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
I’m just gonna continue to read your articles. Makes me happier than the mainstream drivel about how men are useless.
“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:
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2009/08/paul-elam-psychology-of-hate.html
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.
To protect the womynz feelings?
Oh come now. You’re smarter and better than this.
Why are feminist man-hating trolls commenting at a men’s site?
Opining that a site needs moderators is neither feminist, or man-hating.
Right? Another excuse for the future George Sodinis on this site to blame women for the problems caused by patriarchy. There’s nothing wrong with misogynist slurs and hateful attitudes towards women (the stereotypes about US are true, as one poster explained), but if a woman says, “Hey stop that. And could you do your fair share around the house?” she’s a “man-hater.” It’s foul and it’s frightening.
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.
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”
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?
if you are a genius you don’t have to follow a moral code? Manson thought he was a 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.
Um… = TROLL
Your arguament trumped hers, so she resorted to the old “misogynist” calling.
And even going to the extent of inventing quotes that she claims you wrote, no less.
Well done, John A! *applause*
Did you just call the women in your family lazy… or jut incapable of ambition?
They just had other priorities.
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.
Please explain how you have been “oppressed” as a gender?
Considering that men willingly die for the safety of women, who’s oppressing who?
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/whos_oppressing_who/
Dana
Women have been protected and cared for. Oppressed here in America? Really? Women have had protected special class status forever. Now, women have supremacy status. A government run by men does not mean a government for men. All the institutions favor women.
“Considering that men willingly die for the safety of women, who’s oppressing who?”
Women in the military are more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than die in battle. Protect women? Really! You’re absurd.
WTF
That says more about their risk of dying in battle than it say about the risk of rape.
@ 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.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/08/01/on-jury-nullification-and-rape/
Great article Tom.
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.
Amazing.
Jimmy,
Perhaps instead of showing yourself to be an complete jerk you could just state your case plainly?
Thanks.
Code red.
hxxp://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
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.
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.
http://www.pellebilling.com
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.
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2742
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.
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 AskMen.com 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.
hxxp://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
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.
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.
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.
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.
hxxp://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
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……………………..you 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.
Carlos,
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.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3939
What about the children…
GROWING UP WITH A PROBLEM THAT DOESN’T EXIST
“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.
breakingthescience.org/GrowingUp.php
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.
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Relationships/Male-Domestic-Violence-Victims/show/658915
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.
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.
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
The Wall Street Journal is wondering where all the “good men ” are ?
Did you expect to find them on Wall Street ?
@ Randolph I wish you could mark favorite comments.
@Peter C.
“A civilization that chooses to sneer in the face of its young males, sneers at its own future”
@Um
“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 .
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?
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.
http://www.articlesaboutmen.com/2010/09/feminism-the-birthplace-of-sexist-hypocrisy-911/
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
Reply from Feministe to this article:
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:
http://www.aifo.it/english/resources/online/apdrj/apdrj204/adolescent.pdf
…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.
@candidcutie
“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.
@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!