Nothing I have ever written has caused more controversy than a piece that I thought was pretty obvious and tame: “Cleavage or Soul.” In it I complained about how Esquire had turned their “Women We Love” feature from a thoughtful profile of cool ladies into porn. I quoted a few that sounded like Penthouse and even took a screen shot of the most highly rated from their website. The women are pretty naked. No argument there. I just asked the question whether men might be better served reading about soul than looking at cleavage. Dumb me.
I got attacked by woman who felt I had trampled on their sexual freedom, specially when the piece was posted on Jezebel. More than that I kicked the hornet’s nest of the Men’s Rights Activists over at The Spearhead. They started calling me “mangina” and threatening me with crossbows. I laughed and then I cried and then I did a response piece admitting my magina-nature.
It’s been a while now. I’ve had plenty more exposure to the Jezebel crowd and the MRAs. We devoted 10 days to investigating their claims. This led to a lot of great discussion … and a ton of crazy commenting. MRAs were (and still are) angry at us for being open-minded about women and women were angry at us for taking MRAs seriously. (Cue swarm of angry comments.)
My conclusion from all of this is that our mission at the Good Men Project is indeed critical. The pain and suffering of these men is clear. So is the continued anger by women who see men as the source of every problem. From its founding I had thought GMP could be an open forum for everyone to talk about manhood from whatever point of view you wanted to bring. I was wrong about that. Flinging insults and indulging in gender-conspiracy theories makes a crucial and challenging problem worse.
Yes, we will take on the most controversial topics out there: the sex trade, divorce, prison, war, race, sexual preference. But if we can’t talk about it with some amount of civility and compassion then we might as well skip it. The highlight of the GMPM experience for me has been to listen to the stories of men completely unlike me in every way. They teach me what it’s like to be gay or black or an inmate or a war photographer. I realize that no matter how different our experiences, we are all very much the same in terms of our struggles. It’s that core commonality that binds us together in this mission. Let’s try to focus on that even when discussing the tough stuff. And when it doubt, let’s try to laugh for goodness sake. If seeing me dressed up like the lead singer of KISS doesn’t bring a smile to your face, there’s nothing I can do for you.
Responses to Cleavage or Soul?
I stopped reading Maxim, Esquire, and other “men’s” magazines a few years ago simply because they were uninteresting. Is it athestically pleasing to look at women half clothed, sure. I’m a dude, I get it. But most of those magazines are for other women or gay men. Look at the ads.
I agree with your hypothesis but I’m also realistic. Magazines are trying to sell copies, not enrich my soul. Rolling Stone stopped being about music 10 years ago when they featured Britney Spears, who can’t sing, on their cover three times in 18 months, I got it, they wanted to make money, If I wanted to read about Radiohead’s next album, I should go elsewhere.
—Lance
What a refreshing experience, to read an article written by a man with such an (excuse me), honest and “evolved” perspective. Women don’t want to think of our men as “knuckle dragging cartoon characters,” even though we are aware that our brains are physiologically different and that you guys think about sex much more than we do, yet that’s the very image that so many men seem to want to perpetuate. Media geared towards and run by men only reinforces this cardboard cut-out image – that really serves no one. Attraction to “beauty” is natural. It’s part of human nature to be drawn to our ideals, so I certainly find no fault in lauding beautiful women. However, reducing beauty to nothing more than an object to be used by men and tossed aside is another matter altogether. If Esquire was as honest as you, Tom, they would call their section: “Women We’d like to F**k,” and be done with it. At least that way, they wouldn’t be tossing the concept of “love” into the same shallow pit.
—Brooke
I have a Maxim subscription, but only because it was free and I was curious just how bad it would be. I got my answer when they ran an article titled “How to cheat and get away with it.” Very, very bad.
I liken the difference between a vacuous supermodel and an average-looking-but-bright-and-pleasant woman to the difference between junk food and a steak dinner. The junk food might taste good but it won’t fill you up. Eat too much junk food and you’ll be sick. But the steak dinner, that will fill you up and will excite your taste buds on a whole different level.
The celebrity that I find the most attractive is Kari Byron from Mythbusters. She has a nice body, yes, but her head houses a sharp mind, not empty space. (Of course, I find my wife a lot more attractive than Kari, but the article was about celebrities.)
—TechyDad
I suspect that no matter our age, us men remain back in those high school days when certain things were expected of us if we were to be considered a “man.” Probably, most of us know it for the crock it is but remain afraid to speak out lest we prove ourselves different — and you know what different meant in High School.
—Bill
Pussified manginas like Tom Matlack needs to learn what its like to be a MAN…something this dude no nothing about !!!!
—SHA
Mr. Matlack is not saying that all men are stereotypical “knuckle draggers.” He’s not throwing them all in the same pot. Quite the contrary, he’s saying that some men are creating the problem for a lot of others. This is a call to action for all men who don’t fit the stereotype to stand up and be counted rather than give in the pressure of pop culture and Hollywood.
—Angela
I have no problem with men consuming porn. None at all.
I do have a problem though… there isn’t a single magazine by & for men… that actually extols the virtues of women for anything except their ass. Not a single lad mag or even ‘higher class’ mag has a single article on a woman who has achieved something that has nothing to do with her tits or ass.
In fact… the opposite is true. You will find nearly all portrayals of intrepid, intellectual women who fall short of Megan Fox looks will be negative.
—SweetAss
Responses to: Have You Seen My Mangina?
I liked your article about Esquire. It was not as much apologizing to women but saying to men, “wake the fuck up, the women are taking over”. The stats about college education are alarming. Not because women are empowered through education but because men as a gender have fallen behind as far as they have. Your work is a scary mirror to uneducated biased fucks who want to think we are still living in the 1950′s.
—Pedro
Can we make shirts that say “My Mangina is Bigger Than Yours”? I know Tom probably has the nicest one out there, but still. What’s so wrong with having a mangina? I think the bigger question of it all is in finding out when having a mangina became a problem in the first place? Defining masculinity is a difficult task. Defining an individual is a personal task. I like sweater vests and the fact that I can pick out matching clothes and hair clips for my daughter. I delight in knowing what kind of pads or tampons I need to stop by and get on my way home from work. I am thrilled with the fact that I can look at any other woman as just a person because sexy and beautiful to me is defined in my wife.
Tough and brawny don’t make a man. Huge muscles and the ability to kick an ass or two can be achieved by anyone, male or female. I say ‘Viva La Mangina”. Cheers to all the bros who proudly where their gina on their sleeve, a touch of fashion in their wardrobe, and a stick of reality in their pack of gum located in the murse.
—John Taylor
In your case, the mangina is the guy who tucks it away when nobody’s around to pretend he’s a chick because he seems to want to be one, or at least to be thought of as one of the gals. He’s always sucking up to the ladies and ripping on other guys. it’s quite obvious that he’s saying what he’s saying to guys because he wants the ladies to hear it and think he’s wonderful. It’s hard to say exactly what motivates this behavior but it’s always disgusting to people with any self-respect. Also, you aren’t fun or funny or even entertaining, just verbose and snotty.
—Joe
I knew you had a mangina when you talked about loving your kids and your smart, hot wife. What kind of pussy would openly discuss their emotions? Grow a pair, will ya??
—Jenn Weigel
I know the type of guy that espouses crossbows and mangina comments. They are the honorless bullies. The ones to whom glory, war and greed are all that matters. And I’d argue that the honorless attitude is what nearly destroyed America during the financial crisis of 2008.
I’d further argue that if we replace glory, war and greed with duty, honor, and country, America would be a better place. (That’s a lot coming from a gay guy quoting MacAuthur!). If anything, the pieces I’ve read of the Good Men Project are about how those more noble concepts fit into today’s word especially with respect to being a good dad.
—Chip
I’ve been a presurgical lesbian for a long time—lusting for women and wearing men’s clothes. I’ve delayed the surgery until such time as I might need a job and required some affirmative action. Tom may have same affliction. I hear he eats croissants and has clean fingernails, two qualities that never attract women who belch loudly.The mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging troglodytes terrified of women who are more than semen receptacles don’t have anything to worry about. Most women will leave them alone, too.
—Perry Glasser
I had been following Tom’s writing for a while, but even though we were in agreement on many topics, over time, my suspicion that Tom might be “tucking” started to grow the same way it would for a father who notices that little Johnny exhibits a real flair for shoes and hangs figure skating posters all over his room. But when Tom announced he was sticking with “The Good Men Project” as the name of his magazine, that’s when I knew without a doubt he kept “Jake the Snake” under wraps. To me, his over-use of the very docile sounding good hinted of “good boys” who always do what they’re told and continue this submissive behavior into adulthood. I guarantee, every unabashed “swinging Richard” out there doesn’t want to thought of in such bland terms as “good.” What red-blooded, American male goes to the vending machine and selects a Hershey’s Goodbar when he can get a PayDay or some other candy bar with nuts and the ability to really “satisfy” (if you know what I mean). I thought Tom could’ve at least toned down his “Emasculation Proclamation” by calling it “The Good Ol’ Men Project,” but going the route he did, made me realize Tom had transformed into his own ironic version of “Tucker Max.” In light of all the recent criticism directed at Tom, I guess it just goes to show that the logic of Kirk Lazarus’s Tropic Thunder advice to Tugg Speedman applies here too. Never go full Mangina.
—Ron Mattocks
Do you remember the Wesleyan Psych Professor who claimed to be a lesbian trapped in a man’s body? could he have gotten to you?Wearing stockings on a crazy cold row on the icy connecticut river men in tights is a major cause of Mangina has Pfizer created a treatment yet?
—alexander shapiro
I knew you were a mangina when you argued the validity of Esquire’s list of hot chicks with a list of smart chicks. Here’s the Non-Mangina Equation for that Hot Chicks > Smart Chicks. (Just kidding of course
)
—David Atchison
Bottom line, it’s hard to be happy, it’s hard to find lasting happiness in a long term relationship, sometimes it’s hard to get laid alot in a LTR. Woman and men are different, and the differences turn me on no end, and drive me crazy, but that’s what makes it fun. Life is much more nuanced than the “Maxim” model would suggest.
I like big tits as much as anybody, but at the end of the day, I know big tits are really meaningless- is that so hard to understand? Why blame the magazines and movies and porn for our “enslavement”- do we have no free will?
And no, I wouldn’t know if Jessica Simpson is sexier than Gwyneth Paltrow until I talked to both of them, because that is where sexiness really lives. DUH!!!
—DF
Wow. I feel like the mangina because Joel Stein, a self-proclaimed Nancy, used the word “cunt” and I said “c word.”
Tom isn’t advocating the pussification of America. He’s fighting the douchification of the American man. Pop culture (“the media”) manages to portray men as rods, doofuses and jags. On prime time TV, a number of the comedic characters are hapless men dragged around by their ball-busting wives whom they can’t leave because the husbands have out-punted their coverage in terms of looks. On reality TV, the cool dudes are borderline sociopaths who will do or say anything to drag some club trick back to their smash room. Are all guys really like that?
Esquire is a middle brow magazine who seeks to appeal to the greatest common factor in men. Apparently, it’s boobs. By that calculus, some of us like hot rods, some of us like politics, some of us like video games but all of us like the female body (sorry, 95% of us). And that’s great to beat off to but not someone to actually “love.”
I do disagree with a few of Tom’s stances, for instance, I know a few models who are interesting ladies. And his replacement list isn’t my cup of tea either (I’d rather jam honey up my culo and squat on a fire ant hill than hang out with Millionaire Matchmaker). But I appreciate the sentiment that we’re doing ourselves a disservice by perpetuating the bro-ed out stereotype of being a bunch of walking hard-ons who spend more time chanting “show us your tits” than thinking “how can I leave this shit hole a better place?”
We all know that character (or whatever intangible that you personally dig) goes further than a pretty face and great figure, because eventually you get tired of fucking even the sexiest of bodies.
Esquire is a fine magazine but the question remains, is a “man at his best” just fantasizing about sexing up seemingly vacuous women? Even Playboy interviewed Ayn Rand with the idea that there was more to being a well-rounded man than staring at a broad’s ample front porch.
And, for the record, tucking your junk is pretty hilarious even if you don’t add, “I’d fuck me.”
—Tom
[Original spelling and punctuation in comments has been preserved.]
About Tom Matlack
“We devoted 10 days to investigating their claims”.
It would be more accurate to say that you devoted 10 days mocking and attempting to invalidate the mens movement.
“MRAs were (and still are) angry at us for being open-minded about women”
More lies. The mens movement was quite rightly annoyed by the duplicity of the good mens project in approaching pretending to be genuinely interested., the anger has nothing to do with “being open minded about women”, the good mens project has a habit of making stereotypes of women as objects of moral superiority, victim-hood and worship, which isn’t being open minded about women at all, infantalising would be a more accurate description.
“and women were angry at us for taking MRAs seriously”.
By women in general, you mean feminists.
To me being “good” involves a certain amount of honesty.
Male Positive: Nope. Sorry. You’re dead wrong on this one.
The GMP ran pieces from MRA people for more than a week. To my recollection, none of those authors complained about unnecessary editing or a change in their content. Bottom line is you got a fair shake.
What you seem to be cranky about is the fact that GMP ran companion pieces that dared to disagree with your point of view. And being upset about that makes you look childish. This is a site based on discussion, and sometimes controversy since they often go hand-in-hand. It would’ve been irresponsible to simply promote your side without any perspective from those who oppose you. C’mon…
It’s clear you’re only interested in having this site espouse the MRA viewpoint, and anything that contradicts it is misandry, feminist and wrong. You can’t talk about honesty and maintain that attitude.
Daddy files, re suberfuge
The tgmp seems to have rewritten their introduction to the mens movement week piece to something more neutral but the first one was heavily biased and mocking.
Toms description of what happened is also a rewrite of history as the claim that the anger is because tgmp is “open minded about women”.
Here is how Ms. Magazine defined the mens right week here at the good mens project, how does this discription tally with your description or Toms?
“The Good Men Project has taken on the daunting task of introducing, unlocking and dismantling the so-called Men’s Rights Movement in a special series of posts this week.”
ht tp://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/tag/the-good-men-project/
Sorry about the run on post.
Daddy files
Also notice that yesterday when health and mortality gap was discused, it was framed in a political advocacy piece and that every writer and blogger seems to be a feminist, and none at all appear to be mens movement writers.
What you seem to be cranky about is the fact that GMP ran companion pieces that dared to disagree with your point of view.
Actually, they started off with an article that mocked and trivialized the men’s movement and their concerns, and the follow-up feminist articles did more of the same. What they did was akin to Fox News inviting progressive liberals to share their two cents, but first allowing Sean Hannity to mock them and then letting Tea Party members “analyze” the progressive movement. That is not a fair shake, although to GMPM’s credit they did allow the men’s activists who wrote articles to write whatever they wanted.
It would’ve been irresponsible to simply promote your side without any perspective from those who oppose you.
Yet the magazine does not invite a counter-perspective on the feminist and progressive articles they publish. Are they being irresponsible in doing that or are they just playing to their largely feminist (and ironically female) audience?
Ugh. Jacob/Male Positive, your disingenuousness here is breathtaking. We published 17 pieces in that special issue. 6 of them were by the leaders of the MRM who accepted our invitation: Elam, Moore, Billing, Sacks, Franklin, Zeta Male, and David Pisarra (not a leader but a self-described MRA).
5 more were pro-MRA and/or argued for the validity of MRA positions.
2 were 50/50 criticism/sympathy
4 were 50-100% critical
11-6 in @ 100% in favor of MRA positions. 15-2 sympathetic. Ratio would have been higher if more MRA leaders cared to participate. WTF are you talking about?
Then there was my piece. (Post forthcoming today about that, the above, and the Ms Magazine conspiracy hogwash.)
And I don’t recall a single one of those pieces being as venomous as what you let slide from Amanda Marcotte.
Henry,
Have you got a copy of the piece you wrote as an introduction that has now been rewritten, if you or anyone else can produce that, we can measure it against what yourself and Tom and are saying now?
I do hope someone can find it before your fourth coming hit piece in which you pretend that it was never published.
I have no clue what you’re talking about. What has been edited? Please enlighten me. … I have nothing to hide here, I stand behind everything I wrote, and nothing in that piece has been changed.
But — I can’t help but notice that you’ve now changed the subject. You have a problem with the fact that there was 1 or 2 pieces—out of 18—that hurt your feelings? I mean, what were you expecting. I really want to know.
Henry, I make a mistake, I’ve found your original intro piece. Which set the tone.
My feelings aren’t hurt because you hosted counter positions. Some of us in the mens movement were annoyed by the slant you chose to take, and the bringing in of feminist “experts” like the “expert” feminist opinions that followed on game and fathers rights, that either don’t know the subject or deliberately sought to mislead and miss-characterise. One of those feminists that was brought in to talk about the mens movement, a known misandrist is a supporter of at least one false rape accuser, who went on to be charged with child abuse and the murder of her male partner and the other, who bowed out of a debate with Paul Elam in which he was attempting to hide female domestic abusers and invalidate male victims of domestic abuse with feminist advocacy research, disgracefully – trolls just two mens rights sites and quotes and quotes out of context a minority of people making misogynistic commentary while supporting misandrist commentary on his own site.
From our perspective, it was a bit like bringing in a convicted rapist and Dick Masterson in to critique a rape (but only of women by men) awareness week.
Belanger, my point was not about how many MRA articles GMP published, but how MRAs were treated by the magazine. I do not think GMP would invite feminists to write about feminism and then invite writers from The Spearhead to write counter-perspectives on feminism. It would not matter how many feminists got published, it would be shameful to treat them that way, yet that is how GMP treated MRAs. I am not a MRA, but that kind disingenuous crap bothers me. Even if you disagree with someone, you allow them to present their positions without anyone taking potshots at them. That is I am talking about, and to be frank, as good men you should be better than that.
“Even if you disagree with someone, you allow them to offer their positions without anyone taking potshots at them” ???
You’re saying that it would be shameful to print articles on X, then also print articles that argue not-X? Really?
I can’t imagine that that’s what you’re actually saying. So I assume this boils down to what you call “potshots,” and by “potshots” I assume you mean something other than “alternative point of view” or “criticism.”
So define “potshot” for me, and I will explain to you, in excruciating detail, why you’re wrong to suggest that I’ve treated anyone poorly or that I’m not a good person.
__
And “Male Positive,” I’m still waiting for you to explain what you’re talking about. The piece that I wrote, “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement,” is still on this site and has not been edited since its publication.
You’re saying that it would be shameful to print articles on X, then also print articles that argue not-X? Really?
I do not see how this is a difficult idea. As I wrote above, you would not invite anyone from The Spearhead to provide a counter-perspective on feminism. It is not because they provide an “alternative point of view” or “criticism,” but because they clearly do not like feminists and would insult and mock feminists rather than actually critique feminist ideas. Why then would you allow two of the three feminist articles “critiquing” the men’s movement to consist of nothing but mockery and insults?
Potshot is defined as “1. A random or easy shot. 2. A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack”. Marcotte’s introduction paragraph meets that definition. I am sure you agree with her comment, but it is still a potshot. If you want to explain in excruciating detail why it is not, go for it. But no good man would defend that trite.
As for you trivializing and mocking MRAs, starting off with a quoted insult from a feminist and then the most egregious comment you could find from Paul Elam is a pretty good way to do that. It leaves a terrible first impression that your follow-up comments do not fix.
I’ll reply to this is in full soon, but let me take the last part first, as they say.
The Paul Elam quote I used was from the inaugural AVFM Radio Podcast, titled “Introduction to the Men’s Rights Movement.”
Summary, from AVFM Radio website:
The quote was not parsed or taken out of context. One ellipses in there was for readability, and in no way altered the meaning of the quote. It was from the first couple minutes of the program. That radio show debuted a couple of days before the MRA issue launched. Therefore, since Elam is undeniably a leader of the MRM, it represented the most up-to-the-minute, representative glimpse of what MRAs talk about / think.
As I said, I will respond in full to the questions you raise as soon as I have a chance. Still waiting for @MP to explain himself so I can clear up whatever he’s talking about there, too. But to suggest that somehow using that quote from Elam was “the most egregious example I could find” is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.
By that reasoning, how can you criticize my piece? You picked the most egregious part of it you could find. That’s a low blow, Jacob. I expect more from you.
Except that as a writer, I accept that what I write becomes part of the public record and is therefore subject to criticism. On that basis, I try not to write stuff that I won’t stand behind. This idea that MRA leaders should be protected from criticism of what they actually said is absurd.
I’m not trying to fix anything with follow-up comments. I stand by what I wrote. It was not perfect. There are some things that I do regret about the final product. But I stand behind it 100%. I don’t try to pretend that it’s not representative of what I actually think.
More to come …
Except that as a writer, I accept that what I write becomes part of the public record and is therefore subject to criticism. On that basis, I try not to write stuff that I won’t stand behind. This idea that MRA leaders should be protected from criticism of what they actually said is absurd.
Protection from criticism or protection from personal insults and attacks that are all venom and no substance?
Unless you’d be willing to let MRA contributors (as in submitting posts, not comments) have the same leeway you gave to feminists when it comes to insults.
- How is quoting somebody a personal attack?
- Please provide examples of personal insults so I can address them specifically.
- And to be clear, what you’re asking for is not a chance to bring the MRA message to more people through posts that advocate for your point of view / cause, but the opportunity to insult feminists? Given that, re-read my piece and provide examples of where I made demonstrably false statements.
Belanger,
What you quoted above was not the quote you used in your article. The above quote is harmless, although snarky. The original quote gives a completely different impression.:
It comes across as sexist, belligerent, and ripe with animus, and it is.
However, your piece was meant to introduce people to the men’s movement, and the first impression you gave your readers is that MRAs or anyone concerned with men’s issues ranging from father’s rights to sexual violence against men are stone cold f*** nuts. I do not think you did that unintentionally anymore than I think Bill O’Reilley unintentionally focuses on the looniest antics from the far left. I understand that you stand by your comments. However, that does not change that you trivialize them and their concerns at the start of your article. And as I noted — and you dodged — twice, you do not treat feminists in that manner.
Criticizing a third of your article is not nitpicking. Likewise, I doubt you expect much from me at all. As for criticizing men’s rights movement leaders, have at it. I would like see it since it has not happened yet.
Jacob.
Right. What I quoted above (and I clearly marked as a summary of the show from the AVFM radio website) was meant to illustrate that what Elam was doing was introducing the men’s rights movement, and therefore, that the quote from my piece is not only “fair game” but was chosen as being representative of the MEN’s RIGHTS MOVEMENT (as distinguished in the piece and in reality from other strands—mythopoetic, men’s studies)—because it is.
I didn’t say that you were nitpicking — or, I did, but I was clearly being facetious, pointing out the inanity of your position. Of course you are in the right to criticize what I wrote, because I wrote it for public consumption. I would expect nothing else. As opposed to, I guess, MRAs, who want for some reason for writers and people in general to ignore what they write and say—or at least, you know, the stuff that’s “sexist, belligerent, rife with animus.”
On feminists — first, we haven’t done a “Feminists” special issue (and we won’t, because this site is dedicated to men’s issues) but you can be sure that if we did, we would offer counterpoints to their position. For the record, I don’t, (have never, will never) identify myself as a feminist. I have never written a piece for this magazine about feminism, and I never will. I only rarely agree with the opinions/columns of Hugo Schwyzer and Amanda Marcotte. But they’re fantastic writers, and I respect them both for their passion and intelligence—just as I respect Paul Elam for his (which is why I asked him to contribute to the magazine, not just for the MRA issue, but to weigh in on marriage, violence, war, and any other topic of his choosing.)
Second/related, the line of argument you’re pursuing here—assuming I wouldn’t do something because you haven’t seen me do it—is logically fallacious. I’ve never seen your drive a car. Can I assume from that that you haven’t and you never will?
Third—and this is common among MRAs (duly noted that you don’t identify yourself as an MRA)—is that you mistakenly assume that Men’s Rights and Feminism are equal, diametrically opposed ideological positions. Comparing them is like comparing citrus fruits to granny smiths. One is a large group of ideologies that vary greatly from one sub-group to the next; the other is an individual subgroup belonging to a larger group of varying (often contradictory, though this is where the analogy breaks down a bit, since granny smiths don’t exactly contradict red delicious) ideologies, as I make clear in my piece.
If one of the most prominant MRA’s in the country is going around saying things like nearly all women are “semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men” — I mean really, that IS pretty stone cold f-ing nuts. What’s he going to do next, declare a fatwa or pogrom on women (we aren’t fully human, after all), round us up and put us all in camps? Maybe he should stop saying crap like that and people will stop thinking he’s nuts.
I’m a feminist and I believe in your project. Keep up the conversation.
Thanks Susannah!
The amount of anger and vitriol your pieces prompted is proof that, in spite of what we’d like to believe, issues between men and women are far from resolved. Instead, it seems like a lot of people bury them in polite company and then release them into comments on the Internet where they are anonymous and “safe.”
To me, the fact that you got backlash from both extremes indicates you are balanced in the middle, which is the right place to be
I admire you for it. Ignore the infantile name-calling and tantrums (“daddy, he made fun of me!” “you’re a doo-doo head!”) for the intellectually bereft reactions they are.
Angela I tend to agree that taking flack from everyone (okay both extremes) mean perhaps I am being rational. But that is alway a risky assumption…
Except that feminists are an extreme while the MRM truely fights for equality for ALL.
From its founding I had thought GMP could be an open forum for everyone to talk about manhood from whatever point of view you wanted to bring. I was wrong about that. Flinging insults and indulging in gender-conspiracy theories makes a crucial and challenging problem worse.
Yes, however, you brought that on yourself by playing to certain political bases instead of just discussing manhood in a neutral way. Let us be honest, the vast majority of the columns and articles featured here are written from a progressive liberal and feminist perspective. By choosing sides like that, you set yourself up for conflict. Likewise, the vast majority of the topics revolve around women’s issues or women’s perspectives of men’s issues. Again, that plays to a feminist audience and it sets up conflict. The nature of the magazine creates the dynamic for insults and conspiracy theories because the magazine has a very clear political lean.
If you balanced out columnists so there were some non-feminists or non-liberals present, that might neutralize the effect, but only to an extent because those people would just present the opposite extreme. You need to remove political angles and agendas if you want general or neutral discussions, or at least present both sides of the argument, otherwise you will continue to see the bickering.
Jacobtk honestly I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of political agendas. We have had Dave Cowens posting on why illegals should basically be sent back to where they came from to an investment banker starting a program to fund illegals education here in the states. I have no agenda. About gender, about war, about politics, about pretty much anything. What I care about is creating a place where men can tell their stories and hopefully inspire other men. I do like to write about thing that cause me to think, like the piece about Esquire. But it that causes death threats truly there is something wrong. Why do you, and so many other MRA advocates, have it in your mind that I am the devil for actually saying I like women, respect them, and do not ascribe to the theory that women’s shaming us is the core of all that we should talk about as men?
Why do you, and so many other MRA advocates, have it in your mind that I am the devil for actually saying I like women, respect them, and do not ascribe to the theory that women’s shaming us is the core of all that we should talk about as men?
I don’t even identify as an MRA but I see the problem right here. Its not about the things you say in relation to women. Its how you go about those things. You let feminsits post here with quite a bit of slack in how they talk about MRAs (Marcotte being the main evidence). I’ve actually been thinking about on a Love/Hate post about this site for a while.
I do like to write about thing that cause me to think, like the piece about Esquire. But it that causes death threats truly there is something wrong.
Sorry to hear you’ve gotten such reactions but I’ve been able to that just fine for about three years and have not gotten a single threat like that.
Tom, if the magazine did not come across as progressive and feminist-leaning, feminists would have nothing to do with it. They would not support anything that did not adhere to feminist views. Yes, there are articles by people of varying political positions about various things. However, the prominent articles and the blog feed tend to lean left and little feminist. That political lean prompts the conflicts.
I have not sent you any death threats (I prefer to make them in person and using sporks), but if you got some you have sympathy. And, for the 678th time, I am not a MRA. Stupid, cowardly, lame, immature, geeky, unmanly, whiny, shiftless, creepy, and unclever, yes. MRA, no.
Tom, As I posted on AVFM a while ago, it was thanks to TGMP that I became acquainted with the MRM and I will always be grateful to you and your colleagues at TGMP for that.
I don’t agree with a good deal of what is written here. And I think you let womyn here completely trash and disrespect men here in a way that if men do it on a womyn’s feminist site, causes them to be permanently banned and silenced. Maybe that’s just as well, but you’d better expect us to fight back when some of your extreme feminist readers come for our balls.
But I perceive a difference between TGMP and the utter intellectual dishonesty and bald boy-hating and man-hating at NOW, NYTimes, AAUW, NPR, WBUR-FM, etc. Occasionally TGMP does seem prepared to hear and give voice to some of the boys and men who have been wounded and left for dead by this society.
I have to take TGMP for not being serious enough about some very real issues of concern to men, however.
Maybe I’ve missed it, maybe it’s not your calling, but no serious series about the horror show of the American economy for men, fathers, families??? Even The Economist has thrown down the gauntlet to the US MSM and Politicians this week. http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2011/04/americas_jobless_men
Surely you could start there, and drill it and tell those stories of those men, fathers, families? How about the boys who are dropping out of high school to take minimum wage jobs so their little brothers and sisters can finish high school and have a safe place to sleep in a motel in the meantime? How about the boys who are being prostituted to highly paid women in NYC and Washington DC and LA and Vancouver, BC and Toronto just to put food in their bellies?
How about the reality that boys are being so badly raised and educated that before the of this decade only 39% of University degrees in America will go to men?
How about the complete ignoring of David Lisak’s research by the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights in issuing new mandates for colleges and universities to expel men for little more than the allegation of sexual harrassment, and that it will let REAL, SERIAL RAPISTS get off the hook while REAL, INNOCENT young men are ruined for life?
Christ, I will write this stuff for you. I bet other would too. BUT DEAL WITH IT ALREADY!
I apologise for the lack of grammar check in my post above, Tom, but I had to stay ahead of your “refresh” software which discourages thoughtful proofreading.
Frank just BTW was have a half hour refresh (it used to be 15 minutes) so you no longer have to worry about that.
Thanks Tom.
So, on the substantive point I was attempting to raise above, please let me know if TGMP sees it as within its mission to drill into these economic, education and social justice subjects that impact boys and men (and not purely from a MRM perpsective, let me add, but from “good policy” and “good science” and “good law” perspectives). TGMP may see itself as a “lad mag for sensitive new age guys,” however which would make such subjects out of keeping here (and yes, I may be somewhat stereotypical or off the mark on that hypo).
For darn sure these subjects are not getting addressed in the MSM.
Anyway, in or out of TGMP’s focus?
Also, we do have a commenting policy page: http://goodmenproject.com/commenting-policy/
That page indicates refresh time and, it should come as no surprise, our commenting policy.
This led to a lot of great discussion … and a ton of crazy commenting. MRAs were (and still are) angry at us for being open-minded about women and women were angry at us for taking MRAs seriously. (Cue swarm of angry comments.)
Hold up I thought that was about MRAs and feminists, not MRAs and women. This may be just bad wording but considering how one sided the posting was during that go around I would not be surprised if it was intentional.
Peace! Human beings are victimized in countless ways in all societies. There is no compartmentalization of that darker side of human nature and reality and on this planet. We have all been touched by it. Everybody hurts sometimes.
I applaud each and every group that organizes around concepts and intentions of healing to their members. We all need this, men and women, wherever we are in life and personal evolution. Yes, our vernaculars and how we refer to each other is a delicate and important aspect in communicating exactly what we mean, and to not unintentionally stir hurtful embers. Perhaps we could all be more mindful of the words we choose.
All that said, Tom, I think TGMP is a thoughtful, well-written and diverse forum for many voices to be heard on this and other aspects of our culture and perspectives that deserve contemplation and open discussion. So thanks for taking the heat to make it happen.
“Why do you, and so many other MRA advocates, have it in your mind that I am the devil for actually saying I like women, respect them…”
another veiled hit on the mens movement.
And your colleague calls us disingenuous…
“We devoted 10 days to investigating their claims. This led to a lot of great discussion ”
Untrue and dishonest. GMP did 10 days of a variety of articles, starting with an editorial that painted all MRA’s as crackpots. And not one MRA interview in the lot.
It was a set up that resulted not in great discussion, but in well justified animosity from the MRA’s you invited to contribute, and then trashed coming out of the gate.
Good faith my ass.
Then don’t write for them if you feel that way. And go back. There was an MRA interview.
That is exactly what I stated, but from the response I got apparently none of them knew about the tone of the introduction article or the follow-up feminist articles. Or some knew and just went along with it to prove it would end badly.
Paul apparently anyone who doesn’t agree with exactly your view and tone is to be ridiculed. I have said repeatedly that as a divorced dad and man who has gone through plenty of heartache (thus the GMP in the first place) I sympathize with quite a bit of what you and others set out as the way men are sometimes treated. But I don’t agree completely nor do I agree with the way you describe this supposed gender war based on men being shamed for being men. I believe in individual men telling their stories and inspiring other men to do the same. We did do a very thorough piece on men’s rights that included as many points of view as we could find for the very reason that we wanted to give readers a balanced offering that they could react to. The fact that we didn’t just republish your perspective is what you seem to be upset about. But we wouldn’t do that because our objective isn’t to be narrow minded but actually provoke thoughtful discussion about what it means to be a man in 2011 across as wide an experience set as possible.
I think it would be a mistake to confuse the job of a magazine such as the GMP and a newspaper. The latter, while it might have its leanings, is obligated to restrict them to its op-ed pages or the like. News ought not to be coloured unduly by opinions or political leanings because it is supposed to be objective.
On the other hand, I would start a magazine only if I had some statement to make, some issue to address. I see nothing wrong with a magazine having its own goals/dominant perspective, and if some of my audience had a problem with my opinions, or the pieces I chose to write, I’d say- well, go elsewhere.
I don’t know what GMP’s stance on this is, whether they’re very clear on backing a certain ideology or always being liberal or feminist. Thats not the sense I get, somehow. I’ve been reading their stuff for a while and I am very impressed by their willingness to study and bring to light different points of view. I think what underlies their work is not a conscious effort to always be liberal or feminist, but to reason through some very complicated issues and arrive at opinions that are fair to human beings across the spectrum. These opinions might happen to be largely liberal or feminist, but you can’t blame writers for having opinions, if they didn’t, there would be no good writing. I don’t think they’ve been unwilling to host writers who have contrary points of view, but I’d work for a magazine such as this only if I agreed with their ideology, and so it is to be expected that the staff writers seem to have similar ideas regarding what it takes to be a good man. And frankly, they’d be sending out a very strange message if their writers didn’t share a general common understanding of the desirable qualities in a modern man. I don’t see the point of a magazine that doesn’t have a message or a mission- I’d have very little respect for the GMP if they weren’t exactly the way they are- willing to explore and publish different points of view, but very clear on what they stand for.
Well said.
Thank you for this Bravo. You took the words right out of my mouth.
The GMP does not have the responsibilities of a mainstream news site. Or any news site. They do not have to be unbiased. They deal mostly in opinions. And a variety of opinions at that. If you disagree, use the comment section (which as anyone can see is bombarded with opposing opinions, a good thing) or submit a piece for publication. And as Henry went over in detail, the MRAs had PLENTY of articles published espousing their point of view.
I do not agree with the Marcottes and Rosins of the world. They pissed me off because I thought they were wrong. So I put my own opinion out there in the GMP forum. When some people whined about the MRA having an invitation to be featured prominently on the GMP, I leveled criticism at them as well. Because all they were doing was whining about people with different views getting a prominent platform. That’s whiny and obnoxious.
Except now some of you are doing the same things. Not to mention claiming (falsely if Henry is correct) there have been mysterious rewrites and other conspiracy theory crap. Newsflash guys, the GMP doesn’t owe you anything and not everyone has to agree with you. That goes for feminists as well. This is an open forum and all sides get heard.
Stop your incessant bitching already.
Bravo
While TGMP is under no obligation to be unbiased, taking the editorial and feminist position that the “goodness” of men is something to be questioned while openly stating that blanket respect is afforded women as a group is bound to attract criticism from people that aren’t buying into that fallacy (the mrm).
Given that the standard on feminist sites is to immediately ban dissent, and the TGMP does not have this policy, the dissent is being published in the comments section.
I do not think anyone assumes GMP is a newspaper with an obligation to an objective perspective. The very nature of the magazine is pure opinion, so one would expect subjective commentary. Likewise, one would expect all the commentary to follow a similar ideological perspective. So there is nothing wrong with the magazine having a liberal/feminist lean. However, it does becomes a problem when the editors wish to reach out to people, particularly men, who are not feminists or liberals. The majority of the articles here are written by feminists and progressive liberals, and so contain the biases that come with those ideological perspectives. If you want to reach out to people who do not share those perspectives, you should include more non-feminist and non-liberal perspectives writers. Since the purported goal is to discussion manhood, it seems odd to limit the discussion to a leftist/feminist perspective.
Tom wondered why he gets this much conflict, and I think that its because of the ideological perspectives presented in the articles. Of the articles I have read, the only ones that devolve into flame wars are the feminist articles. All the other articles have civil discussions. The feminist articles fail to enjoy that, either by the design of the writer or by the feminists and men’s rights activists who comment on the article. If you remove what sets them off, they have nothing to work with. If you provide a counter-balance to the contentious perspectives, you can mitigate the conflict.
Tom
When you say that you “respect women”. Are there any other groups that you say that you respect as a group, for example do you claim to give blanket respect to men, catholics, Koreans, Conservatives, the police liberals, inmates, people in blue hats etc as a group, or will you take them as individuals and decide their merit on a case by case basis?
I’m going to assume that the answer is the latter.
You will undoubtedly be supported by many women, particularly feminists when you put women on a pedestal above all other groups. You might be as you say, proud to be a m a n gina but given that you hold women up above all other groups in the way that you do, are you really surprised that you attract a certain amount of criticism for it?
Also, do you consider that by putting women up on this pedestal that you patronize them, stereotype them, infantalise them and deny them agency and equality?
To quote Bernard Chapin
Women are special, just like everyone else.
While I agree with others that you don’t owe any alligences to any one audience I do find it almost hypocritical to say that want to give MRAs and feminists a fair chance to speak but let feminists open with stuff like this:
Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness, to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.
Unless like (I think) I said above, MRAs have the same latitude. Its not a matter of being fair and balanced but a matter of at least holding yourself to the standard you claim to hold yourself to.
I’m approaching the article from a very different angle. There’s a tricky question I’m left with after reading Matlack’s piece: why aren’t there more magazines like the one that he’s looking for?
If the function of men’s magazines is to sell issues, and portraying famous women in lingerie is a very successful way to sell lots of issues, then that does suggest that the magazines are meeting some big demand. That doesn’t mean that men only think about women in that way, but clearly many men do when they’re looking to buy a magazine. These magazines are not exactly inventing or creating from scratch the way that men view women. And, I’m not sure it’s any magazine’s social responsibility to carefully shape a positive image of a particular population.
I think the market system is a really powerful force. If there is some huge demand for a photo-heavy, ad-heavy men’s magazine focusing primarily on women’s intelligence, achievements, virtues, and philosophical depth, I would think there would be many titles out there already. Maybe there are and I just can’t think of any. I doubt that there is some giant corporate conspiracy perpetuating one view of gender dynamics and thwarting men’s real demands. I get the impression that the magazine industry is struggling and ruthless – if there’s a big, unexplored niche, there’ll be a mag all over it.
There are plenty of very cerebral periodicals out there. Maybe none of them are specifically marketed for men. But, at the risk of engaging in stereotypes here, I’m guessing the Wall Street Journal and The Economist have many more male readers than female.
Sounding like a snob here, maybe, but perhaps the problem is trying to find a magazine full of visual content (lots of pretty pictures!) that treats people as more than just the way that they look. If there is a primary visual component to articles about people, and the goal is to make those people look good, then is it surprising that the pictures are not exactly spontaneous photos of average looking people? If Especially if the basic approach to the article is the oh-so-hard-hitting Top Ten list variety.
Henry:
- How is quoting somebody a personal attack?
- Please provide examples of personal insults so I can address them specifically.
What I’m talking about is you say that MRAs are just looking for protection from criticism yet you give people posting from a feminist perspective quite a bit of latitude on the attack/insult department.
Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness, to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.
That’s Marcotte’s opening paragraph on her post about feminism is supposedly the solution to everything that MRAs are talking about. I may have missed an example of it but I don’t recall anyone posting from an MRA perspective opening with calling feminists embittered women that aren’t getting all the money they want and saying they are responsible for everything that’s bothering them.
Recently, Clarisse Thorn admirably tried to pick through the sewage strewn all over “pickup artist” (PUA) communities and find a handful of gems that could be plucked out and proffered to the socially awkward man who finds that he’s not getting laid as often as he’d like.
That’s Marcotte’s opening paragraph on her post about PUA likening that community to a sewer of men that are just made about not getting as much sex as they want (which seems to be a common complaint she uses). Thorn manage to make her criticisms of the PUA community without saying such things (and while she did get grief for it it was nowhere near the flak that Marcotte got). Again would you let such things slide if they were said about feminists? In an actual post, not comments where you can’t be reasonably held accountable for the content.
And to be clear, what you’re asking for is not a chance to bring the MRA message to more people through posts that advocate for your point of view / cause, but the opportunity to insult feminists? Given that, re-read my piece and provide examples of where I made demonstrably false statements.
No I’m talking about the actual fair and balanced environment that is advertised here. It would be nice if no one got free passes on insults but that’s not what’s happening here. The reason I brought up insulting feminists is that at least if the mud was being slung from both sides it would be somewhat fair and balanced, highly chaotic and horribly unproductive, but at least fair. The way its going now its the same “in crowd/out crowd” style I’ve seen in so many other places where as long as you align with the in crowd you have more reign that those who don’t.
And again I’m talking about posting, not commenting.
Belanger,
In your article you acknowledged that there are other perspectives in the men’s right movement, so I do not see how one person’s views represents an entire movement. I concede that Elam’s comments represent a segment of the men’s rights movement, but not the whole, especially since the movement lacks the unifying dogma one finds in movements like feminism or the Tea Party.
I do not think MRAs react any differently than other political groups. No political group wants their biased or bigoted comments mentioned, and they will object if anyone does so.
I do not doubt that if GMP did a “Feminist Week” you would include counter articles. I do not think you invite someone to just mock feminism (like Marcotte did) or nitpick random comments from feminist blogs (like Futrelle did). And if you did invite those people, I do not think their articles would be among the first posted out of the gate. You are correct that I assume that without concrete evidence. However, based on your articles and how other topics got treated by the magazine, I think it is fair to assume that you would not portray feminists in that manner.
I disagree with your analogy. The men’s rights movement and feminism are diametrically opposed ideological positions right down to who they think causes all their problems. However, I do agree that feminism has more variations, although they are more like different kinds of navel oranges than different citrus fruits.