The God of Gender Wars Is Laughing

If you can’t get past the anger, Megan Rosker writes, nothing will change.

I know I’m coming late to the party on the discussion of feminism that has recently transpired on the Good Men Project. In fact I have been so wrapped up in preparing for the holidays that the news that Hugo Schwyzer had resigned didn’t reach me until a friend passed on his recent post. In her email to me she simply wrote, “Thoughts?”

I clicked on the link and immediately dove into the deep depths of this discussion. After a few minutes of reading and ranting to my husband, I sat head in hands, deflated. Once again, here we are in the 21st century talking about Stone Age feminism. I found it hard to believe that this group of intelligent people could be reduced so quickly to a pack of squabbling ninnies—like hens in the hen house pecking furiously at the ground, vying for the better roost until, finally, one hen storms out in a huff.

Yes, I am well aware of the blatant use of feminine stereotypes in that last paragraph, because this argument has personified each and every one of them. Many of those in this discussion have acted exactly like the hysterical stereotype that Mr. Schywzer is trying so hard to defend women against!


Now, are men really putting women down or are women doing it to themselves? Have women now taken up the torch of systematically betraying themselves over and over and over again? It is this constant betrayal that causes the aggression and frustration that leads to the verbal lashing out that Mr. Matlack veers away from in conversations with feminists. Why should Mr. Matlack or any man have to listen to such abuse and put up with being attacked?

We learn as children that two wrongs don’t make a right. There is no denying that women have been belittled in the past and in many ways still are, but does that mean we have a right to do the same to men? If Mr. Schwyzer somehow misunderstood and thought that Mr. Matlack was fearful of getting physically beaten by a pack of feminist in a back alley in Boston, I think he is tragically less informed about the habitual rhythms of gender relations than he has led us all to believe. But I don’t think that is actually the case. In fact, this sort of mockery of Mr. Matlack’s distaste for feminist anger is a way of painting Mr. Matlack as simply not tough enough to take a little rough dialogue.

What I think we have seen unfold here is what happens when the resentment, frustration, and repression of women is allowed to dominate the collective discussion. It has lead to the two male stereotypes that Mr. Matlack tries to walk between on GMP. On one side is the metrosexual man, the man that has been feminized to the point of being acceptable to angry feminists, and on the other side the man who sits on the couch, belching and treating his spouse like Alice on The Honeymooners.

I love the term gaslighting that Yashir Ali coined in his piece that set off this whole chain of discussions. With this term he is referring back to an old Ingrid Bergman movie, Gaslight, in which Bergman is tricked by her husband into believing she is nuts so he can steal her money. The premise Ali is working with is that woman have been tricked into believing they are crazy so that men can steal their power, but are men really stealing anyone’s power at this point? Or are women undermining themselves?

Who is betraying women more: ignorant men supporting an ignorant, out-dated chauvinist culture or the women who, every day, choose to do things the way a man would? We don’t take a job or stay home with our kids without consulting the bible of patriarchy. We don’t buy a house, get married, shop, parent, or vote outside of the strict guidelines of patriarchy. If we think we can move past the patriarchal system by being angry with it, we are kidding ourselves. The only way to move past it is through the expression of the feminine.

As a woman, I know for fact that I have more to express than anger and resentment toward men, and my time is better spent being true to my nature, leading as a woman and as a mother, rather than arguing outdated gender philosophy with women—and men—who prefer to carry a torch of repression and resentment. It is this repression that leads to the anger that causes men like Mr. Schwyzer to leave GMP in a huff.

Mr. Schwyzer, I dare say you are acting a bit like the hysterical women you are so vehemently looking to defend.

What makes me smile just a little devilishly is this: Mr. Schywzer, you have just been gaslighted. Your power was stolen away from you. Your identity as a feminist is just what those angry clucking hens want you to be. Now you haven’t been tricked into being crazy. Rather, you have simply been manipulated into doing the bidding for repressed, resentful feminist. They want you to be their knight, to defend their anger and their repression, their rebellion and their war against the patriarchy. They want you to justify what they cannot completely justify by themselves. With a few male feminists that represent their voice, however, their plan is complete.

They will have their final revenge on the male population, slowly eradicating and undermining the masculine, and yet never having to expose all the inherent weakness they feel about being female. They never have to uncover the true nature of being feminine because, god forbid … what if they really are hysterical and crazy under their feminist armor? See, these “feminists” all drank the Kool Aid too. Their principles are still set firmly within a patriarchal structure. Male feminists who defend the female anger and resentment and don’t encourage women to express themselves naturally are their unknowing spies, their puppets. They are the final step in a decades-long plan to seek revenge on the male species, to slowly manipulate the male population into feeling the guilt they deserve to feel for the centuries of abuse women suffered and lacked any voice to express.


Somewhere, high above the clouds, I picture a big fat, white man, the God of Gender Wars, smoking a cigar, sitting behind a large oak desk, and looking down on us. He leans back, laughing hysterically as we run about clucking like chickens, roaring insults and storming off when we think our feelings are hurt. With tears of laughter rolling down his bloated face, he stutters to say, “How stupid could they be? I can’t believe it worked! I never thought it would work and yet look at them! Look at them! They are destroying each other!” Then he sits back and cackles and his laugh bellows through history.

He understands that women will never find an ounce of power this way. He sleeps easy at night knowing that his precious patriarchy is in good hands and won’t be destroyed any time soon.

—Photo paul (dex)/Flickr

About Megan Rosker

Megan Rosker is the mom of three young children, a former teacher and ed and play advocate. She writes about how to change education and the culture of childhood in America. Her advocacy has been featured in the New York Times and she is the recent recipient of the Daily Points of Light Award.


  1. Eric M. says:
    January 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    “Self preservation is the first law of nature.”

    Not only is that not univerally true, it’s a poor excuse for being totally sefl-centered.

    However, let’s assume you are correct. Then, why are most parents willin to put themselves at risk, including their own survival, to protect that of their offspring? In order for our species to survive, let alone thrive, we must see beyond ourselves, and consider the interests of others. We aren’t in this alone, even if we want to be.

    Eric – I can see some readers looking at what you have written and saying “In that case its best for men to be treated like children” P^)

    We aren’t in this alone, even if we want to be – now that is interesting! The “WE”.

    But what are we “IN”?

    • “Eric – I can see some readers looking at what you have written and saying “In that case its best for men to be treated like children” P^)”

      My point had noting to do with men exclusively. Note I never mentioned men or women. So, I don’t follow your logic; please elaborate.

      We are IN a co-dependant society, where we rely on each other for services needed for survival.

      or on planet earth. We live amongst others and are co-dependent. A simple example, I live in a home and pay for electricity but have no involvement in its production or delivery. I rely on others to do that for me, and pay them for their service. However, I help to keep their power grid safe from terrorists who would love nothing more than to cut off electricity to a large part of the country.

      • “So, I don’t follow your logic; please elaborate.”

        I thought I had – I did punctuate with. P^)

        As I often say “Don’t mistake Whimsy for Warfare”.

        I do agree that we are in so many ways in a society that is co-dependent. So if it’s that simple – just co-dependency – why do we have so muck discord around gender?

        • “why do we have so muck discord around gender?”

          In general, “we” don’t. That’s a feminist thing. Most women seldom if ever mention gender, male privilege, patriarchy, rape culture, and other topics feminists are obsessed with and want to disucss about constantly.

          • want to disucss constantly.

          • Actually Eric – you do have a point there.P^)

            It is a relative observation about Discord – just as it’s relative when there is supposed discord and supposed constant discussion about sexuality, disability, age… and so many other characteristics.

            On the other hand, there are those who do make a living from the subject and are even played to be political, so I do wonder if the Discord Round Here is relative to the Combatants involved – or symptomatic of a snow flake on the bit of the Ice-berg above water?

  2. Rapses says:
    January 2, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Facilities for the disabled in not a personal need, it is for the common good of the society. For example, I am able bodied person, but I am all for facilities for children, elderly and disabled because who knows someday I myself, my parents, friends or an acquaintance might need those facilities.

    So you said ” Personal is personal and political is political and they shall never meet. ” – so where and what does the social meet – or the common good?

    • When you mix the chemical “personal” with chemical “political” the byproduct is corruption.

      • You still have not accounted for the social!

        • Can you please elaborate the point? Don’t want to misunderstand it.

          • Sorry Rapses I ran out of respons space-
            Inregardes to a previous statment….

            In an academic sense, you are absolutely right. 

            But lets remember that those examples are drawn from actual legislation being debated in my state as well as what many see as the current Arab-Israeli conflict.

            What I’m saying is that true compromise has 2 winners. If someone is asked to sacrifices something or trade for something of lesser value then what he started with, then reality dictates that you have 1 winner and 1 loser. 

            Sadly There is hardly ever a true compromise. Someone usually gets screwed. 

            I recommend that both parties identify defeat before they enter the negotiating table. 

            Oh BTW, if we make “street harassment” a crime we remove the right of men to challenge their accusers as well as sacrificing our right to equal protection under the law.

            • Compromise is all about settling the claims with mutual concessions. In compromise, there is no clear cut winner or loser, each party gains somethings and has to give up something. There are no real solutions in only life, there are only trade offs. Still it is better than going through litigation or war.

              Street harassment is a nuisance. If any law provides a fair clear cut definition of what constitutes harassment, how is it going to remove the right of men to challenge the accusers? We still have the presumption of innocent till proven guilty, despite best efforts of feminists. You have to prove it as well.

            • I guess I’ll surrender to your optimism (although I remain skeptical)

              And I guess the improbability of street harasser laws ever being passed is sufficient for me to drop the subject, 

              but let the record show, we live  in a world filled with state sanctioned paternity fraud, VAWA supporters and misallocation of resources towards currying the favor  of women voters. I don’t plan on grabbing my ankles for feminist anymore then what has already been achieved.

            • I assure you that both the state and feminist supporters will ultimately suffer for their sins against men. These sins attack and feed on the virtues of the civilized society and eventually come to eat up their originators, when all virtues in society end. Men have to be a bit more careful about the legal and political minefields laid for them. Ones who bite the hand that feeds eventually starve to death.

            • J.G. te Molder says:


              Yes, I suppose. But then again, I don’t think it was too long ago that laws that cause you to lose your children forever because you raised your voice one time was considered improbable if not outright impossible.

              Yet, here we are.

            • Completely agree with you. In the good old days, physically punishing a child for wrongdoing was considered disciplining and now even raising your voice to reprimand child for doing something terrible is child abuse. Are we getting any better with this abuse industry?

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              Not just raising your voice against your child, which may be explainable. But raise your voice against your adult human spouse, and bye-bye children when she decides on a divorce.

          • @Rapses – You wrote:

            “Facilities for the disabled in not a personal need, it is for the common good of the society.”

            Before that you also wrote:

            “Everybody has to negotiate his/her place in the gender equilibrium. Personal is personal and political is political and they shall never meet.”

            So I was enquiring after information as to how The Personal, the Political and the Social/Common Good interact and interrelate from your POV.

            Are there three distinct entities, or do they flow one into the other?

            • Personal-social-political for a social continuum. Its starts with needs of individuals which might well be unique. When several people in the same community have somewhat similar needs, then it becomes a social need. For it to move into the political zone, the issue has to be clearly defined, more formalized and advocated for the powers to be.

              For example, if A desires some special service x which is not available in his community. He is stuck with the problem which is personal. Now he tries to find something similar to x and comes across B, C, D,E and F who also need the services.
              The issues becomes social the moment these people are not alone and form maybe a loose interest group, helping one another with the issue. When this group comes to know about other groups like them say beta group, delta group and omega group and are able to form some kind of consensus about service x, It pushes service x into political zone where its political value makes the government to act on it. Personal has to was through the filter of social becoming political.

  3. The facebook groups on feminist, etc are a real battleground. You get the whataboutthemenz insults, the privilege fights, mra’s vs feminists oppression olympics, the few young feminists and mras who really do seem like they are there just to antagonize each other and fight, neither seeing the pain the other faces or the suffering. Then there are the ones casting privilege around like it’s the space bar, who belittle the idea of misandry whilst bemoaning the suffering they face as women. I see the guys desperate to get their voice heard, feeling ignored and left out assuming feminism = equalism and being turned off and bitter because they were shut down horribly by some feisty and angry young radfems with a chip to grind (who can’t see their own hipocrisy I might add).

    It’s a great place to have arguments, but totally fails in many respects to bring in good and decent discussion, the moral superiority battles are funny to watch though as each try to be victor. But saddens sets in when you realize if this is any indication of the majority of both groups then quite frankly humans are doooomed. Ok, a tad over dramatic but you get the point. It’s sad to see “feminists” laugh off misandry as if it’s nothing, and mra’s laugh off misogyny as if it’s nothing. Vitriol is king on internet debates atm it seems. Wake me up when people calm down…

  4. @Julie Gillis
    “You never answered me about gay families. Who has to be in charge in a lesbian or gay relationship? Why does democracy and collaboration in a family lead to anarchy?”

    Well I would like to offer my opinion about gay and lesbian families which is politically super incorrect. I would rather take the accusation of being homophobic than be a coward. Gay and lesbian families are not real families. These relations are sterile. It is about two people enjoying themselves sexually with each other. However, I don’t think anybody has any right to interfere in the private matters of others or hate anybody for their sexual preferences.

    • In democracy majority rules, if their are two adults in the family who differ on some issue. Voting will always lead to a tie. Both co-operation and competition are part of any social group that includes families. If there is no clear cut leader than everybody starts behaving like one, leading to anarchy. I have personally observed it in in-laws issues.

      • What would be wrong with submitting to the more mature adult even if that adult is …A Women!..(ominous music fade to black)

        • Behind every successful man is a successful woman, but behind every successful women there is a sore loser.

          Did you get your answer or should I be more direct.

          • Not really.
            It sounds like something a gender policeman would say. It’s a rather troublesome dipiction of your view of successful women in marriages that their spouce makes less then they do.

            • The view might be troublesome but it is what it is.

            • “It is what it is” according to who it’s being observed by. There is no objective proof that female run homes with 2 productive adults are any less benificial to society than a traditional hetero normative union.

              Most of the problems with female run homes is the inherent stigma that others choose to attach to the Men is said relationships. It’s another negative value judgment from outsiders in the same vain as Homophobia that serves nothing but to placate the narcissism of on self righteous on-lookers.

            • On the micro level there is no conclusive evidence that female run homes with 2 productive adults are any less benificial to society than a traditional hetero normative union, but if you care to look around tell me how many great civilizations where based on matriarchal societies. Why women-led societies failed to five rise to great civilization? Because men in those societies lose their vigor and fail to rise to the occasion. In simple American slang, the man is pussified. It is okay for the family to be led by wife is a polite way of saying that the man is good for nothing chump living off her. Everything that glitters is not gold. Do not go by false appearances in the politically correct media,which fails to spread the truth.

            • If we are to grade the productivity and Survivability rates of it’s people then I would gladly state that the greatest civilizations is the one we have now. We are not returning to the days of swords and shields even if they offer a romanticized notion of classic Manhood.

            • Well I completely agree that the present civilization is the greatest civilization of all times, but remember that this civilization was built on men’s shoulder. The men who made discoveries, built buildings, fought wars and took risks are the real builders of this civilization. The men whose full time job is changing diapers, cooking and cleaning make minimal, almost zero, contribution to the society. Lastly, no civilization is infallible, even the present one. If the society keeps mistreats its productive elements i.e. men, rest assured this society will eventually regress to the days of swords and shields.

            • “The men whose full time job is changing diapers, cooking and cleaning make minimal, almost zero, contribution to the society. Lastly, no civilization is infallible, even the present one.”
              Bullshit. Education and raising children is one of the KEY parts of a society, or do you think those men who built society hit 18 and their testicles released a datastore of education to enable them to build such a great society.

              Women played a vital role, men played a vital role, mothers, fathers, child carers, educators, play a vital role. Hell even just good manners and the ability to socialize is an extremely vital trait to be in a society and much of that is taught by the parents. I learned as much from my mother n father as I did from school. How many great discoveries were made from scientists who were given a chemistry set, etc as children by their parents and taught to use it?

              Cooking, cleaning, EXTREMELY VITAL to society. Cooking and food production is one of the highest needs of all humans, sanitation and safe, nutritious food is a major requirement to civilization. “An army marches on its stomach.”

              You need to really start opening your mind a bit more and showing appreciation for the “little” things. The fact I’m not sick because my environment is cleaned regularly is a major productivity booster.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              Right on Archy! Budmin, when you say this, ““The men whose full time job is changing diapers, cooking and cleaning make minimal, almost zero, contribution to the society.” Do you mean that when they do it it isn’t a contribution but when women do it it is? If so why is it any different? Because men are built for “better” things? Because women’s work is not good enough for men? Why is raising children a low occupation if that’s what you mean.

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              Incorrect. Your point is just one more instance of gynocentrism, and the flawed concept from it that women are better nurturers, and feminist demonization of men, especially in the home.

              Every statistic on father(-figure-)less children tells you a father (figure) is vital to a child growing up:


            • “Every statistic on father(-figure-)less children tells you a father (figure) is vital to a child growing up”

              False equivalence. I said specifically “2 productive adults” not single motherhood. Better yet, I was really talking about stay at home fathers who cook, clean, and teach. Where are they on the scale of Manlyness?

              Are stay at home fathers the new blasphemers in the church of Man?

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              I, and the statistics, do not talk about single-parent children, they talk about FATHERLESS children. You could have a hundred women raising a child, but if child doesn’t have a father, it misses something vital.

              Neither have I anything against stay-at-home fathers, quite the contrary, I spoke about the myth that women are better nurturers than men; this is false. The statistics strongly suggest that men are better nurtures than women, at the very least they are the better nurturers on average right now.

              “Manly” does not equal going out to do a job – a man is not a function as society and women look upon them, as Neely’s little list handily shows. Manly is something you’re born with as a man, something that is intrinsic to your existence as a human being; something one instinctively instills in both their daughters and sons. For this children desperately need contact with father(figure)s; that means a man needs to be present in children’s lives. That is the exact opposite of considering stay-at-home fathers to be blasphemers.

          • J.G. te Molder says:

            Talk about misandry.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Do you mean that because they don’t produce children with each other they aren’t real? What about heterosexual couples who cannot produce children or will not produce children. They are sterile, so is their relationship not real? Are children the only measure of a family? That’s not just homophobic it’s telling millions of childless/childfree couples they don’t count. Or do they count because they “could” have a child?

      Homosexuality aside, families are a lot more than get a penis in a vagina. But that is another argument.

      The concept is the same. You have two people living together in committed relationship sharing resources in a household. Some have or adopt children. Who is in charge if it’s two men or two women?

      In your model, patriarchy, who gets to be or has to be the patriarch?

      • With due respect, I wish to remind you that penis-in-vagina is the main reason for the existence of entire humanity. Procreation forms the core of family. Marriage was institutionalized to social and legally bind men and women into a single unit. i.e. family, to work together in procreation and raising the offspring to adulthood. Homosexual unions fail to on this front. It is just mutual commitment of exclusivity for sexual activities. Again, I do not deny that there cannot be love and relationship between homosexual people. As for childless/childfree couples, I would say they are more of exception than rule. Childless couples spend hundreds of thousand of dollars at fertility clinic for the procedures that have not-so-good success rate. Are they insane or deluded? To propagate one’s progeny is an innate human desire. Blood is thicker than water. Childless couple adopt children and raise them, but still at many instances those children try to look for their biological parents. In my opinion sharing resources is a household does not make family. How they are different than two friends living together in same apartment. Since they are outside the definition of family, they can select for among them a leader by toss of coin or whatever other dicey games homosexuals play.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          I’ll be sure to pass on your thoughts to the many long term families with children that I know and that are part of America and other countries. My godparents for example.
          And I’ll not even bother linking to other forms of relationships in other cultures during the past 10K we’ve experienced.
          We have approximately 7 billion people on the planet, we are losing access to clean water, food and fuel. I’d say some alternative family structures are possibly just what we need.
          Then again, I am not religious, catholic etc and don’t believe that procreation is any particular end all. People have animal drives and do wish to procreate sure.
          I personally believe that commitment and shared goals form the core of the family, especially in this day and age.
          We disagree and I don’t believe there will be much fruitful dialogue here. Normally I’d engage in more dialogue, but I don’t think we’d ever see eye to eye.

          • Well trust me, I am not a misanthrope. I respect all relations based on love, commitment, shared goals and camaraderie, but sometimes have to draw boundaries to define what is what. Commitment and shared goals are abstract, blood is real. Reality is something that does not go away when you stop believing in it. I hope that you are not depriving me of participation in dialogue with you for any other topic.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              No, not at all, other discussions will come. I just know so many people not related by blood. I also know families who are abusive who are related by blood. A family, of blood, that abuses it’s children is far far less of a family to me than one, where the two men or women adopted children and have not abused them (though I suspect you might say (as I’ve argued with others who have said it) that the family structure there is abuse, which I would wholeheartedly reject).
              Blood is just….blood.
              My husband was adopted. He has a bio father that is a father in genetics only yes? But a father who raised him, not by blood, is more the family. My blood family?
              It makes no sense to me Rapses, what you are positing.
              You look at a story like Collin’s about the abuse he suffered by people of blood. Is that family? Technically, sure. But that’s not what a family is meant to be. My god parents are two gay men, together happily for 40 years. No abuse. no anger. No lack of commitment. That’s what family looks like to me. Family, to me, is what you make it. Commitment is work. That’s the reality I don’t deny. That’s what reality looks like to me.
              Pregnancy can be done outside a family, anyone can deposit sperm and leave. In cases such as that blood means nothing.
              People build all kinds of families. History has had all kinds of models.
              So we disagree here. I’m an atheist so I suppose my position is quite different. Feel free to hold your opinion, Rapses and if there are other topics we can discuss, we will. This one is too personal for me.

            • Julie, your emotional response forced me to ponder over my own life story. My mother died when I was just eight years old, my father with the help of our extended family took good care of me. For years later, he married my aunt (mother’s sister) who was extremely good mother to me. During this period I developed somewhat fierce loyalty to my father, who has been really good father on all standards, loving, caring, providing, teaching and even disciplining. Six years later I had a baby brother making it a almost perfect happy family Really no issues in my family or even extended family. I think that due to loyalty towards my father, I am extremely sensitive towards any attack on father or fatherhood. I know that there are lousy fathers, lousy mothers, lousy siblings, lousy doctors and lawyers…………..and almost lousy everything. Why do we focus lousy fathers who abuse and abandon their own children. Are divorced dads who are trying to remain in the life of their children good fathers. Why GMP does not post stories about god father and good mothers working as a team to work for the better future of their children despite any hardship. We should focus on good people doing right things instead of making accusations about some imaginary grievances. I would like to apologize if I hurt your feelings on homosexuals, but that was only a clinical approach. I have only bookish knowledge about them.

        • “Homosexual unions fail to on this front. It is just mutual commitment of exclusivity for sexual activities.”

          Well that’s me put in my place then! P^)

          So when you are the one who is actively engaged in dealing with say – civil rights – human rights – fighting injustice – and your partner supports you 100%, even to the point of sacrificing at different times part of and even parts of the relationship – I have to see all that as Sexual Activities.

          Hmmmm – I better check with the judge next time I’m in court if Representing an abused child with the full support of my partner is in some way seen by the judge as me being inappropriately Sexual. I would hate to be in contempt of court! P^)

          AS for;

          “How they are different than two friends living together in same apartment. Since they are outside the definition of family, they can select for among them a leader by toss of coin or whatever other dicey games homosexuals play.|”

          It’s a “”dicey”” game to speak in that way!

          I am happy to call it homophobia, and the game is rigged in my favour!

          Maybe it is best to ask people how they manage their families rather than just disparage with your own dicey presumption and Assumptions? It could even be seen as courteous way to communicate and not a communication pattern built upon prejudice.

          When some do choose to play certain “”dicey”” games – I role the dice, and it’s never snake eyes, only wining roles all the way – “Boxcars” – and all bets are off!

          Ever seen what the house has to pay out, when it’s a whole train of Boxcars one after the other, because someone was not aware of the rules and played a very “”dicey”” game?

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Thank you! This.

            • Julie – I just go back to Natural Justice – something I am “overly” familiar with.

              Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999]

              The Law May Be An Ass – but when some old guys in wigs ruled on that one, they made it clear that to say a Gay man who had looked after his disabled partner for 25 years, and when his partner dies was told to get out of the only home he had known for some 30 years – and all because a piece of legislations said “spouse” – well The Old Guys in Wigs said to not recognise the care, love and companionship to not mean family would be a Manifest Breach of natural justice….. and so the family on man just got bigger!

              Then there was The Medoza case.


              It was odd that within 3 months after Fitzpatrick all co-habiting gay males and females were being taxed as married couples – but it took until 19 Dec 2005 before they could be joined in law. It was a great party! P^)

              I saw not one flipping coins or playing “”dicey”” games, and anyone who is so flippant over the real damage that has been done, and which others have fought at such cost to have addressed …. well need I say more!

        • J.G. te Molder says:

          How about adoption? Does that not count?

          How about when our technology has reached the point where we can get to sperm cells to merge like a sperm and egg does, and safely implant the embryo in a man’s abominable pouch, and extract safely from it? Is that enough for them to be married? You know we’ll do it one day… actually we could probably plant an embryo in there now. The man’s chances to survive the extraction process are extremely slim if not outright zero; but we could make a baby grow in a man’s body. Fusing two sperm cells together is still a little beyond our abilities, but give us time, man, give us time. In the mean time, two donor eggs and one load of sperm from the men, one for each egg, and a surrogate mother, and off we go!

          Or a completely artificial womb? Does that count?

  5. Wirbelwind says:

    Ex definitio homosexual relationships cannot have children. Marriage- a relationship between a man and a woman is given a special treatment (at least in my country) because it is essential in preserving our culture and the whole nation. This treatment covers many things, from having paid maternity and paternity leave to being given free days during school holidays (e.g 2,3 weeks during July, so that you can have some free time with the kids).
    Are children the only measure of the family ? No, but they are a crucial part of it. Without children any society is doomed to collapse in every aspect, and finally- it ceases to exist.

    • J.G. te Molder says:

      How about adoption? Does that not count?

      How about when our technology has reached the point where we can get to sperm cells to merge like a sperm and egg does, and safely implant the embryo in a man’s abominable pouch, and extract safely from it? Is that enough for them to be married? You know we’ll do it one day… actually we could probably plant an embryo in there now. The man’s chances to survive the extraction process are extremely slim if not outright zero; but we could make a baby grow in a man’s body. Fusing two sperm cells together is still a little beyond our abilities, but give us time, man, give us time. In the mean time, two donor eggs and one load of sperm from the men, one for each egg, and a surrogate mother, and off we go!

      Or a completely artificial womb? Does that count?

  6. “Ex definitio homosexual relationships cannot have children.”


    • Julie Gillis says:

      I once got into a long long argument on a Catholic site about this point. The two gay men adopting a baby are ‘stealing” it from it’s rightful mother/father. Or, the mother (if she’s a surrogate) and the gay donor are the parents not the other man. In the case of lesbians, the surrogate (even if an anonymous donor) was the parent, not the non bearing woman. He was apparently denied his right to fatherhood (even though he left his deposit at the bank).

      It got down to a concept of natural law. Even when pressed about sterile couples or childfree couples (then we got into birth control which was difficult), it was that the man and woman COULD have a baby that made it aok.

    • @ MediaHound
      “Ex definitio homosexual relationships cannot have children.”

      Making a child requires fusion of ovum and sperm. Since homosexual partners have either ovum or sperm. If they want to have children, they would have to outsource some family services.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        And if they do outsource, are they then a family?

        • Julie Gillis says:

          Because sterile couples outsource, and you consider that a family, yes?

        • May be they can create a facade of family. .

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Why? Why is love, commitment, kindness, protection, dedication, staying up all night with sick kids, growing old together, holiday cards, birthdays, bank accounts, mortgages and so forth “facade.” Because the penis didn’t go in a vagina? That is the most straight up damn ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Is the straight couple who adopts creating a facade?

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Anyway, so far as it goes, you don’t get to tell them they have a family or not. Your opinion doesn’t change their life. You can believe the moon is made from green cheese. It isn’t. The families I know? Are families. And you just go on believing they aren’t. I find that position to be so limiting.

            • Would you please give me your definition of family:

            • No, yours would be so much more interesting and illuminating !

              Please define how consanguinity applies, and also how those who do not have consanguinity fit within the definition.

              All cases defined please!

            • The literal meaning of consanguinity is the state of being related by blood. Consanguineous kins have some common ancestors. The consanguineous kins include parent, siblings, grandparent, cousins etc. The kins related by marriage are called affinal kins. They include husband, wife, in-laws, step-children etc. A nuclear family consists of husband, wife and their children. Joint families are composed of several nuclear family units where all men and unmarried women are consanguineous kins (patriarchal sytem) or vice versa (matriarchy). A family adds new member by birth (consanguineous), marriage (affinal) and adoption. Adoption can be referred to as the process by which a person assumes the parenting rights and duties for another by law or custom. Most laws and customs prevent marriages among the consanguineous kins, which seriously increases the chances of genetic defect among the offspring. Traditionally, adopted children are also forbidden from marrying consanguineous kins of their foster parent. Usually, people adopted orphans from their own consanguineous kins or the orphans of friends and allies whose genetic heritage they knew to prevent incest. Adoption and the use of reproductive technology such as artificial insemination with donor sperm and ovum disassociates the genetic heritage with kinship and thus makes preventing incest almost impossible. In a recent case, the sperm of a single sperm donor was used to conceive around 100 children. Disassociating kinship with genetic inheritance would lead to social and moral chaos. Another example is Woody Allen marrying Soon Ye-Previn, foster daughter of his ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow.

      • Oh so it’s outsourcing that is the issue?

        In that case General Motors don’t make real cars! Do you have any idea how many components in a GM car are outsourced from other suppliers?

        I’m just thinking of a few brands – Mc Donalds – Wendy’s – errr…. Apple…. in fact there are very few brands that don’t outsource these days! P^)

        If outsourcing is the issue it does make for some very odd families. What happens if there is infidelity and an Outsourcing Accident?

        By the Outsourcing argument, the child would not be part of the family and left on some Outsourcing Scrap Heap – and they are faultless in the nature of the outsourcing and manufacturing defect! P^)

  7. Wirbelwind says:

    Last time I checked two women in a relationship cannot have children; the same is true for two men. If you want to involve a third party, then you can simply create a family with one woman going for a ONS.
    I am simply stating that a FULL family consists of a father, mother and a child (or children). It’s the best way to bring up future generations, providing children with the optimal emotional and financial support.
    This is why families enjoy certain privileges here.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Straight privilege you mean. See! Privilege does exist!!! Nope. A full family consists of people who pair together to live life, stay committed, work on problems and make their way in the world. And going by your theory, the moment a father dies, the mother should immediately remarry (maybe his brother like they did in Old Testament days). If the wife dies, the husband should remarry!
      No divorce allowed no matter the circumstances!
      You must have kids or you are NOT REAL! (don’t adopt, doesn’t count!)

      Good grief. A full family can be two people who don’t want kids. Are you actually saying that child free people are failing somehow in a world of 7 billion people?

      • Wirbelwind says:

        You see, the problem lies in this little truth: some societies have WAY more children that they can support (check how many Africans lived in 1920 and in 2005 for example). On the other hand, some societies (here in Europe, for example) are slowly aging and are facing serious problems when it comes to the whole social systems (since the number of people relying on this system, like elderly or disabled, is growing larger than the system (thanks to the taxes from working people) can support. The balance is off and only with more children it can work.
        As for the childless people: I don’t have a problem with them (here people don’t have children because they can’t afford them, even with the help of the state, or because they have medical problems). I did not bring religious beliefs into account, and I have no idea why you did so.
        As for the privilege: I was not clear enough, perhaps. It is more of a package of rights given to a family, at the same time expecting that they fulfill their obligations towards society, which seems fair.
        Divorce: unless people are in an abusive relationship, or in an otherwise dysfunctional family I see no reason as to why they should do so. Divorcing because “it doesn’t feel right” or “I want to explore myself more” are a… childish thing to do. Adoption is much more problematic than some people realize… there are less children up for adoption than there are potential adoptive parents.
        And, if you don’t want kids, why marry at all ? To have a nice wedding ?

      • Family is both a social structure and functional unit. Marriage and family were instituted in the society for a definite purpose. The purpose was to bring a man and woman in a state of union for procreation and raising the children to adulthood. In primitive societies manpower was very important. Homosexual activities aka sodomy was viewed as recreational activity in ancient civilization including,Greece, Persia and Rome. It was well tolerated among soldiers away from home. But these activities were not allowed to be the basis of family because they did not serve their purpose. Even Alexander the Great was allegedly gay.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          And now? Purposes change. Women used to to literally be given away by fathers too, but we’ve mostly gotten rid of that tradition, at least in western countries.

          • Bashing fathers never goes out of fashion in feminism. Fathers married off their daughters to the most suitable grooms they could find. Sometimes papa knows best the best interest of his daughters. BTW, may I know the new purposes of family?

        • “Homosexual activities aka sodomy was viewed as recreational activity in ancient civilization including,Greece, Persia and Rome. It was well tolerated among soldiers away from home. But these activities were not allowed to be the basis of family because they did not serve their purpose. Even Alexander the Great was allegedly gay.”

          Oh some one does seem to be out of time! Since when has it been “Homosexual activities aka sodomy “? So is the the definition of being gay?

          Maybe you need to read Kinsey 1947/8, because in that case there are some real issues with 47% of US males who all meet the definition!

          So if a gay man is celibate and has never been near a sodomite, does that make him heterosexual?

          What about Female homosexuals? I hate to break this too you, but … well…. Sodomy sort of doesn’t feature there – so does that make them heterosexual too?

          Hephaestion – Friend, nobleman and a general in the army of Alexander the Great. Odd the murals showing their marriage with the general in a frock to Alexander! If you know anything about history and in particular ancient Greek society – Alexander was more than an allegation on many fronts! P^)

          You may need to have a look at some ancient Roman Too – “The Union Of Two Men In Love”, Roman Legal marriage between two men!

          Two of them were even martyred together, St Barnabas and St Barrabas – canonised by the early catholic church and still revered in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, but now hardly mentioned in polite Christian Society since a certain pope passed a papal bull around 1000 years ago which suddenly changed all gay men into sodomites and biblical plague! Bit of a problem having a couple of happily married gay saints!

          Odd how Lesbians have always been left out of the equations. Is that Patriarchy at work?

          You do seem to have some very muddled ideas which do not do justice in any way to the arguments you put forward!

          May I ask if you have a specific Religious affiliation or faith?

          I know that such questions are frowned upon given the American Constitution – but whilst I can claim US Citizenship, I’m more a citizen of The World!

          Buddhist here by the way!

          • 1) “May be you need to read Kinsey 1947/8, because in that case there are some real issues with 47% of US males who meet that definition.”
            Well I am not a great fan of Alfred Kinsey’s book “Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.” The study has some deep flaws which make his conclusions rather unreliable. The representative sample which he used for studying sexual behaviour overwhelmingly comprised of college students and prisoners with leads to sample bias. If you go to a gay bar for studying sexual behaviour of males and project it on U.S. males, you will find all U.S. male are gay. Kinsey himself said there are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts, to which I completely agree.
            2) “So if a gay is celibate and has never been near a sodomite, does that make him heterosexual?”
            If you consider homosexuality to be a choice, then his default state is heterosexual. If homosexual identity is his destiny, then he can definitely be called “non-practising gay.” The choice is all yours.
            3) “What about Female homosexuals?”
            Since females have different tools than males, their version of sodomy is called tribadism. Everything else is same as gay males.

            4) “Roman legal Marriage between two men”
            There are few recorded instances of legal marriage of two men, which include two emperors and some members of nobility. These men were also married to women, therefore there marrying men was just a vulgar display of their homosexual activity rather than any effort to form a family.

            5) Two of them were even martyred together, St Barnabas and St Barrabas – canonised by the early catholic church and still revered in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition.
            Do you mean to say Christian martyrs St. Sergius and St. Bacchus? Historian John Boswell had claimed that they were united in the ritual adelphopoiesis, which he called an early form of religious same sex union marriage. The claim is seriously disputed by Eastern Orthodox Church and theology scholars.
            6) Odd how Lesbians have always been left out of the equations. Is that Patriarchy at work?
            Lesbians are very much in the equation with a slightly different version. Papa can take care of his naughty girl.

            7) May I ask if you have a specific Religious affiliation or faith?
            Trust me I am not a Christian fundamentalist or Muslim.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              “Lesbians are very much in the equation with a slightly different version. Papa can take care of his naughty girl.” What in bloody hell does this mean Rapses?

            • You have really poor sense of humor. Me and MediaHound are discussing about homosexuality and family. Due to some memory lapse, I was focusing only on gay males which prompted MH to accuse me of patriarchal bias. I just reminded him that the differences between issues related to gays and lesbians are only slightly difference. Patriarchy (papa) would also deal fairly with lesbians (naughty girl). What do you think homosexuality is choice or destiny?

            • Julie Gillis says:

              I don’t have much of a sense of humor about bigotry, tis true. Lesbians aren’t naughty girls. They are human beings who are attracted to the same sex partner. Papa can step right off.

              I’m heretic enough to believe that both options exist in a world where such variety of genetic adaptation is more complex then we are capable of seeing. I believe there are people who know from the time they are quite small that their attraction will be same sex. I also think there are moments in a person’s life where they find themselves attracted to someone of the same sex and don’t understand why. I also believe that aging and hormones may play a role in how men and women shift their attractions, but that’s conjecture on my part. I know a great many post menopause lesbian shifts. Don’t know why that’s occurred. Could be choice, could be an awakening. Could be a a combination.

              All that is beside the point to me. I don’t care if you choose to marry a man, marry a group or marry a woman. What I think is important is how that man or woman or group is treated, committed to, loved. A family is more than genetics, more than blood. You place arbitrary limits on family and happiness.

        • wellokaythen says:

          Sort of, kind of, not really.

          Alexander the Great had sex with men and women, as many Greek/Macedonian men of a certain age did. They didn’t really use “gay” as a category, and he was by no means outside the norm, except his advisors hoped he would get married eventually so he would have some heirs, so he needed to spare some time for sex with a wife and not just men.

          “Homosexual” as a word and as a category is only a century or two old, and most people in the U.S. had never heard of the word before the peacetime draft of 1940, when the U.S. military introduced the term to every draftee and enlistee for WWII. (In a way, the War Department and Navy Department helped create gay identity in America. Oops.)

          Among Greek and Roman men of a certain age and class, it was not just recreational, but for all kinds of other reasons people have sex besides reproduction. They did it when they were close to home as well as far from home – it wasn’t just “deprivation homosexuality,” but also by choice. In fact, it was often connected to misogyny: since men are superior to women, love between men is obviously a higher form of love than that between a man and a woman.

          Finally, sodomy is defined differently in different contexts, most commonly as male-male anal sex, but obviously that’s just one of many aspects of male homosexuality. Historically, some legal systems, like that of Henry VIII, made anal sex between men a capital offense but oral sex was a much lesser crime, if it was punished at all. In some parts of Latin America in some periods of history, in cases of male-male anal sex, only one of the two partners was legally guilty of sodomy, the other was not.

          “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”

    • Id say the full family is the extended family – with uncles, aunts, cousins sticking their nose in, and all those lower in the age hierarchy having to listen.

      It is the extended family structure that provides ‘optimal emotional and financial support’ as the many hands available help provide time freedom, emotional support, healthcare, pension money for the looking after of elderly parents, grandparents, the sick and children. the western nuclear family currently can only compete if the nuclear family income is upper-middle class and above. thats why so many nuclear families are struggling, they simply no longer have the income to replicate the range of support that the extended family gives.
      [also, why is it that this iteration of a market economy has destroyed the extended family in the west and japan(from what i read, so flay me if im wrong), when other market economies in history did not. shows how bloody thirsty this form of a market economy is]

      If the economy in the west declines severely and over the long term, i expect to see the extended family structure return in the West.
      Some will be multiple-adult occupancy homes/compounds again. Others not.
      With some extended families being related by blood, but others related only by friendship or by circumstance.
      I expect to see a return to more communal living in the west

      • And if my prediction is accurate, I would expect to see a good number of same-sex extended families

        • Wirbelwind says:

          I know that in USA there are less and less marriages every year; fortunately, this institution is still in favor here.

          • Because marriage in the U.S. is the weakest legal contract which can be broken at will without any consequence.

            • Wirbelwind says:

              Yes, I know this. Avoiceformen and Spearhead put some light on it, and I ran into some pieces concerning “marriage strike”. Even media in my country noted (as a curiosity) that only about 52% of people over 18 are married in United States. Your future does not look good…

    • J.G. te Molder says:


      Only one man and one woman gives optimal economic and emotional support?

      Especially in today economy?

      I think two couples “marrying each other” producing a two couple family with their children (a third would work as well, I think with a fourth the logistics get too complicated) produces a family that has far better equipped economically and emotionally to support a child. Given that it pretty much takes two full-time jobs these days to support children and get them through college, and you need at minimum three people to support a child economically. It also allows couples some time off from their children, a vacation, without having to worry about where the children go; they remain at home, by the other parents. Then there’s the additional emotional and rational and physical support and refereeing of a second couple that is capable of offering an outside perspective to arguments within a couple that is not a corrupt family court system and their goons the cops, who are economically invested in destroying families, and you have another strong powerful reason why multi-couple families would economically and emotionally far more stable.

      What is true, is that statistics of derailed individuals both male and female, show that a father (figure) is absolutely vital for a child growing up. Whether women can’t or won’t give things to children they desperately need that men do; father’s are necessary. A lesbian couple should have a close male friend that is around for the children enough they get that the influence of a father (figure).

      Interestingly, multi-couple families would help in this regard as well; one female and one male homosexual couple anyone?

      • Wirbelwind says:

        What’s the point of marrying with another couple when you can simply cohabit with some members of your family ? Grandparents, or uncles, or cousins ?

        • J.G. te Molder says:

          I can’t stand my brother. My late mother’s family is two hours driving away, because she married my father that’s on the other side of the country. My late father’s family, except for one aunt, I have no contact with, because they basically denies my existence when my father and mother divorced – because my father was having his second affair.

          I’m pretty certain that my family situation is benign in comparison to many others. Family by blood, doesn’t make good family, or even family that has similar goals and believes that allows for a functional cohesive family unit.

          Getting with other people not related to yo by blood; allows one to choose a group of people that is compatible enough with you to allow for a functional, cohesive, family unit.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        I usually never agree with you J.G., but I love this particular comment. In your multi couple family are the couples all sexually bonded together or is it marriage for the structure and the traditional pairbonds occur.

        • J.G. te Molder says:

          However they want it. Some probably will have sexual relations between the couples, others don’t. Sex, passionate sex – not a quick lustful fuck – is known to strengthen emotional bonds, so the strongest multi-couple families are probably those who have sex across all four people.

          • Julie Gillis says:

            What I find challenging here is not the concept of polyamory, but the lack of narrative story structures to support those multifamily units. They go against the tide (I know several!) and there are no legal protections for them. Still, I think it’s a grand idea.

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              The only way to get narrative story structures, is to do it first and then write them down. That’s the way every narrative story structure formed.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              Yep. Agreed! And doing that while supporting others too. Enjoyed your posts.

        • J.G. te Molder says:

          That’s entirely up to the couples. Some will, some won’t. There’s no reason to enforce anything.

          • How can the big green monster jealousy be kept out of its equation

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              Who says there’s going be one?

              Plus, ask existing polyamorous groups of people. Or were you really under the impression they don’t exist?

            • Well it is strange big world where everything is possible. I know they exist but was wondering how it works out.

  8. I mostly write about the changing man/woman paradigm, and what I’ve discovered is that the extremes at both ends of the gender dialogue are overly sensitive to the point of not being willing to hear each other. The noise level and passions run so high that many seem to miss the point.
    I’ve known Tom since he began the Good Men Project, and a more open, honest guy doesn’t exist.

    • “The noise level and passions run so high that many seem to miss the point.”

      Sir, Could you enlighten us about the points which we have missed.

  9. man, this website sucks and so does this hoity toity author who obviously is blinded by her NY times yuppie white privilege. but i’m glad there’s a space on the internet where men can post about how awful feminism is, how to dress properly, and oh yeah, sex advice. oh wait. that already exists. it’s every other mainstream men’s website/magazine/locker room/sports bar.

    go to bed, everyone.

    • Did you bother reading any of the experiences posted by the men? This site is vastly different to askmen and other male sites….you just need to look. If you have valid criticisms of the author, write them down, take the article apart piece by piece and show us what you mean. I feel you’re missing the point of this site entirely, it’s not meant to be a sportsbar style mens group.


  1. […] This comment is from Lori Day to Archy, from the post The God of Gender Wars is Laughing […]

  2. […] men, including boys being sexually abused. Pointing this out is not a feminist attempt to eradicate and undermine men and masculinity. It’s explaining the degree with which the crime can genuinely be seen as gender-based and why I […]

Speak Your Mind