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:
About Tom Matlack
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.
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!
Pete
@todaysgent
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:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-case-for-an-older-woman/
“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.
This statement about yourself speaks VOLUMES. And not in a good way.
Are only domesticated married men “good”?
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Y0I91rubg
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.
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.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
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!!)
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/12/28/exp.nr.int.lorena.bobbitt.cnn?hpt=C2
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.
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.
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.
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?
Dedalus, I think you’re missing a difference between encouragement and demonization.
No Joel, you’re missing the difference between negative stereotypes (boys) and dehumanization (baboons)
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.
http://menaregood.com/
“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.”
Or…
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?
What in the world is “GMPM”?
good men project magazine
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
hxxp://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
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.
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.
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?
Here, here.
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.
http://www.pellebilling.com/2010/07/its-time-to-start-negotiating/
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.
That sounds great! One of our editors will reach out to him as well — thanks!
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.”
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/23/us-prevent-prison-rape
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.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20090108_ContemporaryFeminism.pdf
“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.
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.
Paul,
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.
No offense taken whatsoever. It’s our job to take where we are at any moment in time and make it better.
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.
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.
Code blue and black
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
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.”
A beer does sound good…
Word.
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.
PUH-LEESE…
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?
Articles like this WSJ piece say more abut the writer than the subject matter.
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.)
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.
hxxp://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/
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.
hxxp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243
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.
hxxp://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html
Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.
hxxp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm
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.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/07/05/Hubin_SAT_ART_07-05-08_A9_47AL90A.html?sid=101
Code blue, green and white
hxxp://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Also Kyle Pruett, Marc Vachon, Jeremy Adam Smith, John Badalament.
And Tony Porter.
And Alan Johnson (The Gender Knot).
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.”
hxxp://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=700
-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”
hxxp://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
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.