Hugo Schwyzer sees a world where men can be better, happier and different by including women’s voices in the telling of stories about men.
This article is a response to “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue” by Tom Matlack.
Is goodness something to which we all aspire together, or is it something men get to define for themselves without input from half the human race? That’s the question raised by Tom Matlack’s “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue,” and it reminds me of why it was I needed to resign from my position as a contributing editor at GMP last December.
Tom and I are both recovering alcoholics, and in our writing, we each often mention our transformative experiences through Twelve Step programs. In his latest essay, Tom mentions the vital importance of what are often called “men’s stags,” recovery meetings that women may not attend. (There are “women’s stags” as well, of course.) He writes that the men in these rooms “taught me to aspire to a completely different kind of goodness than I had ever contemplated.” None of what he learned, he writes, could have taken place if there were women present. While Tom welcomes women commenters, writers, and even editors and publishers at GMP, he wants the site to recapture the uniquely raw honesty that comes when men focus on telling the truth to each other.
There’s more to recovery, however, than going to meetings. As any newcomer quickly learns, staying sober requires working the steps. And those steps famously include compiling a “fearless and searching moral inventory” as well as making direct amends to all the people we’ve harmed. Of course, addicts are often unaware of the harm they’ve caused until the people they’ve hurt confront them; it’s not possible to make amends unless you know who it is whom you’ve hurt. That’s true on an individual level – but also on a societal one as well. In a culture in which men have done tremendous collective harm to women, that means that men’s successful recovery (whether from addiction or from the toxic straitjacket of traditional masculinity) is contingent on making amends to the women we’ve harmed. And how can we know what amends to make unless we’re willing to be confronted by those whom we’ve hurt?
Tom wants the Good Men Project to be a place where men can come together to share stories, to, as he puts it, “have a discussion of manhood in men’s own words” rather than “feminist critique.” He sees that critique as a distraction, an obstacle to men doing the important work of discussing masculinity. What Tom doesn’t consider is that feminism itself is a lens that allows everyone – men and women alike – to see issues of sex and gender more clearly.
When I was first going to AA meetings in Los Angeles, I was asked to read A New Pair of Glasses, a powerful and personal commentary on the Twelve Steps by a legend in Southern California sobriety circles. The book was invaluable, and the title is instructive. Just as the tools of the program gave me a new outlook on my identity and behavior, feminism give me a radically different perspective on my masculinity. Only when I put on the “feminist glasses” could I see the ways in which my acculturation as a man had limited my potential.
Tom concludes his essay with his vision for the future of the Good Men Project. He wants it to be a space where “men can have their own stories of struggle for goodness that can be shared man-to-man in a way that changes the teller and the listener alike quite apart from what a woman or a feminist might say about that story.” It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen to spin.
There’s an old saying in Twelve Step programs: “If you want what you’ve never had, you’ll have to do what you’ve never done.” Men have spent a long time privileging the voices of other men; there’s nothing novel about creating a space in which women’s perspectives are seen as an unwelcome distraction. If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us guys” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations.
About Hugo Schwyzer
Hugo thanks for being willing to contribute here. Obviously a crucial topic about which we don’t agree.
In thinking about this a bit more one way to describe what I see as our fundamental disconnect is the difference between policy and personal. I am 1000% in favor of policy that leads to greater equality. I am for gay marriage, for greater civil rights, for a variety of types of legislation that would increase gender fairness and in fact greater ability for work/family balance for both moms and dads. But when it comes to my own soul I resent someone telling me that the only path to salvation is via feminism. I guess that is at the heart of what I am trying to say here. That I don’t know what is good for you and I don’t expect you to tell me that I am ignorant if I don’t agree with your view of feminism’s centrality. I am, as you intimately familiar with feminism. My mom was the forefront of the movement. My most famous relative was Pearl Buck, a nobel prize winner who open doors to China, to adoptions, and for women. So it’s not like I have never thought through the issues you raise. I grew up with them in a very meaningful way.
But my path had been a different one. My sobriety and step work has not been the same as yours. I can’t imagine you are telling me that my way of coming to serenity as a recovering addict is somehow flawed and yours if morally superior. That goes against everything in recovery and in my make up.
Tom, I never said you were ignorant. And there are many paths to recovery — which is why I wanted to show an alternate one to the one you laid out.
Showing an alternate path? Really? That seems more than a little disingenuous, Hugo. In this piece, you’re telling Tom he does feminism wrong, he’s doing recovery wrong, he’s doing manhood wrong, and his vision for GMP (whether or not it reflects what GMP has actually become) is wrong. You don’t put it so bluntly, but that’s the obvious conclusion you lead the reader to by contrasting his path with your presumably superior versions. That’s not showing an alternate path — that’s completely invalidating both the person he has become, and the way he has attempted to share that path to growth with others who might be interested in that same path. You are attempting to define the One True Path, not just sharing the story of what worked for you.
Hugo, there is much about your story of growth, atonement, and redemption that I would like to find inspiring, but I am too repelled by your tendency to hold all men collectively guilty for your own transgressions. That you *used to be* a complete ass to women (to put it mildly) does not mean that I and all other people with a Y chromosome share in your transgressions and must drink deeply from the chalice of feminism to be cleansed. I’m glad it worked for you, but your way isn’t the only way, and your earlier contempt for women is not a universal trait in men that it is your duty as a recovering man to help eradicate. Your brand of feminism is as useful to me as a 12-step program is to someone who is not addicted to anything.
Some other commenters noted the scare quotes around “stories of struggle”, but since that was a direct quote from Tom’s piece, I don’t fault those quotes. What I do fault was the way you quoted it:
The plain implication is that those stories aren’t real, or that the struggle is exaggerated, because spin is something we’re supposed to recognize as bullshit and treat accordingly. That’s profoundly insulting, considering some of the stories that have been shared here. Shame on you.
[Posted too soon.]
He can’t have a legitimate discussion “in their eyes.” But the point of the site is sharing and discussing, not lecturing.
“I’m glad it worked for you,”
But it hasn’t worked. He’s still self flagellating through his denigration of masculinity (equating it to an addiction, a disease, that must be cured?), and worst, demanding the rest of us join in. He has not forgiven himself, he has simply done the feminist thing, where he absolves himself of responsibility for his actions and lays the blame on … you guessed it, MEN.
As should be clear by now, I disagree with Hugo that feminism as he represents it is a cure-all for men, or that all men are as inherently bad as he was before he found
Jesusfeminism. However, I don’t have any problem recognizing that whatever his ongoing flaws, present-day Hugo does not resemble the entirely toxic and even dangerous Hugo that he has described himself as being in the past. I do think Hugo today is a better man than he used to be, and I commend him for that. His sins were not universal, however, so neither is his path to redemption.I suppose We can chalk this up to a difference in interpretation of “it worked”. It would seem to me that you see it as “the alcoholic isn’t drinking anymore, so it worked”, while I’m seeing it as “the alcoholic isn’t drinking anymore, instead he is burning all his money gambling and smoking 2 packs a day. his addiction treatment didn’t work, he just shifted it to a new vice or two”.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I hesitate to get much more specific because it would seem like gratuitous mud-dragging through mud Hugo has been dragged through many times before (even though it was mud of his own making). His improvement goes beyond giving up drinking. I believe, for example (and I’m putting it mildly) that he’s more professional toward his female students than he used to be, and that he does not pose a literal mortal threat to any abused, strung out woman who might show up on his doorstep in a time of great vulnerability and need. This was not always true, thus I believe his improvement to be both substantial and genuine. While some of his past flaws were so egregious that merely *not* being like he used to would be improvement, I also see signs of everyday good-man-ism that used to be lacking (according to his own accounts), like his devotion to wife and kids.
While I don’t agree with his feminism (note the “his” to distinguish it from all flavors of feminism), I think it would be an unfair exaggeration to call it a vice that’s comparable to the old ones. Post-feminist Hugo is maddening at worst. Pre-feminist Hugo was a danger to himself and others, particularly women.
@Marcus Williams: “You are attempting to define the One True Path”
Exactly.
And that often happen with religious people (for whom Truth is just their own), and that’s the case even with mr. Schwytzer.
“It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen to spin.”
I too find this extremely insulting, happen to spin? Why are they automatically spin? What makes them wrong? Propaganda? Imagine the uproar of telling feminists that their “stories of struggle” are spin? Imagine if Tom did it over twitter, bam, twitter scandal numba 2.
I’m noticing Hugo is commenting once and leaving, and not commenting on criticism, Why is that? Hugo, are you just really busy and unable to comment because I am really interested in why you call it spin. I’ve written an article about my own “story of struggle” about abuse I’ve had from women, is that spin? Considering how much of a no no it is to invalidate someones experience in feminist spaces, I find it strange that you seem to be doing it. I really hope it’s just a misunderstanding.
@Archy: “I’m noticing Hugo is commenting once and leaving, and not commenting on criticism, Why is that?”
There’s no need for Hugo to comment. His position is clear:
“(when in conflict) Women are right, men are wrong. Period”.
Has his position ever been any different, really?
It’s patriarchy (one gender is dominant, the other is submissive) in reverse.
Thank you. That was very well said.
“but I am too repelled by your tendency to hold all men collectively guilty for your own transgressions. That you *used to be* a complete ass to women (to put it mildly) does not mean that I and all other people with a Y chromosome share in your transgressions ”
hits the nail right on the head, the tone of much of Hugo’s writing that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. Well said.
I didn’t see this in the article – are male-only spaces EVER appropriate or positive?
Are you asking that? Or are you asking Hugo if, in his worldview, such a thing is possible?
The latter. Sorry for the confusion.
Mr. Schwyzer:
I’m sorry. I honestly think your heart is usually in the right place, but I disagree with you…again.
“If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us guys” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations.”
How’s this?….”If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us ladies” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to men and include masculinist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations.” Many feminists would be very angry if one insisted that men were allowed to particpate in defining the terms of what it means to be a feminist or to be a woman.
I think there are valid circumstances for all-male gatherings. I’m assuming you believe it’s appropriate for for there to be all-female gatherings. In most cases and in most situations, women and men DO need to be together, work together, and learn from one another. But this does not invalidate the need or usefulness for women and men to, sometimes, participate in activites that are for one gender only. (Apologies to any gender fluid folk reading this).
The truth is, I feel some compassion for you. I don’t think you like men or the man in you.
I wish you well, sir.
That’s a good point. Hugo asked:
“Is goodness something to which we all aspire together, or is it something men get to define for themselves without input from half the human race?”
And in return I ask: When did women consult with men about how to define the nature and role of being a ‘good woman’ in our culture? Did they check with men and collect men’s input on the best way to go about it? or did they seek out the answers for themselves, on their own terms, using their own perspectives and a focus on what was most meaningful to them–without input from half the human race?
We already know the answer. But it seems men are not to be afforded that same opportunity, at least according to some feminists. Too bad, since it’s gonna happen anywah.
Men are going to re-evaluate their role in society and what it means to be a man. And we’re going to do it for our own benefit, in terms of what we value. Women may be thrilled with some of our conclusions; they may hate others. But either way, we’re doing this by and for ourselves.
Well said, Copy.
At the end of the day, there will be no stemming the tide. What women and feminists CAN do is be supportive of it, or they can fight tooth and nail, building resentment among men until we end up with spite and hate running rampant.
I reccommend choosing carefully.
-Men are going to re-evaluate their role in society and what it means to be a man. And we’re going to do it for our own benefit, in terms of what we value. Women may be thrilled with some of our conclusions; they may hate others. But either way, we’re doing this by and for ourselves.
Amen!
“If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us guys” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations. ”
I agree in a sense but still believe that men would benefit from exclusive male only communication in this situation. How I agree is that part of feminism is forcing a shift in how gener roles are evaluated. Man fix car, man eat steak, man have sex, man go to sleep, man is wise. That is the pre-feminist male picture. Men are obviously more complex than that. The cultural changes in our society that have been promoted through feminism have also benefitted men in that we are no longer bound by simplistic gender expectations. However, I still believe our value as men, our masculinity as we define it, is based largely on checking off tick boxes that are still tied to traditional patriarchy. The redefinition of masculinity is something that men should determine based on our collective narrative; based on our “stag groups”. But we have to adopt the things feminism has taught us, that we need to be honest and refuse to shame each other for wanting to feel masculine in our own way.
“But we have to adopt the things feminism has taught us, that we need to be honest and refuse to shame each other for wanting to feel masculine in our own way.”
Very well said.
If I may, I would change this sentence to “It would be good to adopt what is useful from what feminism has taught us, but we need to be honest. We should refuse to shame each other or let anyone (male or female) shame us for wanting to feel masculine in our own way.”
Tom concludes his essay with his vision for the future of the Good Men Project. He wants it to be a space where “men can have their own stories of struggle for goodness that can be shared man-to-man in a way that changes the teller and the listener alike quite apart from what a woman or a feminist might say about that story.” It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen to spin.
No, it’s not.
This would be like saying that women that want their own space to share stories for whatever reason they have is the equivalent of a “No Boyz Allowed” sign. It jumps right to presuming ill intent.
In that bit you quote men are struggling for goodness and there is a need to share those struggles in order to make us all better. And like it or not, women and feminists don’t get to be the center of those stories and conversations.
And the women and feminists that come along are not bound by the condition of affirming the stories of struggle (that you put those lovely quote marks around, as if they are not real or something) that the male members are telling. But really, spin? Are you trying to say this place is a Story Telling Circle or something?
Can women and feminists be a part of the conversation? Yes. Are they such a crucial and necessary part that without out them men are doomed to failure and self destruction? No way. Is there inclusion some requirement so as to affirm that men aren’t anti-woman or anti-feminist? No way.
I agree with you Danny. It seems disingenuous to assume that any all-male gathering necessitates ill-intent to be held in suspicion. What’s worse is that it shows a double-standard all too common — when women do X it’s different than if men do X, even when X isn’t hurting anyone.
Also like Danny, I welcome women to the conversation, but with the strict understanding that the conversation in these spaces is about helping men — not arguing Feminist talking points like patriarchy, privilege, how women have it so bad, or how men need to accommodate women more because of life is harder for them. No doubt there’s a place for those discussions and those places are multitudinous. I could write a list ten miles long of places where men and women discuss these issues, or where women’s spaces have been created to do so. But here is not the place for them to occur. Why? Because there are men here who have genuinely suffered horribly, whether from society, women, Feminists/Feminism, or some other factor. They have not yet progressed to the stages Hugo outlines.
Although, honestly, I’m not sure the stages Hugo outlined really apply… Men are not addicts to privilege or patriarchy. I’m sure some men are, but not most men. We’re not committed to a sexist society. But we’re also not interested in being the scape goat for society’s sexism. We are not the receptacle for women’s frustrations with misogyny. Blame the system, by all means, but do not blame me. I didn’t do anything. And that’s something which takes great courage for me to say, because every day I’m subtly taught or told that it is my fault, whether because I’m White, straight, or male. This just ain’t true and it feels liberating to embrace my rejection of the guilt trip saddled on me by others’ politics.
It is a symptom of true healing when men can be committed to equality without holding themselves responsible for it like so many do.
I agree with you Danny. It seems disingenuous to assume that any all-male gathering necessitates ill-intent to be held in suspicion. What’s worse is that it shows a double-standard all too common — when women do X it’s different than if men do X, even when X isn’t hurting anyone.
A double standard that a lot of people, even feminists, have no problem indulging in.
…not arguing Feminist talking points like patriarchy, privilege, how women have it so bad, or how men need to accommodate women more because of life is harder for them.
I’d even argue that the things you mention here may be some of the very tools that either don’t work when helping men or are not being applied properly when it comes to helping men, or simply not being used properly by feminists.
And that’s something which takes great courage for me to say, because every day I’m subtly taught or told that it is my fault, whether because I’m White, straight, or male.
I see where you’re coming from. Nothing like listing off your characteristics and then being straight up told that when something bad happens to you that certain things on your list absolutely cannot be why they are happening to you or that because you are ____ it doesn’t count as -ism or something that harms you is combination of two characteristics it’s okay for you to be bothered by one but you have deserve it on the other and thus have no room to be upset.
I think that there is value in both Hugo and Tom’s perspectives. As a woman who owns a women only network, I have seen first had the growth in the women there and how we have inspired one another to grow in ways that would have been very difficult to do in a mixed sex environment. We are able to talk openly about things that have happened that have caused us to feel limited, find comfort in finding commonalities in areas we never would have opened up about in a mixed group. So, I totally get what Tom has seen with having single sex meetings. There is a place for it, a need for it.
But….
I agree with what you said, “there’s nothing novel about creating a space in which women’s perspectives are seen as an unwelcome distraction” I feel like there’s also a place and value of having both sexes present and talking and sharing perspectives and is something that will become a part of hersocialnetwork in the near future. I think that we are beautifully different and create perfect balance, but sometimes it’s hard to see that. Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe. Often times we can help men see the root of their behavior where men fixate on the action. We can see the emotional reasoning because we are always discussing this in daily conversations with our friends. I think both sexes play an important role in overall recovery. I think it would be best for the men and women “dens” to come together once a month and share what they’ve learned with one another.
Great Piece Hugo! As always, love to read what you have to think.
Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe. Often times we can help men see the root of their behavior where men fixate on the action. We can see the emotional reasoning because we are always discussing this in daily conversations with our friends.
But that keen ability has limits. When applied improperly that keen sense goes from understanding the emotions behind things to projecting and dictating the emotions behind things.
When applied improperly we end up with a situation where a man that is trying to open up ends not opening up to the true feelings that he is trying to dig up but instead stops digging and just echoes back what women want him to think his true feelings are.
Sure it would be nice if the basis of every single issue that harms men was a hatred/disregard of women, but it’s not.
Sometimes when a man is angry about something, it’s not always because he subconsciously thinks women are beneath him.
Nicole says:
“Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe.”
Hi Nicole. I believe there is also a benefit to mastering your emotions. Greater emotional range isn’t necessarily always a good thing. I have seen a number of relationships where (mostly) women keep themselves and their loved ones a prisoner of their emotions and turn their emotions into a “problem” that everybody needs to fix.
If you look at the ways parents raise children, and some of the societal messages that tells women to wildly emote and the border of using emotions as a tool of abuse. If that significant other wasn’t there, that persons emotions would have changed in 20 minutes anyway. It doesn’t make sense to raise stress and exacerbate problems for something as fleeting as emotions.
We also raise boys to suppress their emotions. I think this occasionally moves to the dysfunctional and an abusive way to raise children. Most likely, the ideal (for boys and girls) is to embrace something in the middle.
In essence, I think I see things as a wash in emotion (between the sexes). Are there women who can help men to work through issues that they didn’t even realize they held? Sure. But, I have also seen women who hold the relationships back with lots of tension, stress and frustration as they let their emotions run their lives and inflict their emotions upon others like a hammer.
“Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe. Often times we can help men see the root of their behavior where men fixate on the action. We can see the emotional reasoning because we are always discussing this in daily conversations with our friends. I think both sexes play an important role in overall recovery. I think it would be best for the men and women “dens” to come together once a month and share what they’ve learned with one another. ”
Maybe women simply understand certain emotions better, and men understand the other emotions better? Maybe men do understand emotions as well as women, but just don’t show them as openly?
” Maybe men do understand emotions as well as women, but just don’t show them as openly?”
This, is one of the things I took away from an article on the experiences of a trans-man
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoodmenproject.com%2Ffeatured-content%2Fsir-can-you-help-me-with-this%2F&ei=zTvvT9P5O4H10gHAsvD6Ag&usg=AFQjCNEitSw02Sdh5q4S803y00b-7VZMAQ&sig2=uC6XEjPfcn1jsyohlMooeA
This discussion reminds me of what happened on MaleSuvivor’s forums several years ago. MaleSurvivor is a website for men who experienced sexual abuse. There are several forums for men and boys to share their stories and talk about the various issues and problems they face. Keeping in mind that plenty of women support male survivors, MS created a forum specifically for them. However, many of the women used the other forums, especially the forums that most male survivors commented on. As a result, many male survivors who came to MS looking for a safe space to talk about their experiences with other men stopped posting in the public forums or stopped posting altogether.
This put MaleSurvivor in a tough position because while they wanted women to feel welcome, the site is really for men. The site is not about, as the author of the above article might claim, “privileging the voices of other men”, but about giving men a space to talk with other men about things they never talk about. Bringing women into that group changes the dynamic. It not only makes some men feel more uncomfortable sharing their stories, but it also tends to shift the discussion to be about women and their concerns.
MaleSurvivor decided to compromise by allowing women to read all the public forums, but asking them not to participate in forums listed as “male survivors only”. That did not solve the problem completely. Plenty of men were still put off by the idea that women were reading something they only wanted to share with other men. However, the compromise allowed men to have a male-only space where their voices would not be silenced or put on the back-burner.
From what I can tell, Tom’s goal with GMP is similar to MaleSurvivor’s. The point is not to shut women out, but to give men a space where they can share their stories. Women’s perspectives play no role in that because are not men, and therefore will never be able to present the male experience. That does not mean they should not be allowed to participate in the discussion, but the moment the it becomes about affirming women’s perspectives, it silences men.
I think the author of the article missed that point, hence the “it’s the updated equivalent of nailing a ‘No Gurlz Allowed’ sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever ‘stories of struggle’ that the male members happen to spin” comment.
That comment is directed at men who wrote about being raped as children, imprisoned, recovering from alcoholism and drug abuse, surviving cancer, parenting children, and defending our country, just to name a few examples. Those are stories of struggle, and no amount of scare-quoting changes that. Those stories are important, worth reading, certainly worth telling, and deserving of the same respect that the author would give to any woman who wrote about her experiences.
A feminist critique is a distraction from that, and the above article is a very good example of that fact. Instead of talking about men’s stories or even supporting men who share their stories, the article is about men apologizing to women, placing women’s perspectives above their own, and ridiculing men who share their stories as political spin. That is the complete opposite of Tom’s stated goal, and it only serves to silence men.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here, Jacob. Safety is paramount for survivors. My only disagreement, and it’s not so much a disagreement as a tweak from my own opinion, is that I personally want men involved in my stories as they are part of my life, culture, history, family. They are everywhere. Women are part of the lives of those that have been hurt (sometimes were the cause of that hurt) but sometimes are the ones watching their loved ones suffer.
Women do need to listen to men’s stories. Men to women. Race to race, gender to gender, age to age, we all need to listen.
I am, I suppose, a humanist at heart, and if there is a story that I can hear that helps me be more human (to you, to others, to myself) I would love to hear it. I’m also very aware that if I, in my presence, trigger you? I’ll back away and there is nothing about that that I see as a politic or critique.
I wouldn’t want women to not be able to respond on the GMP, but maybe some articles could be setup in dual format, 1 for men only, 1 for both, maybe even another for women only?
I don’t understand wanting to separate genders so much. Aside from dating spaces, I really don’t prefer to have discussions among only women (or only men, for that matter). People are people, and sometimes the best way to better understand an issue (even a personal issue) is to hear something from someone who’s had a completely different experience to you…that includes a different experience based on their gender.
Now, where that would make more sense on GMP would be on articles talking about abuse, perhaps…especially sexual abuse. I totally understand wanting to be in single-gender spaces for discussions about abuse.
Because genders experience the world quite differently at times, and sometimes people only feel comfortable opening up with their own gender. It’s a really easy concept to understand people! I find far more guys have a personality and set of interests like mine than girls, guys will understand far more what it feels like to be me when I talk about that fear of being around children for instance due to pedo hysteria and not wanting some dumbass to start questioning my every action when I’m actually sitting there freaking out wondering what I am meant to do so I don’t look creepy. Women may empathize and know a similar feeling, but it’s not the same level.
Or in my case where I didn’t defend myself when a crazy ex-girlfriend tried clawing my eyes out. Women may not understand that men feel that the law will disregard our injuries and we’ll be victimized twice. Arrested and jailed for defending ourselves while our abuser goes free to abuse someone else or us again later. Power and it’s abuse is not just relegated to physical strength.
Now, where that would make more sense on GMP would be on articles talking about abuse, perhaps…especially sexual abuse. I totally understand wanting to be in single-gender spaces for discussions about abuse.
The problem is discussions aren’t always that cut and dry Heather.
I’m sure the vast majority of people would say what you say about abuse discussion being something that is understandable divided by gender. But what about things that are so obvious?
How men feel when it comes to being treated for merely being around children?
How women feel when it comes to going to the gym with mixed genders?
As Archy and John say depending on someone’s gender and their personal experiences on the topic there are other cases in which someone would be comfortable talking about said topic in single gender company.
I don’t think that is practical, and I don’t think that is what Tom was getting at. I think he was arguing men need to have their own space, where they can talk about things they can’t talk about with women present (for whatever reasons that be)… not that GMP should be that place. I think it was ultimately a “feminism, stop trying to dominate and control men’s development too. We men will need to find our own path”
I agree with this too. I think it’s most important that Good Men Project be a place where men feel they *can* be honest. Archy, you had a comment on another thread where you told some things uniquely personal about your experiences as a man and near the end you said, “Where would you hear a story like mine? I can’t think of anywhere else, really.”
That’s what we want to maintain. Those are the voices we want. Men finding their own path is great. If we as women can listen and help — that’s great too. But if it’s not a necessity, I’d just as soon get out of the room. I don’t want to define either “how to be a man” or “how to be good” for *anyone*.
@ Archy
I agree with you. There should be a men’s only section at GMP. I think GMP can do this if they truly wanted to because I believe most if not all the female users would respect the space. They’d be welcome to read, but asked not to comment. If not, maybe we should consider creating our own space not that I’d want to pull traffic from GMP. Kind of like a brother or affiliated site. We could use blogger and maybe get permission to reprint some articles and discuss them in a masculine space.
I would put it in a subzone on the GMP like how NSWATM seems to be?
“There are several forums for men and boys to share their stories and talk about the various issues and problems they face. Keeping in mind that plenty of women support male survivors, MS created a forum specifically for them. However, many of the women used the other forums, especially the forums that most male survivors commented on. As a result, many male survivors who came to MS looking for a safe space to talk about their experiences with other men stopped posting in the public forums or stopped posting altogether.”
This seems to be a common occurrence whenever men try to gather together online. It happened on the forum of the largest site dedicate to men on Internet where I used to post many years ago. The site’s forum, which was meant to be a forum for men, was dominated by women. They monopolized the forum by asking relationship questions, correcting men’s views on issues according to their own beliefs, derailing any meaningful threads on legitimate men’s issues and posting attention seeking comments.
After many men complained they created a separate men only area. This always seemed wrong to me. Why wouldn’t they create an sub-forum where both men and women could post and have the rest of the forum(s) being reserved for men? You know, since it was a site for men and everything. Of course, the women ignored the men only rule and continued to post there keeping the site’s mods very busy. Most just posted away but a few did acknowledge the men only rule but starting out with something like, “I know this is the men’s forum, but…” And I won’t even go into when they appointed a woman mod and all the men’s issues started to be deleted from the men only sub-forum.
Of course, the inevitable happened and the place died, which was the point, I guess. It stills soldiers on but the quantity and quality of the posts there are a mere shadow of what they once were.
Keep at it, Tom. You’re not the first to run into this problem but hopefully you’ll be the first to solve it.
@Teflon: “Of course, the women ignored the men only rule and continued to post there keeping the site’s mods very busy. [...]
And I won’t even go into when they appointed a woman mod and all the men’s issues started to be deleted from the men only sub-forum.”
As they say, “power corrupts”.
It looks like it’s equally true for both men AND women: once they got power (to post, to comment, to talk about their issues…), they just can’t stop using (and abusing) it.
I have yet to come across a women who understood the basics of me as a man. But I get the feeling that a lot of women think they understand us. I on the other hand don’t pretend to understand any women I know (or don’t know). Until I find one that actually gets us, I’ll stick to small talk.
So i am being told i cant see clearly because i am a man, nice try. I agree in hearing the outside opinion. I always believe it is necessary to really complete a process, but you cant always rely on it because it in itself is coming also from a flawed biased *Human* point of view. Take a look at and major video game company, they deal with this on a daily basis multiplied by millions and is always taken with a grain of salt. If we truly want a complete idea from the other side of the gender river (using “2 gender” speech) we should not just have the loudest person who say i’m a feminist. we should have a radical, moderate, liberal, and conservative feminist as well, and possibly women who aren’t feminist either.
I do agree with some of your work but the pieces that have the must be approved by women thing always seem 1 sided. Women can also walk over men, take men for granted, and fail to appreciate men for what we provide. If your version of feminism is this must be approved by women and you still believe feminism=equality for all maybe you should also speak on things that must be approved by men.
“Is goodness something to which we all aspire together, or is it something men get to define for themselves without input from half the human race? ”
Feminists do not make up half the human race. And given feminists have been defining what a good man is based on their own self interests, and incedentaly deeming that any non-feminist male (and some feminist males, as you and Tom both well know) fails to meet that standard of “good”.
“That’s the question raised by Tom Matlack’s “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue,””
Not in the article I read. I read an article that acknowledged being a better man included being a man for others… that includes women (read the section on his son’s school, as well as the section starting “So how does all this relate to women “). That said, it did acknowledge that an important part of that journey requires a woman free zone, just as woman have. I’m curious, how many discussions have you been involved in that said men can not be feminists, only pro-feminist? It is an assertion I disagree with because, even though the argument that building and defining feminity and what it means to be a woman can only be done by women, the idea that men can’t be a part of that is rediculous. Likewise, defining masculinity and what it means to be a man is likewise something men have to do, but that does not mean woman can’t be a part of the overall goal or process. But being a part of something doesn’t mean you MUST be part of every single aspect. Some things just need to be done apart from the whole.
“and it reminds me of why it was I needed to resign from my position as a contributing editor at GMP last December.”
Had to include that, to set yourself firmly in opposition to Tom, not just in this, but in so much more. Petty, very petty.
“In a culture in which men have done tremendous collective harm to women, that means that men’s successful recovery … is contingent on making amends to the women we’ve harmed”
And here we have it. Treating men and masculinity as a disease, a pathology that needs to be cured. Tom’s article discussed the personal growth he gained from his AA meetings, he did not attribute becoming a good man as a recovery program. That’s why he also didn’t go into the other parts of recovery involved. Self discovery is not contigent on recovering from something, though his personal self discovery came during that time of recovery. He wants to share that opportunity for self discovery by emulating the envirounment in which he was able to learn and grow.
But you, seeing masculinity as a problem that needs to be cured, that’s sick. You have demons in your past that you need to account for, but you have chosen to lay the blame for your own personal failings at the feet of every man, instead of owning it. So long as men and masculinity are the evils you play them out to be, you are not at fault for what you’ve done. But yYour problems are not my fault, and until you deal with THAT, you will remain an danger to those around you.
“And how can we know what amends to make unless we’re willing to be confronted by those whom we’ve hurt?”
This rests solely upon the presumption that the victimization feminists claim to have suffered at the hands of men, suffering I’ve heard claimed to have been even worst that that endured by black people during the slavery period. But that victimization is based on a one-sided examination of all of history, cherry picked and rewritten to ensure focus on the rights and privileges of men and the responsabilities and limits of women, never looking at the responsibilites and limits of men, nor the rights and privileges of women. I reject the assertions of patriarchy theory, but I know I am a good man. The reason is twofold: 1: Being a man, particularly a good man, is not a failing I needed to be cured of… 2: I do not feel the weight of the manufactured guilt lumped upon men by the feminist movement, and without that guilt, I do not need to attone for a wrong I have never committed n order to be good.
“He sees that critique as a distraction, an obstacle to men doing the important work of discussing masculinity.”
Odd that you would openly call masculinity a disease that must be cured, then claim feminist is not an obsticle to discussing masculinity is a non-destructive way.
“a lens that allows everyone – men and women alike – to see issues of sex and gender more clearly.”
that lens is focused on the wrong gender to allow discussion of men and masculinity. This article is evidence of that, where you deny men are even allowed to have a discussion without women, or else they will fail to be able to grow. It is a lens that does not allow a focus on men, only a peripherial view, and there are ample examples to prove that case.
“It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door,”
And we all know, regardless of it being acceptable, even encouraged with women, men are not entitled to have their own space. Is that not how it goes in the feminist circles? Is that not the reasoning Simon Fraser University’s feminist women’s center made such a stink about the idea of having a men’s centere outside their control?
“with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen to spin.”
And the blaming, insulting judgement, such as that you’ve heaped on us today, that couldn’t possibly be a reason for it?
“there’s nothing novel about creating a space in which women’s perspectives are seen as an unwelcome distraction”
There most certainly is in todays society. You’re welcome to provide examples to demonstrate otherwise, but I suspect you’ll just point to the standard feminist claims of “men rule everything”, “men have all the government positions”, etc, and continue to ignore the influence women DO have, contrary to feminist assertion, within all those spheres (or are you going to try and tell us Michelle Obama has absolutely no impact, despite having no responsibility, to how the USA is run?).
“listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations.”
You’ve clearly been listening to it for quite some time. Tell me, aside from blame for all societies ills, and an expectation to act more like women, what feminist perspectives have come from your efforts? The feminist perspective has always been about what is best for women, and that is not a good place for men to start, we are not an extension of women, we are a compliment, and that includes being distinct and different in many areas, and not burdened with a guilt for crimes not our own, often even fictional.
Well then, look who showed up just in time for another shakeup.
Sorry Hugo, the experience and definition of what makes a man is not up to women, and certainly not your chosen ideology.
Why does it scare so many people here to hear that a man wants to decide for himself what makes a man? Oh, wait. We all know the answer don’t we?
Exactly, DLZ. When Hugo declares the core requirements for men to be “good,” it’s entirely reasonable to ask whose standards of goodness are being used. His? Sorry, not interested.
Men have no need to meet someone else’s standards of goodness–not Hugo’s, not feminists’, not even women’s in general. Goodness is something we define for ourselves.
This piece represents possibly the greatest barrier between Dr. Schwyzer and the majority of men: the vast majority of men are not, nor have they have been, addicts.
When looking at Dr. Schwyzer’s analysis, it is literally someone who sees the world through the lens of addiction. It’s all there: the ignorance of harm caused, the desire for escapism, the long standing refusal to listen to others. Dr. Schwyzer believes that he is describing men, writ large, but at most he is describing a small subset: addicts.
Most of us do not struggle with addiction. Most of us have no history of letting our loved ones down and shutting our ears to advice and counsel offered out of love. Most of us have never run from our problems, choosing instead to face them head on every single day of our lives.
Our reward for this behavior is to be ignored at best, and vilified at worst. Society sees the Goldman Sachs investment banker as a privileged man who shot society in the foot. It does not see weary man who worked 12 hour days for years on end towards a goal he believed in. His decades of hard work are ignored in favor of a narrative that creates a boogieman for society to sneer at.
As a man, I do not need more voices creating card-board-cut-out evil doers. I do need to hear the struggles of other men who labor tirelessly while being lashed with a steady stream of insults by a society who simply expects them to take it. I need a space where I do not have to apologize for my own hard work, and where I never have to hear others apologize for theirs.
Perhaps, one day, Dr. Schwyzer will finally understand that most of us have a past incredibly different from his. Once that happens, perhaps he will finally acknowledge that this world is filled with strong, capable men who have earned what little success they have achieved. Until then, he has very little wisdom to offer.
I couldn’t agree more- you put it far more succintley than I did!
I agree whole-heartedly with this article.
Hugo’s discourse is flawed because it’s based on a “this OR that” stance. Like he’s right, OR Tom he’s right.
Of course, both positions have value, instead. Assuming a “this OR that” stance is an old fallacy, because it excludes multiple possibilities; it’s, basically, rigid and blind.
Besides, Hugo’s position reeks of double standard.
He affirms that men NEED the feminist point of view to become good men. Obviously, he doesn’t think the opposite (feminists need men’s point of view) is true.
Feminists (and women in general) would react rabidly to men telling them that men should define “good women” (and rightly so). So, why women should be allowed such authority over men?
Honestly, I don’t think someone holding double standards is authoritative about genders equality.
Well that was a misleading title. When will Hugo start writing articles again and stop projecting himself? If I read one more article with him waaahing and whining about his own problems….. I guess he just isn’t the kind of guy I can relate to, which I guess is weird on here!
Tom- I didn’t agree 100% with yours but it was a very articulate argument you put forward, and not one I’ve heard before, congratulations on making me think!
Personally I welcome a male only space, and I don’t think that is in any way going to detract from how I relate to women, as I do already value their opinions, and my relationship with my wife and daughter have cemented me in feminism, in a way I never thought possible before. Feminism has enabled me to become a better man.
But there are things I would rather discuss with men, and have a male only discourse, I don’t think this is damaging, as women need women only spaces, we as men need our own space too, preferably one without everyone’s ego getting in the way of their contribution
I don’t understand why a men only space would be a threat to women, and neither does my wife…..
I mean we spend a lot of time IRL in men only spaces- why not online?
I would rather be here with some reasonable brothers than listening to sexist babble on other sites.
It’s like the whole FSU argument again. Men can have their own spaces only if it’s under the supervision of women otherwise they’ll be a bunch on misogynist pigs.
Sorry, it’s SFU referring to the mens center.
Oh for goodness….the Men’s Centre thing wasn’t about being “under the supervision of women.” It was about the Women’s Centre saying they wouldn’t support a Men’s Centre that perpetuated mainstream traditional views of masculinity.
“Although the women’s centre’s coordinator declined to be interviewed, skepticism of the concept is evident in the centre’s FAQs. “Where is the men’s centre?” says a line atop that section of its website. “The simple answer is that the men’s centre is everywhere else,” it reads, before a paragraph that explains the justification for the women’s centre. Canadian society is “a man’s world,” female voices are oppressed in classes, and women feel threatened by drunken males at night, it reads.
The website lists support for the idea of a “male allies project” that would “bring self-identified men together to talk about masculinity and its harmful effects.” Masculinity, it says, “denigrates women by making them into sexual objects, is homophobic, encourages violence, and discourages emotional expression.”
Those are the very stereotypes Midgley says the men’s centre’s users might discuss.”
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/27/a-place-just-for-men/
If I read this right it seems that the women’s center believes that it is unnecessary because the men’s center is “everywhere else”. They also seem to be fostering some pretty bad stereotypes of masculinity.
Sad thing is that it was established with the hope of helping prevent male suicides. I bet the women’s center would support abortion rights because we should trust women, but men can’t be trusted.
And some of whom were saying a men’s center wasn’t needed, in fact their website says a mens center is everywhere else in society. I hereby create a men’s meeting to meet a the ladies toilets in order to test the theory of a men’s center being everywhere else in society apart from the SFU women’s center
Their official stance seems a bit odd though, but there was quite a bit of resistance to creating a men’s center by people at that Uni, I believe even some of the SFUWC members flat out didn’t want a SFUMC.
Is it possible to keep some traditional views, are any of the traditional views good of masculinity? I’d say fighting for those weaker than you is a good masculine trait, one that I see feminists have used too for themselves. I am currently growing my empathy instead of burying it, for a long time I tried to push my feelings down n lock them away but now I am quite open with them, I do a lot of work to identify why they are there, encourage the positive ones whilst accepting the negative ones. I am encouraging my feminine traits, caring, empathy, emotional intelligence, “FEELING” vs being caught up in other things like actions (not sure how to explain it, that stuff that happens when a woman communicates a feeling but a man is too caught up in the words?).
I cry more than I use to now, but I actually like it because it feels like it cleanses me, I’ve heard the various hormone releases help to destress so I wouldn’t be surprised if its true but it’s so refreshing being able to cry. I had a time period I would feel like crying, but no tears would come through, it was annoying. Recently at a funeral I found myself at first trying to block crying, but then I realized why, I didn’t want to be seen as less of a man but then I thought a real man should cry when he needs to and I felt better after I stopped blocking out those emotions. I balled my eyes out, I wore sunglasses though half to hide the tears and half because the Aussie sun is bright as hell. Some movies now will tear me apart (Life as a House tore me up bigtime due to my own loss of my father, Marley n Me, etc) and I’ll cry “like a girl” but really, I’m crying LIKE A HUMAN, man or woman, and it’s such a pity that so many men spend so much time fighting their emotions and burying them. Masculine traits are often seen as better, but really they come with a curse that isn’t spoken of much, masculinity in my eyes is not better or easier than femininity…The male experience has a lot of pain but most of it is just hidden from view whilst female experience of pain is far more socially acceptable to talk about, far more in view to the point that it’s emphasized and we end up with false views of men as invincible and without emotion, and women as victims who have too much emotion.
So I take good from masculine and feminine, I’d hope the SFU mens and womens center takes them as well, some parts traditional views of masculinity but evolving them into something better and less restrictive. Just as some feminism I’ve seen encourages women to be go getters, get a career (if they want), be confident, don’t be passive, I think masculism should encourage men to open up, feel more, share more, be stay at home dads more (if they want).
Now there has been discussion of why some places need to be about men recently, but I think that’s because certain issues need to be tackled from a point of gender. Men to teach and be role models to other men, men to open up fully without being afraid to be seen as weak by women, male illness to be dealt with and male issues surrounding rights, fatherhood, abuse etc can be beneficial when given from their gender’s perspective. Thing is I wouldn’t ALWAYS make it single gender, I’d just have 3 zones in society, male only, female only, and unisex so people can feel safe in at least one of them.
There is a barrier to opening up around women I feel as a man, ESPECIALLY if she is attractive. I find it hard to admit my weaknesses in front of those who I am attracted to especially, I also worry too much about offending them when I should be able to just speak and I find men generally are more accepting of my full, uncensored speech. Sometimes I just like to talk with the boys alone because I’m not trying to impress them as much as I try to impress women, that is a big barrier I think because I don’t care as much if men judge me but I do care what women judge of me. I still want to be seen as attractive, but it’s my own personal issue and I think many other men feel this. I’m guessing women also feel their own barriers when opening up fully around men, or people feel it for whoever they want to appear attractive to.
That said I am ok with opening up pretty much fully with female counselors (and male too) but much of that is to do with them being trained and naturally more empathic than many men n women who aren’t trained. I also feel far more comfy being nude around men than women due to insecurity of my body, maybe that can help explain it. Ladies, picture being nude around 2 groups, 1 of women only, or at a different time being nude around both women and men. Which would you feel more comfortable in? Because for me being nude in the sense of opening up fully and discussing some of our deepest fears can be much harder with women in the room vs men only.
Keep defending it heather, but you’re only hurting yourself. If you can’t see the discrimination and misandry in that, why should we believe you see it in the more subtle locations?
I think part of the problem is that Heather is exclusively looking at the women’s center statement after it became controversial. They realized that one argument was that SFU had a women’s center and another was the male suicide rates. They would seem discriminatory and monstrous if they didn’t care about men killing themselves so released a more conciliatory statement. Feminism is a political movement and being pro-male suicide was bad politics.
Like I said to Archy concerning that feminist group arguing against banning MGC because it would distract from the horrors of FGC, there is a gap between the actual intentions/concerns/beliefs of many feminist organizations and their actual motivations. I don’t see how banning MGC could detract from the horrors of something already officially recognized as morally and legally impermissible. In fact banning MGC may actually expedite the cultural shift necessary to completely eradicate the practice of FGC. If MGC is morally and legally impermissible, how much more the more extreme forms of FGC.
I think that was thinly veiled misandry. I think the opposition to the SFU men’s center was also misandry although better dressed. If we didn’t have the SFU women’s center’s previous statements, would we even know? It was good enough to fool Heather, who I think has a good heart, but is misguided in this.
It was about the Women’s Centre saying they wouldn’t support a Men’s Centre that perpetuated mainstream traditional views of masculinity.
It’s the part where some of them and others jumped straight to presuming that said Men’s Centre was a hive of traditional views of masculinity, before it was even built. And there was definitely some “why didn’t they consult us” vibe in there too.
Actually, I’d have to disagree there, they made it pretty clear they were completely opposed to a men’s center that didn’t espouse their own (negative and pretty hateful) view of masculinity. They didn’t want a safe space so much as an indoctrination space. That’s purely going on what they said with no reading between the lines.
I find this article quite troubling. It essentially boils down to “men are evil and must change to be good” with a nice dash of “such change should and must be focused on what women want.”
It’s not that men shouldn’t listen to women, or that doing so is a bad thing, but it’s no more or less important than men learning to listen to themselve and other men, especially so considering that (at least when it comes to gender) men’s voices aren’t exactly the privileged ones.
I am not surprised to see Hugo back after a while – we all know Hugo had serious problems somewhere else during the last months – with an article about ‘No Gurlz Allowed sign to the clubhouse door’.
However he presumes wrong, the GMP is open for any comment, regardless if from feminists or from MRAs. There is no biased moderation going on within the GMP.
About Hugo’s idea ‘including women’s voices in the telling of stories about men’ let me point out, that this has been always the case with the GMP.
Unlike feminist forums, the GMP has never been a reclusive community of deleting and banning.
It’s similar with many MRA-related websites. The MRA-forum I use since many years is totally open for any feminist voice, regardless if we consider those comments to be reasonable or not.
We have indeed female posters with us and we never delete comments. There are 3 sections, one is for our members and their stories, another section is called ‘opposing views’ and it is for people who strongly but politely disagree with us, and finally there is a section called Trolleville, where we collect any hate-mail, threats and insults.
There is definitively plenty of space for any opinion, including females for their opinion, not only with the GMP but also within MRA-forums.
Hugo, I completely agree that feminism is central to being a good man.Yet, I think that a new form of feminism must evolve where we allow men to speak their voices unfettered by those who would preemptively deny their validity. I don’t think you agree with the assessment I am implying but I think that is because you have tried so hard to be liked and accepted and to be a good man to women that you have failed to see how that has limited your ability to authentically be in touch with your own voice.
Too often feminism has been a woman’s only club where women speak to men and the men must listen. However we need to re envision a feminism where men are actively involved in questioning societies gender morals. And we need to see how that is a more authentic form of feminism. Feminism is still a paradoxically taboo place for men to enter. Men can be feminists but only in certain limited ways as an “ally.” You can not define feminism as listening to women’s voices because it is so much more than that and because we can not predefine women’s voices or else feminism becomes predicated on a circular logic. Feminism is all voices engaging one another toward the goal of gender equality.
” However we need to re envision a feminism where men are actively involved in questioning societies gender morals.”
The question I and many others have is, why must it be a “feminism”? You’ve acknowledged some of the issues with current feminisms, and I can’t see how creating another one, that is indistinguishable from those that already exist, and does nothing to address the problems of the current, nor prevent a bleed of the current into the new, will change any of that?
I don’t think I understand you. Why can’t it be feminism? I am not implying that feminism must be everything that is men’s issues. Feminism can and must be a part of it. But only a part of it. Men’s rights, the currently bogey man of political consciousness, is also another important piece of the puzzle. Most people in the men’s rights movement don’t have much a problem with women both analyzing society and working to change it because after all it is there goal to change how women think.
Feminism can and must be a part of it.
I think a part of of it “Why must feminism be a part of it?”
I’m all for “can be a part of it” but I think people question the “must be a part of it”.
Well, really, it begins with, feminism can’t even make up it’s own mind about what it is. Due to the feminism is good and pure, except when parts of it are not since it’s not a monolith debacle makes one wonder what part of feminism “must be a part”, and does that include the man hating gynocentrism portion? And if feminism can’t even get it’s own house sorted, what makes it believe it is “entitled” to demand a seat in others houses too? Then of course, the why of it is asked, why “must” feminism be part of it?
If you create something like that – a feminism where men are actively involved in questioning societies gender morals – I wonder if you could call such a movement ‘feminism’.
Probably not…. because such a movement has nothing to do with feminism anymore.
I think something just hit me.
Maybe it’s me but there seems to be, when it comes to helping men, there is a presumption. Some baseline assumption that is treated more like undeniable fact and from this assumption it is concluded that it is an absolute necessity for men to be inclusive of women’s voices when it comes to helping men work on their goodness.
And that presumption seems to be that men have gotten to where they are today with absolutely zero interaction and influence with/from women. As if the reason men are as bad off as they today is because we have been pushing women away. Now in order to get right we must depend on women.
Well from the get go this basically presumes that women voices have had no influence on the state of men today and that the women’s voices are some absolute positive force that is free of negativity,
You know, I read one of the pieces that Hugo wrote in Jezebel “Why we still think men are obsessed with sex.” Or rather, I stopped reading it after it opened with “men are dogs.” I’m not really sure that I can take his criticism seriously given the way he treats men as a group in his other writing; I’m also not so certain that it’s feminism that has given him this viewpoint. I might be wrong though.
I suspect it is a combination of his own guilt for the douchbag things he’s done in his past, and the fact feminism gives him an out, by blaming it on his male parts, rather than anything to do with him. Just a theory though. And yeah, I see him as an Uncle Ruckus of the white man.