this would have more to do with the occupation one chooses than one’s gender it would seem.

            Men are 74% of homicides – Again, where is the correlation to men being ignored? According to the Bureau of Justice the statistics pan out as follows:

            Most victims and perpetrators in homicides are male
            Male offender/Male victim 65.3%
            Male offender/Female victim 22.7%
            Female offender/Male victim 9.6%
            Female offender/Female victim 2.4%

            So clearly men choose to attack other men far more than women choose to attack men.

            Men are 75% of suicides – I would think this stems from a wide variety of circumstances.

            Men are 75% of homeless – This is definitely a big problem.

            As a female that went to college I can agree that there are services set up specifically for women – rape crisis centers, domestic abuse center etc., but I can also say from personal experience that ‘crying on the shoulder’ of an administrator was not allowable. Feeling ‘discrimination’ by faculty and administrators may or may not be valid. It would depend upon the situation.

            I also feel the part about male students working longer hours could be less about being ignored and more about the type of jobs they choose or the hours they choose to work.

            Many of these examples are hard to say anything about without more in depth information on the specific issues.

          • “So clearly men choose to attack other men far more than women choose to attack men.”

            Are you blaming the victims?

          • “Men are 75% of suicides – I would think this stems from a wide variety of circumstances.”

            One of the risk factors cited by the WHO is societal marginalization and isolation.

          • Denis,

            “So clearly men choose to attack other men far more than women choose to attack men.”

            Are you blaming the victims?

            Seriously? You’re actually going to use the ‘Are you blaming the victims’ card on this one? Quite obviously my point was that men being the victims of homicide more than women doesn’t appear to have anything to do with men being ignored, by society or otherwise. If anything it’s because men are being targeted – by other men.

            “Men are 75% of suicides – I would think this stems from a wide variety of circumstances.”

            One of the risk factors cited by the WHO is societal marginalization and isolation.

            What are the other risk factors? Is societal marginalization and isolation the number one factor? I ask because I wonder if this particular occurrence has anything to do with our woefully pathetic mental health system, which is a whole other issue entirely.

          • You say men are 75% of murder victims… I also ask… how many were killed by other men? How is this newfangled misandry… if anything, it’s man on man hatred, nothing new here… how is something you now blame on women?

            And men are NOT 75% of homeless. Not even close. Your stats are wrong.

            Why do men die 7 years younger? Explore the actual reasoning behind that… you might find it has zero to do with women and for you to be blaming women superiority somehow has some hand in that is preposterous. Other statistics show men eat much more unhealthfully and their level of cholesterol thus becomes higher and more apt to get heart attacks, etc.

          • Um, I wasn’t blaming women for misandry, male disposability or general neglect. It is a societal problem, but feminists are part of the blame (not women). Not all feminists are women and not all women are feminists.

            If you are disputing the numbers perhaps you should state your source?

            Men’s health is a serious problem. There is less than 1/10 the funding for prostate cancer research even though the incidence and mortality rates are nearly the same as breast cancer.

          • Dennis… you want feminists to bend over backward to worry and hand wring over mens problems. Sorry. We don’t have time for that. We have our own problems we need to work on as women. If you have issues you think men need help with… GO HELP THEM. Stop this nonsense on scapegoating feminism for everything. Jesus.

          • Sara…why are feminists (like yourself) trolling men’s sites and crapping on men, don’t you have something better to do?

            What’s Wrong and What Right with Contemporary Feminism?

            By Christina Hoff Sommers.

            A worthy read for anyone who cares about justice and equality.


            “gender feminists tend to see conventional masculinity as a pathology and the source of much of what is wrong in the world”

        • @Dana

          Your logic is breathtakingly poor.

          You said:

          “Well the facts of whom have historically made the rules, created and passed the laws, etc. in society make it clear whom has been the favored gender.”

          And just who in society made the rules? Were they made democratically by all men or by the Alpha Males? Were the Alpha Males showing consolidarity with the men that were the work horses of industry and society and protectors of woman, children and country? Just because the man on top has a penis doesn’t mean he will show good will towards men. Here’s a new flash for you, men on top don’t feel challenged by women — they are pursued by hordes of them. They don’t need to oppress women out of fear that women will topple their regime.

          Feminists always look at a man and top and claim discrimination in favor of men. Just because I’m king of the hill doesn’t mean I will show mercy for the rest of my sex, many of whom are just waiting to topple me over and take my place to get access to the best women. Alpha males make laws to oppress the men just as much, or more, than the women.

  42. I like how Hymowitz’s piece relies on “evidence” from comedienne commentary (Does that make VH-1’s “I Love the 80’s” a documentary?), movies, more movies, generalizations, off-point statistics, and romantic bitterness. Really, this is a boring rant-style stand-up sketch more than anything else. Where has all the good writing gone?

  43. I’m in no hurry to grow up. I’m 34 with no kids and no spouse, and most days I do, in fact, just have another beer.

    Perhaps I owe more to the single women of my generation who feel they would enjoy their lives more if only I’d become a “good man”. But I doubt it. I’m good enough.

  44. When women began stepping in and fighting for the traditional male role of wage earner and provider for the family, many young men decided to drop out of their role of provider and protector, and just went on “vacation”. Can you blame them?

    • Women’s fight for liberation was complimented by vigorous societal misandry against traditional male roles. Women got a step up by stepping on men and men in power(patriarchy) had no compunctions about helping to step on men, because that’s what they do. Patriarchy has never been about controlling women, they controlled other men so that women support them.

      When boys are taught that they are dominant, aggressive and sex-obsessed animals eventually they begin to believe that they are worthless.

      • Men have been taught from the beginning of time that they are dominant, aggressive, and sex-obsessed.

        Nothing has changed. Only that women go to work now. And some men, present company it seems, are threatened by that.

        • Threatened by women in competition? Is affirmative action competition?

          Women still can’t compete at the highest levels of athletics, math or science. Fewer women are interested in competing for CEO and high level political positions.

          Societal misandry is the problem.

          • What basis do you say women cannot compete at highest level of athletics? Have you not seen the Olympics? They do have wimmin there… ya know.

            Oh btw… in science/math… look up Grace Parker, Marie Curie… and the women “computers” of WWII.

            Go away misogynistic troll.

          • LMAO…

            The real question is “have you seen the Olympics?”

            You see any sports where men and women compete?

            The champion of the men’s Special Olympics could probably beat the champion of the Women’s Olympics in almost any support.

            The Gold Medal winner of most women’s sports would not even qualify to compete for a position on the men’s teams.

          • We’re a little off-topic here, but what the heck, I’ll join in.

            The equestrian events at the Olympics have men and women competing together.

            There are sports where men and women could easily compete at the same level but are still needlessly segregated. There are male and female sharpshooting competitions at the Olympics, and I don’t see how musculature differences play a role there. And, come on, separate curling events for men and women?!?

            I don’t know for sure, but do men actually ski downhill faster than women on the same course?

            Here’s one I’ll get no support for — why not get rid of separate acting Oscars for men and women? There aren’t separate Oscars for female directors or male directors. Let’s have just one award for best acting job and one award for best supporting acting job. Period.

        • Code Yellow


          • Um, after 40 years of feminism, women still can not compete against men at the highest levels of athletics, math or science. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare.

            Stating this fact doesn’t make me a misogynist but maybe Larry Sommers was right.

            Women have been given every opportunity to win their independence and if, after all this time, they have not liberated themselves and thrown off their shackles, we can only arrive at one conclusion: there are no shackles to throw off.

  45. “The arrival of Playboy in the 1950s seemed like the ultimate protest against male domestication; think of the refusal implied by the magazine’s title alone.”


    The arrival of Ms. Magazine in the 1970s was the ultimate protest against female domestication; think of the refusal implied by the magazine’s title alone.

    What does the GMPM represent if it is “under the wing” of Ms. Magazine?
    Male liberation or male domestication?

    There are some elements of truth in the WSJ article:

    “Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.”

    “Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway.”

    Why bother?

  46. Well, after describing men as baboons and cavemen, I’m quite surprised. Bravo!

    “Women are often described in the same universal, equally pernicious stereotypes.”

    When have you ever seen a major publication like the WSJ criticize women as a whole for their lack of contribution to society or for being party girls? Can you provide any examples?

    Their definition of “growing up” is marriage and that is the same disgusting standard promoted by GMPM. I hope this is signaling a change in philosophy, because Men Are Good and marriage is…my body, my choice.

  47. But Tom, what about the negative stereotypes of men that you promote? It’s Manginas like you who have made it not only acceptable, but mandatory to trash men at every opportunity. Isn’t it the same as you and your supporters have been insisting? Namely that men are pretty screwed up, worthless, in need of drastic change, suffering from outdated concepts of masculinity? Why is it okay for you to trash men, but not her?

  48. Yup, its one massive, misandric generalization.

    But let’s say to an extent it was true.

    Wouldn’t this mean that men are doing what they want with their time/money instead of what women want in a “suitable mate”? And since they know their wives/girlfriends can pick up their share of the tab they are not motivated to work to provide for a whole family on their own? I can see how that can frustrate some women, but as a whole I fail to see the problem.

  49. Most “Good Men” don’t take much notice of what the likes of Hymowitz and company have to say. As for the book? It’ll make good reading for those gals who are between relationships and a bit bitter about it all.

  50. PEOPLE today are growing up later. I get e-mail from strangers from across the country, and it’s led me to conclude that American adolescence ends at 30. Of course, that’s a generalization, and there may be some very mature 16-year-olds out there, but I find it generally to be true.

    • It’s not just America: it’s the same all over the developed world. Maybe the problem is that there just isn’t much to look forward to in adulthood.

      • LaC,

        You raise a good point here. Has the writer read the rest of the WSJ? It’s all about wars, corruption, incompetent law-makers and is dripping with the activities, photos and perspectives of men. There are very few references to women and mothers — or solutions. This article may make men look bad. But the newspaper makes what men do everyday look even worse. I think this feeds the laziness, powerlessness, gloom in men and a women’s perception of them. Here are our male heros? Where are our female heros?

        • Lorena Bobbit’s been all over the news and talk show circuits. When I think of the heros of feminists she’s the first one to come to mind for me.

          Not that I’d consider her a female hero personally. My mother is the first that comes to mind me there, but I’m not a feminist.

          But you want to really now why you see men not portrayed positively you should take a look at this video:

          Men are not men until they do something wrong.

          • OMGosh dude! Lorena Bobbitt? This is whom you consider a representative of feminism? A ‘Hero’ no less?!

            WAY. OFF. THE. MARK.

            A woman that maims another human being is no more a ‘Hero’ than Ted Bundy. That the word ‘hero’ ever be invoked in the same sentence with this woman’s name is a atrocity.

            That someone has been all over the talk shows makes her a hero? Is Paris Hilton next on your list?

            Feminist heroes include – but are not limited to – Madame Curie, Alice Paul, Joan of Ark, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, etc.

          • Yeah, Lorena Bobbitt is not a feminist hero. Not even close. Massive fail with this comment.

          • Well, the mainstream media have always been encouraging and supportive of Lorena Bobbitt.

            Here she is on TV recently She has a domestic violence organisation now – (and, like… OMG, now she has lighter hair!!)

            Notice the presenter at 2:08 – “Obviously, you were a victim of domestic violence yourself”

            SHE was a victim!!? She was a PERPETRATOR ffs!
            …at least she can finally laugh about it now, the poor poor woman. Jeez…

        • I think the female hero’s of the developed world are busy bashing men! Just like the article in the WSJ.

  51. Hmmm… intriguing.

    I wonder, since it seems that we are pigeon-holing all men here, how many factories, off-shore rigs, farms, and (dare I say as I am biased) military installations said woman is looking for these good men at?

    That’s the problem with statistics—they’re only as good as the control group. Let’s take a little broader focus, shall we? How about we break out and define what ‘man’ is first? We may discover that someone is being rather particular (or unreasonable) when it comes to finding this person. Somehow, I picture this person’s ideation as someone much like herself, in which case they will be at work, sparing no time for anything other than a fleeting moment of attention here and there.

    That being likely, by all means, you may as well visit the ‘bank’ because you don’t want a relationship, you want the benefits without the downside of one.

    Just my thoughts. Take them how you will.

    • In my experience, having dated several soldiers/cops… they mostly were not looking for Ms. Right as much as, Ms. Right Now.

    • Men face a lot of negative stereotypes, but sometimes they’re just the backlash against old positive stereotypes that society has become disillusioned with. Looking at it historically and objectively, I challenge you to find good solid evidence that there really were more “good men” back then (whenever the Golden Age was) and fewer now. Explain to me how they were really common back then and have disappeared recently.

      I hope the article and the criticism against it isn’t just more of the same “Greatest Generation” mythology or “why can’t we go back to the days when men were men?” stuff that American popular culture likes to invoke. This sounds a lot like the post-Vietnam era crisis in masculinity — “back in my day, we won our wars, and you younger kids are just not man enough.” The older generations are hardly the perfect model for appropriate male behavior. I say if you are going to judge men, judge them primarily on their own merits and not in contrast to an ideal that has never really existed.

  52. What’s wrong with bumming around in your 20s? Why does the WSJ think a man can only be successful if he settles down, mortgages his life away and procreates? And does Hymowitz really believe there are no women who do the exact same thing?

    The venom was dripping off the WSJ site when I read it, and Hymowitz comes off as a frenzied man-hater, which I think really damages her credibility. Not to mention that if a man wrote a scathing article similar to this one but made it about women, he’d be fed to the wolves. Yet it’s all too common for the Hymowitzs and the Hanna Rosins of the world to needlessly tear into men and not expect repercussions.

    Thanks for writing this Tom. It needed to be said.

    • What is the problem? Because when those guys biological clocks kick and they want babies at around 35 to 45… they think there are buxom, eager 20 year old women just waiting in the wings… most of them don’t want or respect women their own age b/c of this immaturity and clinging to old social norms that benefit them.

      That is what is wrong.

      Don’t believe me, see the OKTrends article about how men always skew way younger than themselves:

      • “most of them don’t want or respect women their own age”

        I’m an anomaly then because I like women my age, I would just never let them live with me or marry them.

      • Rather than “old social norms”, let’s blame the real culprit: old biological imperatives. We can build all the culture we want on top of it, but at its root, the drive to marry is the drive to find a mate and reproduce. In that respect, a woman in her 20s is much better than a woman in her 30s. On the other hand, a man in his 30s, or even 40s, is no worse than a 20-something in terms of reproductive potential. If he can bring more resources to the table, having attained a higher status in those extra years of life (and that’s pretty much how it works in all societies), then he’s actually better. That’s why youth carries much more weight in determining a woman’s attractiveness to men than it does in a man’s attractiveness to women. And that’s why, throughout history, we’ve seen older men marrying younger women.

        But this whole conversation seems off topic to me.

        • Denis, living with a woman you love does not equal ‘domestication’, as in: to be cultivated by and beneficial to human beings. Plenty of women love and live with some very awful men – and vice versa. Eva Braun comes to mind immediately.

          Whatever your – clearly negative – definition of domestication, you’re a grown man. Certainly you’re not so weak minded an individual you fear some female worthy enough for your love shall turn you into an evil entity.

          • I just have high standards, but I’m actually very domestic. I like kids, cooking, pets, gardening etc. I have no interest in sports, guns, cars, beer, etc.

            By the term “domestic”, I actually meant trained and bossed around. Most marriages that I have ever seen, the woman always rules the house. Perhaps that’s changing but I doubt it.

            The Man Song

        • LaC, a man’s sperm count begins to dip when he hits 30. Not only that, as a man ages, he produces more malformed sperm then his younger counterparts. Older fathers contribute to health issues just as much as older mothers do. Wouldn’t a man want to give his off spring the best possible chance of health by procreating in his own best possible years? And biologically, his best reproduction years are in his 20s. At the end of the day, it’s a man’s own children that will bare the brunt of his biological health, or lack of. So what you are describing is not a biological imperative but more of a social one where men were sold the lie that they can procreate until the day they die with no consequences. Because after all, what man wouldn’t want to believe that? But it’s not a biological truth.

      • Loathe as a I am to criticize such a reputable source as “OK Cupid” did you ever happen to notice that younger women go for older men? It’s called hypergamy. Look it up.

        • I’m a young woman. I go for guys my age. 90% of my friends also go for guys our own age. I just have one or two friends who outright said they only date older. They were also the same friends who said they won’t date or marry a guy who makes less money. In other words, they’ve been drinking the cultural may/december Kool Aid.

          • Well… that settles it then. “OK Cupid” was a pretty poor source for hard numbers but your anecdotal experience with your personal life and social group are surely representative of Western women.

  53. What Tom said.

    It’s very dangerous and unhelpful to generalize and stereotype based on gender (or race and religion). Not what I’d call a proactive approach.

    Let’s work together to help us all step up!


  54. Yep. Since I started being a teacher at a boy’s school, I saw that my previously-held belief that people would meet the expectations you have of them was truer than ever.

    If you expect that people are going to be idiots, or underachievers, then that’s what you get. If you demand that people step up, or if you challenge them to do better with themselves because you expect more, inevitably they will. High standards means an end to the shitty culture of low expectations: the image of the incompetent guy who is unable to wash a shirt or heat a meal in the microwave comes from the same place as the man who can’t be expected to control his impulses if a woman in a short skirt walks by comes from the same horseshit toxic place.

    • Bec, you’re opening first line–perfectly put.

      • Yep, “give a dog a bad name….”

        Men have been called assholes, jerks, rapists, pedophiles, dead-beats, batterers and oppressors of women for 40 years now. Even worse is that the legal apparatus has largely shifted to presume these things as well.

        Contrary to the WSJ’s article’s that “No one needs them [men] anyway. There’s nothing they have to do,” this society is, even today, built and sustained by men. Men who are invisible to her because they don’t meet the standards dictated by her hypergamous nature. Will she marry a garbage man if he’s actually very intelligent, kind, articulate, a good cook, nurturing, good looking and would make a good father? HELL NO. She probably wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.

        While on the subject of garbage men, why aren’t politically correct feminazi’s up in arms about such a sexist phrase? Shouldn’t it be “garbage person?”

        • @ Carlos

          Stratified perception from the pedestal desert. Apparently the sands of time are encroaching.
          Actually feminists are overlooking the uniqueness of garbage men. Their schedule would fit right in with family court visitation. An unexploited feminist resource.

          I guess “wall street” has turned into “whine street”…………..hey ladies, “womb up”

        • Er, I am a feminist, and part of that entails expecting good things of *everyone*, and not relying upon assumptions of gender stereotypes. In fact, I would say that feminism underpins good educational practice with boys, and my own professional experience has shown me that high expectations, respect and relating to them as individuals rather than as a homogeneous mass are extremely important.

          • Err.. I’m confused. I get it that you are a different “flavor” of feminist than the “all men are rapist” kind, but beyond that I’m not sure where you are going. You sound like you are trying to contradict me while making an analogous or complementary claim.

            I say “give a dog a bad name…” and you say “high expectations, respect and relating… are extremely important.” Two sides of the same coin aren’t though?

            Feminism may be underpinning something with boys but it’s not good educational practice. As far as that goes all I hear is the “WAAAAYMBULANCE…” shrieking that “girls are being oppressed in math and science” and ignoring boys altogether… if not throwing rocks at them (cause their stupid.)

          • Carlos, I’m struggling to see where I even *mentioned* girls in my reply to you. What happened was you agreed with my beliefs and then said that anyone who doesn’t must be a “man-hating feminazi”. (Me being a man-hater would certainly come as fresh news to my employers, family and fiance – not to mention the many parents who specifically request that I teach their sons). So unless you’d like a one-time-only offer of me teaching you how to read, I would be hesitant to pick up the phone to dial whine-one-one if I were you.


  1. […] How The Wall Street Journal Is Spreading Negative Stereotypes About Men — The Good Men Project Mag… […]

  2. […] pieces. Stay strong, I told myself.  This is about goodness not evil.  I’d written about the Wall Street Journal headline bemoaning the lack of good men. How many times had I counter-punched the Atlantic cover story announcing the end of […]

  3. […] beyond equality and to state, categorically, that not only all of the good men have disappeared, as the WSJ recently reported in one headline, but men, as a gender, have degenerated into just one more Charlie Sheen YouTube video gone […]

  4. […] importance as Fathers. The Wall Street Journal, the same paper that published a headline asking “Where Have all the Good Men Gone,” published a great piece by SUE SHELLENBARGER, “The Secret of Dads’ Success: How […]

  5. […] And I got all excited about the male stereotyping when the Wall Street Journal led with the headline: “Where Have All the Good Men Gone” and responded with this column. […]

  6. […] Good Men Project This entry was posted in 10 Things. Bookmark the permalink. ← Global Issues in Media Global issues in the media → […]

  7. […] Matlack weighed in on Kay S. Hymowitz’s Wall Street Journal piece when it first came out, as did Good Feed […]

  8. […] families.” We’ve seen this somewhere before, haven’t we? Oh yeah, we’ve written about it here, here, here, here, and everywhere else. Over at Gawker, Max Read hilariously hit it spot on: […]

  9. […] Hymowitz would probably say yes. But is that necessarily a bad thing? In the same issue of The Wall Street Journal that […]

Speak Your Mind