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.

Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

      Really?

      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.

        • 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.

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

    Why?

    • 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.”
      Why?

      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^)

  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. @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:

                  http://www.liamsdad.org/topics/fatherless_children.shtml
                  http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/a/fatherless_children.htm

                  • “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.

              http://tinyurl.com/7rg8hnm

              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?

  7. 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…

  8. 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:

                  Improbable?

                  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.

  9. 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?

  10. Rapses says:
    January 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Nothing helps better in dispute resolution than free and frank communication.
    _____________________________________________________________

    So following on from where we were – does that men putting the two of them in just the one cell – with no charges? P^)

    Wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?

    … but what do you mean by “free and frank communication”. Many people round here have been both free and frank, but it only seems to engender conflict, not resolve anything!

    • By free and frank communication, I means to putting all the issues related to the interests of all the parties on the discussion table with no hidden agendas. The best of way discussing a matter is to start from the point where all parties agree.

      • Does that also mean getting people to agree to disagree and leave those issues out of the discussion?

        • The first requirement for a successful negotiation is to identify the common grounds on which everybody agrees and then focus on the disagreements, followed by give and take to reach an amicable solution.

          • So you’re advocating compromise or some other outcome?

            • I don’t advocate anything. I am more into describing how things are and to make the optimum solutions than prescribing how things should be. Common grounds are something which are most important in successful negotiation. Let me give you an example:

              There are two individuals A and B in a serious dispute over the issues
              u, v, w, x, y, z

              Preference of A: x > z > y >u >w >v
              Preference of B: u> x> z > v> w>y
              Here both parties have same set of issues but different preferences
              A would not have much problems conceding on y for gaining on v. So the different preferences can lead to give and take. Other than that there is deterrence factor like the cost of litigation or even going for war, which will force the parties to settle.

              • Rapses – I have to admit I get the theory, and I can even decipher and understand the mathematical notation used. But….

                There is always a But! …. Theory can only take us so far. I know all the theory of putting a man on the moon, but It still took a lot more than theory before the immortal words were said – “One mall step for a man, one giant leap for mankind”.

                Do you have any practical examples that other readers may find more accessible?

                • well all great things start with a great idea.

                  • It’s important to note that in a compromise there are no sacrifices made. Instead,  the parties in a negotiation exchange mutually beneficial values and discuss how they both could come to an ideal existence.

                    One example would be if group A wants to eradicate group B while group is petitioning for peace. There can be no compromise in such a stalemate. The only choices left for group B is to be dominant in a war like environment or to be submissive and embrace a slow genocide. 

                    Another example would be If I agreed with the premiss That “Women should  be protected from street harassment” and I accepted a law that makes approaching an uninterested women a crime, I would be sacrificing my civil liberties and my right to free speech. 

                    No compromises should be made that impugns the civil liberties of an individual or group. Civil liberties are the highest value for both the individual and the state.

                    • According to dictionary, compromise means:
                      “A settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.”

                      Sacrifices are to be made by all sides to reach a compromise.
                      Allowing another group to eradicate one’s group another can by no stretch of imagination be considered compromise, it is cowardice.

                      Harassing uninterested women is not a part of civil rights or right to free speech.

                      Infringement of civil rights is not compromise, it is coercion by state.

                    • J.G. te Molder says:

                      > No compromises should be made that impugns the civil liberties of an
                      > individual or group. Civil liberties are the highest value for both the
                      > individual and the state.

                      The Obama administration seems to disagree: http://www.roundtree7.com/2011/12/obama-betrays-america-us-fascism-ndaa/

                      Look around further and you find that the indefinite incarceration bit comes from Obama himself, it wasn’t in there before he added it.

  11. Lisa, is there a way to “uncheck” the box I checked for receiving email notifications of comments on this thread? My inbox blitzed with what is essentially an email conversation between a couple of people going on forever, and I’m losing track of real work-related emails that are in the mix! Thanks.

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      Lori, at the bottom of the email, there is a sentence that says: “To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:” One click, and it will allow you to unsubsribe from any post you are getting notifications from. Again, this will be the type of thing that will be moved to a forum as soon as it is set up.

  12. Some very good points. Absolutely. We should all be able to live our lives genuinely.

    But.

    Would anyone ever tell a black person “if you would just stop blaming white people and talking about racism, you’d realize you don’t actually experience it?”

    Anyone not understand why me (a white person) telling someone who isn’t white “I don’t see race” is a significantly wrong, not to mention ignorant statement for me to make?

    Does that mean some black people don’t experience racism? Or that the movement (much better than “fight” right?) against racism doesn’t also hurt white people and damage race relations?

    Are some feminist detrimental to the cause? Absolutely. Do some arguments over feminism get us nowhere? You betcha. Is there something very very key in simply living our lives? Damn straight.

    But does that mean sexism is dead? Nope. Does it mean the patriarchy is over or there aren’t men out there enforcing misogyny? Nah. How about men AND women perpetuating narratives that also, whether they know it or not, continue sexism (even if they themselves are not sexist)? Oh, yeah.

    Can we just say “hey, let’s all be humanitarians here and go on about our lives” and have everything be fine? The answer is we all just decide not see gender? Really?

    Furthermore, we are still just stuck in our own little bubble here. Because, as white, middle-upper class women, we (and by “we” I mean “you and I, Megan [the author]” no one else because I don’t know about anyone else) have our own privilege that allows us to say “hey, let’s just live our lives, and we’re all equal” because we CAN do that. Our privilege allows this, and we are surrounded by men who want that, too.

    But what about the rest of the freakin’ world?

    • “But what about the rest of the freakin’ world?”

      They can always join in here! P^)

      I love that the race analogies are flying again. How about we try a few others occasionally, such a disability, sexuality, age even. A seasoning and spiciness of comparison, rather than salt with everything?

      The Race Comparison Trope has been flogged to death – so maybe it’s time to give it a rest and try some new perspectives that people may engage with and even think about, and not be turned off by.

      People read to line “Three”, and it’s switch off and standby mode! P^)

      • I don’t get why Dominance gets such a bad rap. Why don’t we just agree that maturity, intelligence pragmatism, individualism and compassion are the ideals worth fighting for in any relationship.

        Wouldn’t that be better then collectivized guilt or chauvinism?

        • Er?? Sorry?

          What do you mean by “Dominance”?

          • The sum of those abilities that grant a person authority over his/her own life and when called to action can assume rational authority from some one in their care.

            Ex. Mother to child 
            Police officer to motorist or state vs the individual. 
             
            In this case, productive spouse vs nonproductive spouse.
            Any gender applies

    • J.G. te Molder says:

      > Are some feminists detrimental to the cause?
      No, just about all of them are. Every single feminist that refuses to acknowledge the damage feminism has done to women and especially men; who do not stand up against the posters depicting boys as rapists and abusers unless raised right by parents, not the single mom where rapists and abusers actually come from, all those who do not stand up against the vile hatred that is VAWA,, all those who do not stand up against quotas for for example fire fighters that endanger people’s lives, including the women allowed to serve as a fire fighters without being able to do the job, etc. etc. etc. are detrimental to the cause… of equality, the supremacy of women that feminism is after, that’s going great.

      > Do some arguments over feminism get us nowhere? You betcha.
      Every argument over feminism that shows it for the hate movement it is, is one step closer to getting people behind actual equality. I’m sure for the female supremacy feminism is after it would indeed get you nowhere.

      > But does that mean sexism is dead? Nope.
      You’re right. It’s mainly directed against men, and any sexism against women actually comes from feminism, but still, it’s sexism.

      > Does it mean the patriarchy is over
      Patriarchy never existed; at least not your bullshit “the evil menz are oppressing us everywhere” concept of patriarchy. Gynocentrism, the system of female centric thinking, and reducing men as disposable appliances in service of women; has in recent times been pushed to ever new heights; a system as ancient humanity is old – and it’s being done by feminism.

      > or there aren’t men out there enforcing misogyny?
      You’re right. Every man that attacked a man for slugging a woman in self-defense after the woman attacked him first is enforcing misogyny. All the men in mainstream media who happily went to drag Rayon Mcintosh over the coals for defending himself against two attackers that jumped the counter at the McDonald’s he worked at, are enforcing misogyny. All the abuse activists who claim that women are so stupid that they are so unable to use and handle logic that when a men uses logic to win an argument with one the resulting emotional distress must be classified as domestic violence, is enforcing misogyny. All the DV judges, lawyers and advocates that work on the assumption that women are so pathetic they get frightened and are being abused by a man raising his voice, are enforcing misogyny. All the men enacting quotas so women can get hired in physically demanding jobs despite not being able to pass the requirement tests, are enforcing misogyny – in fact every man that lowered physical standards and physical tests for women before the quotas were enacted wee also enforcing misogyny. They’re doing the same for misandry but that’s another matter.

      > How about men AND women perpetuating narratives that also, whether they know it or not, continue
      > sexism (even if they themselves are not sexist)? Oh, yeah.
      You’re right; they are around. You know, like you implying that those who fight both misandry and misogyny and are thus by definition against feminism are the equivalent of racists and sexists; you’re one of them. Hey, you can even have people who perpetuate sexist narratives by not saying anything whenever the so-called small minority of radicals enact the umpteenth sexist, misandrist and misogynist law!

    • DavidByron says:

      Can we just say “hey, let’s all be humanitarians here and go on about our lives”

      You ever try that?

    • “Because, as white, middle-upper class women, we (and by “we” I mean “you and I, Megan [the author]” no one else because I don’t know about anyone else) have our own privilege that allows us to say “hey, let’s just live our lives, and we’re all equal” because we CAN do that. Our privilege allows this, and we are surrounded by men who want that, too.”

      Nikki, congratulations. I have made this point numerous times, and am happy to see someone else mention it as well. Feminists are generally loathe to acknowledge the privilege enjoyed by white women (on average), as compared to other demographics.

      • Eric – I wonder at the uttering of “Her”esy?

        “His”tory is littered with so many stories of those who have been Put To The Flames and burned at the stake.

        Thankfully, today the flames and bonfires of the vanities seem to be confined to flame wars and twits! P^)

    • “Would anyone ever tell a black person “if you would just stop blaming white people and talking about racism, you’d realize you don’t actually experience it?”

      Sure but since racism works in a different way to sexism this isn’t really worth talking about.

      “Anyone not understand why me (a white person) telling someone who isn’t white “I don’t see race” is a significantly wrong, not to mention ignorant statement for me to make?”

      You are assuming women are more oppressed than men. That is simply not a position i agree with. Stop equating women with black. Its stupid. Sexism does not work that way.

      “Are some feminist detrimental to the cause? Absolutely. Do some arguments over feminism get us nowhere? You betcha. Is there something very very key in simply living our lives? Damn straight.

      “But does that mean sexism is dead? Nope. Does it mean the patriarchy is over or there aren’t men out there enforcing misogyny? Nah. How about men AND women perpetuating narratives that also, whether they know it or not, continue sexism (even if they themselves are not sexist)? Oh, yeah.”

      Since sexism isn’t one sided like other forms of oppression this don’t mean anything to me.

      “Can we just say “hey, let’s all be humanitarians here and go on about our lives” and have everything be fine? The answer is we all just decide not see gender? Really?”

      Since you seem to be not including male victims of sexism here this idea does seem strange to you but you are a woman so you don’t know the experiences of men stop assuming men have it better than women. They have it different. In some areas women have it worse in others men. It isn’t like race or sexuality where discrimination is one way.

      “Furthermore, we are still just stuck in our own little bubble here. Because, as white, middle-upper class women, we (and by “we” I mean “you and I, Megan [the author]” no one else because I don’t know about anyone else) have our own privilege that allows us to say “hey, let’s just live our lives, and we’re all equal” because we CAN do that. Our privilege allows this, and we are surrounded by men who want that, too.

      But what about the rest of the freakin’ world?”

      You are right about the rest of the world. But in the west the idea that women have it so infinitely worse than men is bollocks. You are simply measuring bad things that happen to women and not even looking at how bad it is for men. You are asking for empathy without actually being empathic.

  13. This is all very sad! One would think that there would be enough empathy to go around, but apparently some of our hearts aren’t very big or are very prejudiced!

    Despite this being the feminism section, MRAs are relentlessly trying to redirect any ounce of empathy for women/feminism and throw it all out the window. From what I see on this thread and other “feminist” threads, MRAs are very narcissistic; every topic, every post has to be about THEM (I thought there was a Men’s Right Issues section for that???). They demand the spotlight shine on them at all times, their problems – must be your problems, there’s no room for female empathy in their hearts, not even the feminism section. MRAs deny feminists’ issues outright, by turning right around and shoving MRA stats and issues in your face. All of this to me indicates hidden anger and shows that they issues with women in their lives which have not been resolved. Hmm…actually this sounds all very sociopathic to me, they show no empathy or support for women at all on here AND strangely GMP supports this irrational and sexist behavior? Someone on here mentioned about this site becoming a boys club….

    • This is not exclusive feminism section, this section is called “Men and Feminism.” Most often men do not like feminism and it should not be surprising when their comment on feminism is negative. Nobody gives you anything you just take it. If supporters of feminism have anything to offer the should present their case and arguments. Simply complaining that others are not empathizing with feminism does not cut ice.

    • @Wilma, probably the same treatment that happens on other sites and male issues. I guess there are a few of each that wanna be ME ME ME. Probably also to do with the perceived lack of male issues and this site being one of the only to speak up on them, in a sea of feminism they don’t want to be drowned in feminism.

    • Wilma – if find your post both comical and ironic.

      Perhaps you should look at some of the threads and posts here on GMP.

      A male writes about rape and abuse of males, and because the focus is rape of males he is attacked, false claims are made, there is a distinct lack of empathy shown by some people responding, people are told they don’t understand statistics and it’s even implied they can’t read – if you post in response correcting errors, misunderstandings, you clarify points you are called names “#WomenCallMeThings” and”#FeministsCallMeThings”….. I have been called Both Feminist and MRA equally – so where does that place me when the Empathy Abuse Stick is being used to “tag” people with labels for convenience and instant dismissal by other?

      I have even joked how some have Industrial Labelling Guns that they just can’t stop using, even whilst complaining that other people are using labels they don’t like! It’s Bizarre To Watch!

      Using terms such as Narcissistic and even Sociopath do have their place, but to use them correctly you do have to carefully analyse many factors, behaviours and instances of these behaviours against the environment they occur within, the context and even the deliberate avoidance of behaviours that would not occur if the person was not a Narcissistic or Sociopath.

      Your use of those terms is both inaccurate and unpleasant. It is a gross generalisation, which if a man did it to women or feminists would be met “Opprobrium”, and even incite the posting patterns which you write to decry. .

      As for your comment that GMP is a boys club, it is very odd that it welcomes so many women to take part, contribute, comment and even argue! Not much of an issue over segregation there?

      I have had to deal over the years with many organisations, groups and individuals who have demanded Women Only Space, even when such demands would have caused groups and people to be breaking The Law. I have also found it so very odd that then I have deliberately raised the issue of “Men Only Space” as an equality issue and to allow laws to be complied with there has been such a chorus of Disapproval, Shock and even accusations of Sexism, Women Hating, Misogyny and even Insanity!

      Odd how the supposed boys club is not following well known past practices by some that has caused so much unhappiness to so many – and so little advance in Equality for all whilst supposedly promoting supposed equality for only some!

  14. @MediaHound
    “So does that mean an adversarial approach is bad?”
    When you take an adversarial approach, you lose the trust of the other party. If you take sides you cannot be an impartial judge. The problem with feminist is that they want to be both prosecutor and judge which leads to the presumption of male guilt.

    • Oh – I have top flip that one over to see if it scans the other way round – and in the mirror!

      “The problem with Mascualist and Mascualism is that they want to be both prosecutor and judge which leads to the presumption of feminist/female guilt.”

      Is that also true?

      • In comparison to the feminist giant with plethora of legal services and legislative clout, the MRAs are poor guys seeking public defenders. They are in no position of even filing their case, being prosecutor and judge is a distant dream.

        • So we should all give up then and not waste any more time! P^)

          Why does there need to be a Judge in the first place?

          • The situation is not that hopeless. Men and women need each other, they are complementary. We should not have judge in gender relations because all problems need to be sorted out by negotiation. It was feminists who made “personal is political.” Things are changing and feminism is certainly becoming another dirty “f” word. Young women do not want to be associated with it. It has become too uncool to be feminist.

            • So if it’s not “that” hopeless, where is it hopeful from your POV?

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

                • Is that correct?

                  How about someone who needs a personal need but can’t achieve it on their own – so they join a political group to gains support and pressure to get that personal need fulfilled.

                  Example – disabled person wants a day centre – can’t achieve end alone – becomes politically active with others – pressure forces powers to provide day centre.

                  • 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.

      • DavidByron says:

        I agree. Problems with feminism have to be established with evidence and argument the same way they would for any group and anyone can do it if they have a mind for it.

        • David – what would you choose as an issue which could or even can be easily addressed?

          Sort of a nut to crack the hammer!

          • DavidByron says:

            Oh there are many depending on what you are seeking to show of course. For example on the question of whether feminists seek equality I tend to use the VAWA and feminist reaction to domestic violence, including the sex segregation. If the question is integrity I go with the gender wage gap myth.

            Because a movement is made of many different individuals with different opinions, you need to consider cases where there’s a broad agreement across the movement.

            • I have to say that I do find American Politics and In Particular Legislation very odd and open to gender polarisation. It is so markedly different to other countries and governments, It does make so many wonder if Equality and Democracy have even met in the USA – even with a 14th amendment.

              That is not to say that other countries, governments and legislatures are perfect, but there is no way that the equivalent of the VAWA act could have been passed in Europe in 1994 – it would have violated all Human Rights Requirements under law. It would have been struck down by either The European Court On Human Rights or a nation’s own equivalent of The Supreme Court.

              There really does seem to be endemic issues of Institutional Discrimination across the USA – and it makes many have to wonder how the US can be seen as an example of freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

              • DavidByron says:

                Worse laws have passed in Europe and Canada. Jurists generally agree that equality guarantees do not prevent people from treating women better than men. I believe men’s rights groups did challenge the law under the 14th although it didn’t get to the supreme court and the law was changed to include male victims.

                Sweden for example is often said to be very pro-gender equality but that means only “for women” as it does elsewhere. It’s one of the worst offenders of real equality.

                A common example of positive discrimination for women being allowed are all the various quotas for women.

  15. Peter Houlihan says:

    “The only solution to prisoner’s dilemma is cooperation, but in order for prisoner’s dilemma to be in effect communication is impossible. Blind trust isn’t possible in this case: its not a simple case of expecting your partner to stay quiet, they have to speak out *and* say the right things. The only out, as I see it, is to break prisoner’s dilemma and establish effective communication. Which seems to be night impossible when it comes to gender.”

    I take it that the last line was “Nigh On Impossible” – in which case it seems that It’s not Totally Impossible. P^)

    If it’s not totally impossible, where and even what are the possibilities?

    • I totally agree with Peter that it is best to avoid prisoner’s dilemma, i.e break up of trust and co-operation between the actors. There are only two ways of controlling others behavior i.e. rewards and punishment. When two actors are involved in any long term association as in the case of genders, the tit-for-tat strategy (equivalent retaliation ) coined by Anataol Rapoport holds good. It can be summarized in three lines.
      1. Actors initially cooperates.
      2. If other side violates, the actor retaliates.
      3. The actor forgive on resumption of co-operation.

      • “There are only two ways of controlling others behavior i.e. rewards and punishment.”

        Are really only two options?

        • Maybe hypnosis is another option, but I seriously doubt whether it will get desired results.

          • I think the idea of people running about with imaginary dogs and eating onions believing them to be apples may be a good sideshow, but maybe not ideal for the main event! P^)

            But the question is what would be desired results? I do like the word “desire” – it sort of fits! It’s bigger than “I want”.

            • The desired result would be that the actors act as a team to optimize the positive outcomes and minimize the negative outcomes.

              • …and the positive outcomes are?

                It seems to me that some sort of shared goal would been to be set or looked for so that outcomes could be checked against the word positive.

                • The positive outcome depends on the context of the problem. For example, in the classic case, two crime partners are arrested and kept in separate cells. Both are asked to testified against other for some concession. If only A gives evidence he gets 4 years and B gets 20 years and vice versa. If both A and B testify against each other, both get 14 years. If none testifies, then they would go for contested trial and if proved guilt get 20 years or might get acquitted if there is no sufficient evidence. The best outcome for both of them would be to keep quite and go to trial and they might get acquitted. But the fear of being betrayed by other coupled with incentive to betray to get lesser sentence might encourage to work against their own best interest.

                  • So we need a feminist on one cell – a masculist in another – and what would the charges be? P^)

                    It seems that Game Theory requires either that both sides give evidence about the other – or both shut up and take their chances!

                    Is that really the best option? What if we dump Game Theory, what happens then?

  16. @ MediaHound

    “So how do you avoid Prisoners Dilemma?”

    By avoiding the prison of your own prejudices.

    “Which is better to Run the race or not Run?”

    There is no race, just stampede

    • “There is no race, just stampede” – oh that did make me laugh! P^)

      I have to say though, Game Theory has been applied to so many areas and is seen to work both positively and negatively. Are there any aspects of Game Theory that can be used to address The Great Gender Wars and have a positive influence/outcome on all players?

      If running a race is not a good metaphor, is there a better one – say poker? There does seem to be an issue with many players of conflicting goals in the same game, so a metaphor that allowed those conflicts to be reasonably discussed would be potentially helpful.

  17. wellokaythen says:

    Just wondering aloud what it means that the “Gender Wars” deity is white and male in this author’s view. Somehow I doubt those are randomly selected traits. Perhaps that itself is evidence of the centuries-old process whereby female deities were replaced by male ones. Congratulations – your imaginary pantheon is reinforcing patriarchy quite nicely.

    (Leaving aside the body image issues involved with imagining him fat….)

    Seriously, though, I think it would be more productive to talk about a gender wars “industry” and not a metaphorical god. Imagine if (theoretically) all the genders got along very well and there was very little animosity among the genders. That would mean a sharp decline in all sorts of industries, the end of all kinds of careers. That would mean entire sections of the bookstore gone, fewer Hollywood rom coms, half as many stand-up comedians, and smaller academic departments, just to name a few. If we looked around and discovered there wasn’t really much of a war going on, that would put a lot of people out of work.

    It would mean a seriously decline in readership for many websites like this one. Do you think the Good Men Project sponsors would prefer more viewership or less? Would a gender war produce more viewers or less?

    • “a gender wars “industry””

      Hmmm – I can see many similarities between how the Gender Wars have been playing out and the ideas of Political and Industrial complexes defending their dominant position and incomes. Do you think we should all just give up and admit defeat as so often happens?

      • In a war both sides suffer casualties. Winning a war is just a bit less bad than losing it. The only ones gaining something are weapon manufacturers.

    • Well I would have preferred an ugly old witch surrounded with cats and bats looking in her magic globe with the magic book of feminist spells laughing at her success in fomenting gender war.

    • I’m an overweight white guy who likes cigars once in a while, so I’m a little offended at the association.

      Though, on second thought, I guess that means I’m already the spitting image of a god, so good news about skipping my new years resolutions….

  18. I actually find the comments here quite “Heartening”

    It started with concern such as:

    “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 can now see him spluttering on his glass of whisky as he reads what is going on here! P^)

    Here’s one in the eye for the old god of “Gender Wars”!

    Cheers.

  19. Wirbelwind says:

    “Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination” from Wikipedia, of course.
    And now: where do you see patriarchy in any Western society ? As to rape: it was always penalized and considered a VERY serious crime, to say the least.
    Patriarchy is a feminist theory, a part of the movement’s ideology. It’s like beginning discussion with a statement “God exists and loves everyone”, or “Moon is made of cheese”. As I and Tone pointed out rape is not a gender problem, so please don’t use a meme “patriarchy hurts men too” or something.

    • Feminism is just a knocked down version of Marxism in which class struggle has been replaced by gender struggle. According to feminism, men are source of all evil and women are full of virtues. If any man is virtuous it is due to good influence of women. On the other hand if a woman does anything wrong it was due to bad effect of male oppression. It claims that women have to free themselves from influence of men and control the men who are oppressing them. “Patriarchy” is a term that fits in the feminist narrative. Patriarchy literally means rule of father. Father is the head of household and represents the interest of family to the world. Attack on patriarchy means degrading the status of father in the family. It intends to break the traditional family structure by making fathers dispensable leading to female led families aka matriarchy, which is already evident. Matriarchy is the feminist utopia. Men in this matriarchal system will lose motivation, become drifters and be no role models for others. The stage next to matriarchy is the great ANARCHY. Fatherless children can be great nuisance to the society has been proved by recent London riots.

      • So if Patriarchy is not a good model and Matriarchy is not a good model and the Great Anarchy is not a remotely good model – which is the best model and where or what is it?

        • Julie Gillis says:

          Collaborationarchy

          • Never heard of it

            • So if you have never heard of it – does that mean it should be explored or ignored?

              • No harm in trying to explore it.

                • I don’t like swear words – especially three letter one’s like “Try”! P^)

                  You either do it or you don’t – try is a middling word that can never be 100%!

                  It gets explored, even the dark hidden bits, or it’s only a sort of exploration!

                  • Well I think that our perceptions differ a bit. When I say try, it means that we should do it but should remain objective about the outcome so as not to self delude our self.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              It’s because I coined it. I’m refusing to accept that the ” archy” has to be a gender binary or chaos. People can work collaboratively, taking turns with leadership . It doesn’t always have to be a domination model.

              • Congratulations for your creative success.

              • Julie – how does it work?

                Can we start with the foundations and get them sorted out before anyone starts to build, and we end up with yet another piece of modern architecture that just causes controversy?

                I do like the Guggenheim Museum NY – and Bilbao is quite nifty too – but there is no way I would want to live in either! It would drive anyone nuts!

              • Would collaborationarchy be something like “I am the boss in my house. I have got the permission of my wife to say so. 🙂

                • Julie Gillis says:

                  Heh, more like…Hey’ we are in this together and we are going to hammer out some common goals, realize we each are better at certain things than the other, and play to our strengths as a team. Sometimes I’ll lead, sometimes you’ll lead, but we won’t get pissy about taking turns.
                  We’ll provide a great example of leadership, collaboration and mutual respect (as well as problem solving and conflict resolution) for the kids.
                  Really don’t see what’s so hard about that particular model.
                  I suspect such models work best in small groups. I’m a bit at a loss with how to translate it to large corporate structures, but since those are dominance and monetarily focused anyway, they may be a loss. I do think the more “flat” of a system you can get and the smaller consensus building groups you can create (kind of like hives connected to hives) the better, but that’s just me.

                  • Most feminists attack patriarchy without even knowing the basic understanding of the word. The word literally includes the term father which in my opinion is very respectful. Every social group, including family, needs a leader which in patriarchy is father. He is the leaders who guides supports and protects his family, at least that is what he supposed to do. There is no real gender divide, every family supports it member man or women. Its absurd even to think that a father would oppress his daughter to benefits others son. Why father is being portrayed as enemy by several feminists?

                    • Julie Gillis says:

                      I suppose people have found that in various versions of that model sometimes things are more oppressive than in the model. I was just at a funeral and the community at the funeral is quite patriarchal in nature. I know of several cases of spousal abuse, lack of support from the church elders when that abuse is brought forward and so forth. Not to mention the whole, womans place is behind the man thing.
                      I believe that leadership can be situational.
                      There are times when I have superior leadership skills or the situation requires my skills more than my husbands. There are times when the reverse is true.
                      If we were in a situation where my skills were called for and he insisted that I defer to him, how is that helping the situation? If we are in a situation to the reverse and I insisted on dominating the decision, how would that be helpful?
                      Fathers are not enemies nor are mothers.
                      Nor are marriages between two men. In a case with two patriarchal figures who leads? In a lesbian marriage who follows?
                      Fathers, like mothers, don’t always know best. Systems that insist one sex take dominance over another sex, well, I think their are problems with that no matter who is considered “in charge.”

                    • Julie Gillis says:

                      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?

                  • Peter Houlihan says:

                    Democracy? Anyone? 😉

                  • Julie, that’s not a “new” model at all! In fact, that sounds like the household I grew up in!(A LONG time ago)

                  • Julie, sounds a lot like the house I grew up in.

              • In my observation leadership does not need to equate to domination. I preach to my daughters to be leaders, not followers. Does that mean they should dominate others? No. That’s not it. The point is not to dominate but to provide direction and guidance for others. How? The most powerful way to lead is by example, by showing the way, not by forcing the way. By being the one or one of the few willing to sacrifice for the sake of others. By contrast, most are exclusively focused on their own personal benefits.

                That is the fundamental message that can be heard in many of these debates – overwhelming concern and interest in one’s own welfare and none or virtually none in that of others. That is exactly what I teach my kids to avoid.

                • So is debate an issue, cos it seems to only deal in self interest?

                  • It usually does but should not. That’s my point. Self-interest totally dominates most debates, including here.

                    That is why I have great respect for the good number of relatively unappreciated but selfless and courageous white people who marched with Dr. King, and others who fight for causes for people different than themselves. Included in that group are men who fought for and won equal rights for women; however, a man today who fights feminists causes is out of touch with reality or simply doesn’t care, for whatever reason.

                    • Nobody knows his interest better than the person himself. Therefore in the discussion usually are dominated by self interest. Self preservation is the first law of nature.

                    • “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.

          • It runs in direct opposition to human nature.

        • Let the society pass through all these phases, then it will be clear which is the best model or the least bad among them. BTW, I would prefer patriarchy. Father being head of household.

          • But – forgive me – if you just need to let the models play out and let evolutionary processes take effect – doesn’t your preference and bias simply act as an evolutionary driver and run the risk of skewing the outcome – or rather driving evolution in your desired direction?

            If you have three competing evolutionary drivers “Feminism” + “Mascualism” + “Anarchy” how do you end up with “Father being head of household” as the best outcome by naturally allowing the process to play out?

            Have you ever Read The Descent Of Women by Elaine Morgan? It has some fascinating insights into Gender and “Gender Parity” where evolution is involved – and what is best for the survival of a species!

            • When I stated that letting the society pass through all these stages, I mean the people at large would come to realize themselves which model was best suited for them. As the one conducting the thought experiment, I have compared various combination and permutations to form my opinion that patriarch is the most practical. But it is what it is, just my humble opinion, please feel free to consider it seriously or just trash it.

              • Rapses – if I just wanted to trash it I would not asked you to explain it.

                I have great regard for thought experiments – a personal hero called Einstein used them all the time and look where it got him!

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            Really? How exactly do you envision a beneficial patriarchy? How would that work for dominant women, or submissive men?

            I see huge problems with any system involving monolithic and unchangeable roles assigned based on genitalia or skin colour or what have you. Humans are individuals, what works for one family is disaster for the next.

            • So Peter – what do you see as the drawbacks of patriarchy, and are there any possible advantages? That is a serious question.

              You also say “I see huge problems with any system involving monolithic and unchangeable roles…. ”

              If we don’t have Monolithic Systems and Structures what do we replace them with?

            • Patriarchy simply means that father is the leader of the social group, i.e, family. He represents the interest of the family to the outer world. Like every country needs a head of state, every family also has a leadership. Head of states range from nominal constitutional monarch, who have little real power, to duly elected presidents who have the real power. I am just referring to free democratic societies. Like every country, every family finds it won level of authority for the head. Trust me, I have seen many henpecked patriarchs.

      • thats the article/ opinion piece about patriarchy from the mra perspective right there.
        question is, is Rapses an egalitarian mra or a patriarchal mra?

        • I am no activist of any kind and have never been part of any kind of activism. I am just an ordinary man who is keenly observant, have some ideas about the world around and always likes to call a spade a spade without beating around the bush. Anything else you want to know, please feel free to ask.

          • Rapses – thanks for clarifying you are not an activist and just expressing your own observations and not a political or ideological line. It does help to keep comments in context and see the Forest For The Trees. P^)

            And I do have to agree, as an avid gardener, that beating about bushes is not a good thing! Hail Spades! … and Shovels too!

        • jameseq – for some who are wondering about divergent Jargon caused by some being USA based and others not, could you clarify what you see as the differences between egalitarian mra Vs patriarchal mra?

          • patriarchal / male supremacist mra’s believe that men are innately superior to women. they want the world returned to the dominant middle class gender roles of the 1950s woman in the home, man in the workplace

            egalitarian mra’s do not believe that men are inherently superior to women. they believe in the equal social and legal worth of men and women. they fight for the rights of men, in areas where they see discrimination against men. they believe in equality across the board for men and women eg, if a man wants to be a sahd, they either fine with that or indifferent(as long as they dont have to do it)

            • Ok – that is the same set of Jargons for all sides of relevant ponds!

              So in a nutshell it would seem that Feminism that has Patriarchy as it’s core model and patriarchal / male supremacist mra’s who also use the same model will always be in dispute?

              Where does the dispute come from when it’s the cusp between either form of feminism and egalitarian mra’s?

              • Where does the dispute come from when it’s the cusp between either form of feminism and egalitarian mra’s?

                I could see where egalitarian/ egalitarianish feminists and egalitarian mra’s could disagree markedly. We’ve seen an example in this thread, of whether male privilege exists, or the degree to which it exists – Different perspectives from different lived vantage points, and yet both sides believe in the equal legal and social worth of men and of women

                • So it’s shared goals and outcomes but language and ideals trip everyone up at the start of the race!

                  What happens if there is not race?

                  • Its called prisoner’s dilemma in game theory. Everybody wants to be equal but fears that other will gain advantage by cheating. Thus starting to cheat themselves to be more equal leading to break down of co-operative spirit.

                    • Oh shit – we need a beautiful mind – If John Nash is not available what do we do? P^)

                      So how do you avoid Prisoners Dilemma?

                      Which is better to Run the race or not Run?

                    • Peter Houlihan says:

                      The only solution to prisoner’s dilemma is cooperation, but in order for prisoner’s dilemma to be in effect communication is impossible. Blind trust isn’t possible in this case: its not a simple case of expecting your partner to stay quiet, they have to speak out *and* say the right things. The only out, as I see it, is to break prisoner’s dilemma and establish effective communication. Which seems to be night impossible when it comes to gender.

                    • NickMostly says:

                      Tit-for-tat with random forgiveness is a fairly effective strategy to the iterated prisoners dilemma problem.

              • Well I think that it is impossible for the society to return to the dominant middle class gender roles of the 1950s or stay in the present state, something better has to evolve overtime which works for all.
                As they say while riding a bike you move forward or fall down; or you are a great acrobat.

                • So if I understand you correctly – and bash me over the head with a spade if I am wrong – you see the future as we pass through all the combinations and emerge with people having choice as to which model ( patriarchy – matriarchy – chaos ) is best for them and their lives?

                  It’s more about personal choice and opportunity, than we all have to dance to a single tune?

                  • Let people run out of choices. You know the value of something when you lose it.

                    • Very interesting view and perspective – which has much common sense to it.

                      What issues have you found in getting others to take it seriously? That is a very serious question!

              • J.G. te Molder says:

                Because “equality feminists” are nothing but patsies for the supremacist feminists. In fact, often enough those feminists who claim “equality” quickly reveal they have more in common with supremacist feminists than anyone actually caring about equality.

                It’s not feminists with desires for aborting boys and have men enforce (of course) the incarceration of the rest of the men, then the murdering of a large chunk of them until men make up only 10% of the population, reducing them to beasts of burden and sperm donors when a woman wants him, so he can be brought to her in chains, and have the audacity to call it equal and so much better than the “patriarchy” that’s around now, that make up and hang up posters depicting boys as rapists unless they’re properly raised.

                It’s feminists who claim they are about equality that spend their time claiming that all men should be considering themselves guilty until proven innocent, like no longer resident Hugo Schwyzer.

                It is feminists who claim equality that happily support the sexist horror that is VAWA or Obamacare without a single critical thought, let alone voice of criticism.

                It is feminists who claim equality who continue to spout the bullshit of the eternal victim female and the evil male demonic domestic abuser; who continue to claim men are the vast majority of abusers, while every single study ever done on the subject so the perpetrators are roughly equally both genders.

                It is feminists that claim equality that continue to lobby for more women-only scholarships despite the fact that 60% of college students are women; while back in the seventies the same figure in favor of men was supposedly a call to arms to make changes; and are now gleefully claiming the end of men and how women are better in schools now; as not bothering anymore that they have achieved their goals of equality and beyond, let alone lend a voice in support of men and boys.

                Hell, now that we’re on female students, despite that since the early 80s women students went from 50% to 60%, and the number 1 in 4 female students get raped got sucked out of an equality feminist thumb back then, the feminists claiming equality are still spouting the myth of 1 in 4; while at the same time claiming the only perpetrators of rape are men – you know the (only) group (of potential perpetrators) that decreased while the group of potential victims increased; yet apparently the relative number of women raped remained the same. To anyone with a little understanding of relative numbers, they should know that means the number of rapes had to have increased. This does not compute!

                I have read an article on GMP by a female equality feminist that said that men should not be MRAs instead are feminists because feminism would benefit the men. Then a man pointed out how feminism never does anything for men, in fact they pointed out among others the above problem with scholarships, and the responds of an equality feminist, which I’m pretty sure was even the author of the article, was the question how that was a problem; feminism didn’t have to help men as well, in fact it was never intended to help men and their issues, but only women and their issues.

                Two completely conflicting ideas in the article and the comments, and they don’t notice it. Either they’re trolling and deliberately lying, or more likely they care for their feelings, not reality, not logic and not rationality. They feel feminism will help men to and thus that men should be feminists and not MRAs, and they feel that feminism is and is only supposed to help women, and since their feelings are paramount, logic is out the door – they are completely incapable of seeing that the two are entirely conflicting statements!

                These are just the tip of the iceberg of why equality MRAs consider feminism including those claiming equality, as nothing but a vile, evil, women-supreme ideology seated on feelings, not reality.

                • So JG – which camp do you fall into? Just need to check so that we can all make some sense of how you relate to what you said above!

                  Some may wish to see it and call it extreme – but that’s not relevant or even remotely appropriate until we can understand where you are actually coming from.

                  • J.G. te Molder says:

                    Why do you need to ask? Have I spilled even a single moment of male superiority? Have I not said that those who espouse male superiority I don’t even consider to be MRAs? Have I not said that they are garmented into the ground?

                    • “Why do you need to ask?”

                      So that I have it clear in my own mind!

                      I did ask for a reason – a rational one – and I understand from your comments that you have some affinity with Reason and Rational Thought.

                      That’s why answering a question with questions is a Rhetorical device that does not always work! P^)

                • Expecting feminists to care for men is like expecting the lawyer of the person suing you to take care of your best interests. They are there to get their clients the judgment most favorable to their clients, i.e. women, at your cost. If you believe that they should help men then you are deluding yourself.

      • DavidByron says:

        Feminism is not communism. Feminism is a right wing movement.

        • Feminism is genetically closer to Marxism. The two genetic markers are the frequent use of oppression and class/gender struggle.

          • So which one has to go first – oppression or struggle?

            • There is neither systemic gender oppression nor any gender struggle in free democratic societies. Men and women live together in families. Any kind of oppressive behavior is just an individual event of social deviance.

              Borrowing the dialogue form the movie “Matrix Reloaded”

              The Problem is Choice.

              • “The Problem is Choice.”

                Now I do like that! It sounds almost Prophetic! P^)

                But of the problem is choice, what is the solution? Is to have not choices or to make choices a different way?

                • The first thing is to realize that everyone has power to choose. With the choice comes the consequences. One should be ready to own the consequences of one’s actions rather than blaming society, media, government or even God.

          • DavidByron says:

            Feminism was around before Marx. So how did it get caused by Marx?

            • Then maybe feminism caused Marxism.

              • DavidByron says:

                Or maybe you are just arbitrarily joining two groups because you disagree with them?

                Feminism is antithetical to communism as it undermines class as the fundamental way of understanding society. As such feminism enjoys support from reactionary forces.

            • David – you are asking the right question, but possibly of the wrong people! P^)

              Some do seek to link Feminism to Communism as part of a McCarthyesque conspiracy to allow public floggings and indefinite detention without due process of law – even in the court of public opinion.

              On the other hand some just can’t be bothered with facts and rely on bad media and headlines of less than 140 characters – a sort of National Tattler approach to all subjects!

  20. Wirbelwind says:

    There is no such thing, patriarchy does not exist. There are simply countries, politicians struggling for control and power; it’s been like that since humans created tribes big enough to wage war on other tribes.
    You mentioned USA above: they behave that way because they are the strongest kid playing in the sandbox at the moment, so they can get away with a lot and many officials pretend not to notice anything. It’s always been like that and always will be, at least until humanity exists.

    • And there’s no such thing as rape either, it is simply two or more people having rough sex and it’s been like that since Jurassic Park era…it’s always been like that and always will be, at least until humanity exists. So we are not evolving is that what you’re saying? We want to live in cave men days?

      I love your logic.

      • This assumption that patriarchy exists and behaves as you describe and anyone who disagrees hates women etc.. Is not going to get you many supporters who haven’t already made up their mind.

  21. Wirbelwind says:

    And your point is ?
    I simply pointed out that violence is not a gender problem, but of the whole humanity: all are victims during conflict: men, women and children. Non-combatants always were most of the casualties and were abused the most for a simple reason: they could not defend themselves against a whole goddamn army.
    Bringing up male casualties of war or catastrophe does not mean erasing others’ suffering. What is so strange in pointing out that DIE DURING THE WAR, ARE CRIPPLED OR RAPED ?
    Remember, when you say a woman suffers because she is widowed it means her husband died terribly. When a woman is forced into prostitution by a gang it means her family suffered a loss of a father/brothers. When a woman has to flee it means that her protectors are wounded or dead.

    • Point is that…all of this shit lends itself to patriarchy. yes the dreaded P word. patriarchy is about absolute domination…the black wolf.

      • @ Zorro
        Well we have read enough feminist hysterics. Can you answer the following questions honestly:
        1. Would you kindly explain what do you mean by the term “patriarchy”?
        2. How is it responsible for all the great misdeeds you have mentioned?
        3. Which system in you opinion should replace it?

  22. .”..a former trafficker who now works as an undercover researcher for a women’s support group in Iraq, detailed a visit to “a house in Baghdad’s Al-Jihad district, where girls as young as 16 were held to cater exclusively to the U.S. military. ”

    http://www.alternet.org/news/153455/8_stories_buried_by_the_corporate_media_that_you_need_to_know_about

    2) Widespread Trafficking Of Iraqi Women And Girls Thanks To The Iraq War

    Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and another 4.4 million displaced, leaving many women and girls widowed or orphaned.

    As a result of the conflict more than 50,000 Iraqi women find themselves trapped in sexual servitude in Syria and Jordan, giving rise to a lucrative and growing sex industry that feeds off the chaos from the Iraq war.

    Women and girls inside Iraq fare no better, often working in brothels run by female pimps. In an interview with the Inter Press Service, Rania, a former trafficker who now works as an undercover researcher for a women’s support group in Iraq, detailed a visit to “a house in Baghdad’s Al-Jihad district, where girls as young as 16 were held to cater exclusively to the U.S. military. The brothel’s owner told Rania that an Iraqi interpreter employed by the Americans served as the go-between, transporting girls to and from the U.S. airport base.”

    Although human trafficking is illegal in Iraq, the country lacks a robust criminal justice system to enforce the law. Sadly, the victims of trafficking and prostitution are often the ones who are punished.

    3) More Iraq Veterans Committed Suicide Last Year Than Active-Duty Troops Died In Combat

    In 2010, 468 active duty and reserve troops committed suicide while 462 died in combat, marking the second year in a row that more US soldiers killed themselves than died at war, according to Congressional Quarterly’s John Donnelly.

    Over the past decade, over 2,000 soldiers have taken their own lives, yet they receive little attention in our corporate media. In August the New York Times ran a story with the celebratory headline, “Iraq War Marks First Month With No U.S. Military Deaths.” That same month, the Department of Defense reported19 possible suicides among active-duty soldiers. In July, that number reached a record high of 32. America’s decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan leave troops with deep emotional scars that can be just as dangerous as a combat wound. Perhaps it’s time we gave them the attention they deserve.

  23. Wirbelwind says:

    Sarcasm is not a sign of intelligence and is usually used when people run out of arguments.

  24. Wirbelwind says:

    And again, you are talking about only females. You see, civilians are raped by soldiers equally, it’s just that the UN or press are not interested in the mens’ plight.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
    http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)

    And about exlusion of male victims during war
    http://adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm

    • To your last link acknowledging male victims I’d like to add.

      h tt p://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf
      Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion. … 2.3% of [women] reported sustaining forced sex from their current or most recent romantic partner, and close to 25% of the female sample sustained verbal sexual coercion

      h tt p://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf
      Males were just as likely to be sexually exploited as females. Among younger street-involved youth (ages 12-18), a greater percentage of males were exploited (34% vs. 27% of females in 2006). Among older street-involved youth (ages 19-25), a higher percentage of females reported sexual exploitation (53% females vs. 32% males)

      Zorro is trying to make false claims of rape being a gendered problem, and crying gendered rape, in lieu of rational argumentation.

      • Rape is not a gendered problem! Men rape men…women rape men, men rape babies…blah blah…why are we so bloody barbaric and dumb pieces of shit that exploit humanity?

    • Oh that’s great news! Female soldiers aren’t the only ones raped by their male comrades, apparently “civilians are raped by soldiers equally” — now that makes me feel much better about our military forces. Thanks.

  25. Wirbelwind says:

    Zorro,
    when women are angry, they are called feminists and government helps them, gives them funds etc.
    When men are angry, they are called criminals, creeps, “afraid of losing privilege”, when he is angry or complaining his wife can call police because he is “abusive” and “she feels threatened”.
    When women are angry towards men (or even hit them) men are told to suck it up, man up, take it like a man.
    When it comes to war: hello, heard anything about the CONSCRIPTS ? DRAFT ? Being forced to fight or face charges of cowardice that resulted in death in WWII.
    Men do not wage war. Politicians, kings, bishops,warlords wage war – men are merely unwilling pawns in their game.
    P.S Women were fond of shaming men that did not participate in conflicts or were unwilling to sacrifice their lives for them- white feathers, articles in press concerning male survivors from “Titanic” etc.

    • It is well known that when women go to war alongside men, they fall prey to their military comrades. If there are not mass rape against women and children in other countries, there is raping of female soldiers within their armed forces or raping of vulnerable girls and women on their turf. In the WW wars, women were collected like cattle into places called “comfort stations” which soldiers frequented and raped women who were brought there to serve their sexual needs during time of war.

      Here are a couple examples of hundreds on the web:

      Photos Show Rape of Iraqi Women by US Occupation Forces:
      http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

      Why Soldiers Rape
      Culture of misogyny, illegal occupation, fuel sexual violence in military
      http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/

      • J.G. te Molder says:

        No, women raped by their own comrades turn out to be false accusations.

        What is less well known, because nobody wants to know it, or doesn’t think it’s possible, is that the enemy rapes men as much, in fact, more so, than women, as a form of punishment, shame and torture to break them.

        • Oh wonderful, wonderful “…the enemy rapes men as much, in fact more so, than women…”

          “No, women raped by their own comrades turn out to be false accusations.” How so? Because the women asked for it? They were wearing sexy combat uniforms? Who put you in charge of PR for these female raped victims?

          • J.G. te Molder says:

            No, they were false accusations, that means no rape occurred, hell, in most cases no sex occurred either.

            It’s funny how you keep parroting “rape this and that in armed forces” when we only just got out of a scandal and court cases finding the accusation of wide spread sexism to be completely unfounded, and the accusations of rape false.

            Once more illustrating MRAs deal in reality, while those who aren’t MRAs spend their time with generalizations and fantasy.

      • Zorro, I posted this above too, in answer to the wrong comment.

        The days of hysterical feminists manipulating and silencing debate by making mass accusations or rape and violence are over, you are a throw back to a bygone era of the gender debate.

        And we know that women commit most child abuse and half of the partner abuse, and that women are more likely to rape a man, than the other way round.

        Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 5, October 23, 2002
        http://www.ejhs.org

        From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors

        Peter B. Anderson, Ph.D.
        Dyan T. Melson, M.Ed.

        Try to use logic instead of emotionally manipulative behavior.

      • It is sick that in time of war…sex is still on the minds of men. It is a major priority for some or a lot of soldiers. You’re fighting a war…don’t you have better things to think about? About how you’re going to win the battle, fight the enemy, survive…think about home, family and friends?

        Don’t the military honchos provide soldiers with porn magazines or access to Internet porn? Many MRAs argue that access to porn decreases rapes. If we’re going to be supporting our soldiers fighting for our freedom, I hope that we are supplying them with enough porn to get through the wars. Provide gay porn as well…so that men don’t rape other men; see I defend men, I’m not sexist…because rape of anybody is barbaric.

        I’m going to write to my MP and request that we show our national pride and support for our soldiers by supplying them with much needed porn, as that has proven to decrease rape and sexual assault from MRA stats. I will personally send any soldier who writes to me copies of porn – tell me what you would like…Lindsay Lohan? As a feminist and humanist, I fight for both men and women – give men porn so that our men and women don’t get raped…excellent and cheap solution.

        • MRA stats prove that porn decreases rape…what is sarcastic about providing porn for soldiers??? Why are we denying soldiers their sexual needs? It is obvious from these latest threads, that the reality is a lot of soldiers rape…and we need to acknowledge this fact and combat the problem!

          • Well masturbation and orgasm does have quite a good increase in various hormones to help combat stress, so you might be on a good idea not just for preventing rape, if it does. Would be great to have high speed, cheap and common contact with your loved ones if you have one and have cyber sex too as a way for destressing.

      • There is quite a lot of rape by both sides in the military from what I’ve heard, the military needs to do a lot more in helping survivors seek treatment as both male and females are raped by their comrades. I’d like to see what the physical abuse stats are like as well in the military, given the nature of the place I have a feeling there would be immense amounts of abuse for discipline and control, but that is purely a guess. Either way, war is hell for everyone involved, and the military could learn from compassion…No one should be abused, raped, harmed unnecessarily, you need 100% trust in your fellow soldiers, you need that morale to be high.

        A rape in the military, or bullying, any kind of abuse leaves a mark of shame on the military and lowers support by the public. It’s hard enough to get support in the military with so many anti-war protesters who will gladly call them baby killers after vietnam for example, controversies in Iraq etc and getting blamed as if they had a part in decisions of command. In Australia we had a scandal over filming of a sexual act on a webcam broadcast to their friends, it’s stupid behaviour and shows disrespect for your fellow soldier and I believe they were kicked out because of that.

        I as a male wouldn’t want to join the military if that is what is involved, stupid misogynist behaviour or even behaviour to harm any gender of fellow soldier, I would hope they are rare cases because we have enough enemies overseas to deal with let alone enemies in our own ranks. That said the dehumanizing effect of war probably needs a lot more mental health support, high rates of PTSD, and other problems associated could play a part in further abuse against innocents or even self-abuse if it isn’t treated.

  26. I got a question for all of yous.

    Men get angry as much as women, if not much more, but why is it ALWAYS women get stuck with the “angry” label/stereotype? As though, being angry is unfeminine and morally wrong? And if you’re a feminist and also “angry”, people (anti-feminists) paint you as some monster that needs to be restrained, censored and chastised like children. Oh that only happens on GMP?

    The wrath against feminism: Megan’s article perpetuates this female “angry” stereotype which no doubt is very anti-feminist and the epitome of hypocritical. Again her long-winded RANT, that is what it boils down to, belongs in the comment section and not a stand-alone piece. BUT it’s a stand-alone piece because GMP is trying to gain points from MRAs at the expense of feminism. I’ve noticed GMP has been distancing itself from feminism very quickly…and articles like this really drives home the point.

    Men are equally angry too on this site, but oh that’s in their biology and GMP is dedicated to them, so all of this is acceptable??? Ohhh allll right…I guess the angry biology of men explains the wars, violence, rapes, genocide and other atrocities in history and present day as well — see men don’t get angry at all!

    ¡Féliz Año Nuevo!

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      Zorro — please don’t tell us what our intentions are — please ask for clarity instead.

      If we are “distancing ourselves from feminism” it is only because — as I’ve said before — we are not ONLY a feminist site. Period. We have had long winded discussions on race, prison, sex, homosexuality, gender, sex trade, the environment — and we’ve talked about those things for a while and then moved on to other things. It does not mean the conversation about race is any less important. It does not mean that race is any less important to us. It means that we can’t talk about race all the time or else we would be a site about race.

      But we are not. We are a website that starts with a discussion of men and goodness and believes in the equality of both men and women.

      What about that sentence that I just wrote are you arguing about?

    • J.G. te Molder says:

      Oh, please!

      There are plenty of negative comments on “angry MRA”s and “angry men” everywhere, including right here in GMP.

      Funny thing, unlike feminists, men and MRAs actually have good reasons to be “angry”, and yet, they rarely if ever show anger, just logic, reason, and facts.

      • “Funny thing, unlike feminists, men and MRAs actually have good reasons to be “angry”, and yet, they rarely if ever show anger, just logic, reason, and facts.”

        All the men or MRAs (yes some see themselves as this) believe its within their rights to start wars, violence, rape, genocide and so on…most of these men “rarely if ever show anger, just logic, reason, and facts”…yes I would agree on one hand that’s correct; know why? Because they are the ones in charge of these horrific operations – they’re the ones giving orders; they let others do their bloody bidding, while they stay perched up high clean and dry and bloodshed is all around.

        On the other hand, if these same people were so logical, use reason and facts and rarely show anger, then how do you explain these wars and violence? Wouldn’t they have the ability to negotiate and use their intelligence and cooperation to do good in this world? Let’s not just talk about wars, think of Penn State, Jerry Sandusky – he doesn’t come across as an angry man with harmful potential – in fact, he comes across as someone who shows logic, reason and facts (he looks like someone’s nice grandpa). But reality is that someone with these character traits can be monsters as well…monsters are often in disguise, all walks of life, all socio-economic backgrounds, all types of personalities.

        • When I say “All the men…” that means the ones who are guilty of starting wars…etc. and not that I’m generalizing All men, okay?

          • J.G. te Molder says:

            Oh, happy day. Equating men, even those who start wars, with MRAs. If MRAs had the power to start wars, there would be no need for MRAs.

            Not to mention the little fact that there are plenty of women that are MRAs.

            And you rather illustrate the point of MRAs having good reasons to be angry and only using logic, reason, reality and statistics.

    • Zorro

      The days of hysterical feminists manipulating and silencing debate by making mass accusations or rape and violence are over, you are a throw back to a bygone era of the gender debate.

      And we know that women commit most child abuse and half of the partner abuse, and that women are more likely to rape a man, than the other way round.

      Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 5, October 23, 2002
      http://www.ejhs.org

      From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors

      Peter B. Anderson, Ph.D.
      Dyan T. Melson, M.Ed.

    • Men are the epitome of anger, aggression and violence in our culture, not sure why you think women get the anger label more than men do? Maybe they get the surprise of being angry whereas it’s expected in men?

      “Men are equally angry too on this site, but oh that’s in their biology and GMP is dedicated to them, so all of this is acceptable???”
      Due to the nature of the site and the fact we have men retelling their experiences, of course there will be male anger. Just as feminist sites will have female anger….so what’s the problem? You’re starting to sound like you want to push feminism on this site yet mra’s get chastised heavily for attempting to do the same at feminist spaces, what do you want to see from all of this?

  27. “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.”
    The guys also follow strict guidelines with patriarchy, or gender roles.

    “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.”
    Please don’t insult overweight men like this, it’s already bad enough getting the whole fat cat idea but then to be assumed to be evil? I can understand why you used it, but it’s a harmful stereotype. The white stereotype is more suitable due to the power imbalance, but weight has no bearing on current power.

  28. “Now, are men really putting women down or are women doing it to themselves?”

    What about all the women who put down men? Is this website about women?

    ” 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?”

    Matlack was listened to abuse of men – not of women. Why can’t you view men as human beings? Why is your view of gender issues so radically gynocentric?

    “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,”

    And there is no denying that men are belittled in the present and were treated like cannon fodder in the past.

    “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.”

    Which you’re doing all throughout your article.

    “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.”

    Exactly. The messages of demonizing and mocking of men flooding the environment of boys and causing them to devalue themselves even less than their fathers devalue themselves. I hope you’re happy taking part in a website that attempts to blame the decline of men(way below women) on men alone.

    “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”

    Oh you forgot to mention that this culture built civilization and men bore the brunt of conflict resolution. You forgot to mention that female pain was always far more valued than male pain.

    “or the women who, every day, choose to do things the way a man would?”

    So the way a man would do things is evil. Gotcha. No, YOU’RE the problem.

    “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.”

    The actual bible tells a story of a man needing to be tortured in such an appalling and frightening way as a sacrifice for society. Using the word ‘patriarchy’ is an easy way to deflect blame, spread conspiracy theories and fear-monger. Your language is that of a hate-group. Glorifying whatever femininity means and shaming whatever masculinity means is standard hate-speech against men and boys and is a great reason for the decline of male motivation. You’re the enemy of men and women.

    “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.”

    This website is called the good men project. Why are you writing about a world where the women are the humans and everything else are forces that affect them? Do you have more to express than female supremacy?

    “They want you to be their knight, to defend their anger and their repression, their rebellion and their war against the patriarchy.”

    You’re on the same boat. I suggest you read an article you wrote entitled “the god of gender wars is laughing”

    “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.”

    This is a most astonishingly hypocritical passage. Your writing is loaded with pseudoscience of the superiority of female blood and you’re guilty of doing the same onto men as you blame others.

    “Somewhere, high above the clouds, I picture a big fat, white man, the God of Gender Wars, smoking a cigar,”

    Evil = man. Gotcha.

    “He understands that women will never find an ounce of power this way.”

    The politicians serve the voters(mostly women.) Power. The corporations serve the consumers(vast majority women.) Power. The media serves the viewer and watchers but especially the advertising agencies which serve the consumers. Uber power. You’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist responsible of the collapse under way.

    • Superb post, David. Shocking that so many men’s rights types around here have applauded this atrocious article. It’s every bit as anti-male as anything Schwyzer has written.

  29. The problem is that the goal of feminism is antithetical to the notion of masculinity, therefore, whenever these two are mixed it would result in heat and smoke and no light. Feminists usually throw around heavy words to make their without caring for its meaning. The most hated word in feminist dictionary is “patriarchy”. Feminists without exception want destruction of patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means “a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan or tribe.” There are only two alternatives for patriarchy, matriarchy and anarchy. Both of them are worse than the former. It is an opinion derived from my personal life experiences that men have an inherent desire to be needed by others. Trying to remove father from family leadership can be disastrous. Nothing hurts a man than being told that he is not worthless and it kills his desire to work and productive. I think feminists should be rather careful with their choice of words.

  30. I disagreed with a lot of it, but I liked the way it was all said somehow.

  31. The author gets it. Whew! No matter what each polarized side believes, we are more human than the opponents want to admit to. I applaud the ladies that seek understanding and dialogue rather than screaming matches. This site is designed for men. I get the impression that some of the feminist hope that men are the project like a science experiment. I reserve the right to consider other POV(s) or totally tune them out. Thank you to ladies like Julie, Lisa, Joanna, newly, etc…so far I still feel welcome.

  32. I think I understand what the author is saying here…that sometimes the greatest progress can grow out of messy situations. But I support anyone who no longer feels comfortable contributing to or being associated with a conversation that they feel is not advancing what they believe in. While the give and take of sticky conversations (like the one going on at GMP right now over men and feminism) can sometimes be productive, sometimes a “no bullshit allowed” attitude must be taken to make a statement against writing, groups or events that undermine feminism.

    A good example of this was Judith Butler’s refusal of the Berlin Pride award in 2010 because of her disapproval of the group’s anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim ideologies. In refusing the award she said, “I must distance myself from this complicity with racism, including anti-Muslim racism.” I think of Hugo’s resignation as him distancing himself from complicity with patriarchal messaging about women and gender essentialism. Conversations that are simultaneously revolutionary and backwards moving can be dangerous and ultimately backwards moving for the feminist movement. It is my hope that the Good Men Project moves forward from these utterances that undermine the feminist movement because good men believe in gender equality and the disruption of rigid gender stereotypes that limit the happiness and success of themselves, their sons, their daughters, their wives, their husbands, their mothers, their fathers, their friends, their politicians, etc…

    I think the Good Men Project can only espouse “good men ideologies” if it upholds feminist ideals and that is why I will continue to write for the project. I want to be part of the conversation that realizes feminism is for everyone. As bell hooks wrote, “Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and practice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.”

    Getting back to something the author said:

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

    That statement is entirely complicit with patriarchal gender essentialism and the framing of women as “crazy” and “hysterical.” What are you trying to do with that? To me, it seems like you’re reinforcing negative stereotypes of the hen-pecking, crazy woman while also projecting that stereotype onto Hugo to belittle and emasculate him (in keeping with archaic gender norms) for standing by feminists that share a “no bullshit” attitude with Judith Butler.

    Other GMP contributors, please join me in putting an end to patriarchal utterances! The Good Men Project has the potential to change the way men approach feminism. Let’s do it.

    • Above It All says:

      I would like to help you, but the door is not open to everyone. Good luck.

    • HS is actually very patriarchal.

      He is all about men as paternal characters that need to bend over back wards to save the delicate damsels in distress that have no agency.

      And I think that feminists need to listen to the owners and contributors to the publication, its not about gynocentric feminism or its shaming of men and denial of female agency.

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      A lot of good has come out of this discussion, even though to some, all you may see is squabbling and an inability to move forward.

      But what strikes me as so funny — through all of this — is that we have repeatedly said — we believe in equality for women and for men. But we simply celebrate the good of men first.

      What is so hard to understand about that? Why does that seem like such a hard concept to grasp? Sometimes I feel as if music from the Twightlight Zone will start playing any minute. Surely this must be a misunderstanding that there is such an uproar over such a simple concept?

      We believe in equality for men and women. But we simply celebrate the good of men first.

      Happy New Year’s everyone! Onward!

      • “But what strikes me as so funny — through all of this — is that we have repeatedly said — we believe in equality for women and for men. But we simply celebrate the good of men first.

        What is so hard to understand about that? Why does that seem like such a hard concept to grasp? Sometimes I feel as if music from the Twightlight Zone will start playing any minute.”

        Lisa – maybe GMP needs a new Logo – A Venn Diagram that shows That GMP has as it’s Universal Set Good Men then within that there are sub groups which are really just opinions of men, masculinity and even feminism.

        Sort of like this example http://xkcd.com/747/

        I’m not sure how to map out the subsets – and I think that is where the Twilight Zone theme would be appropriate! P^)

    • “I think the Good Men Project can only espouse “good men ideologies” if it upholds feminist ideals . . .”

      I could not disagree more. Many “feminist ideals” have proven to be anti-male.

      • I would ask you to explain which feminist ideals you find to be “anti-male” because any social justice movement that espouses ideals that subjugate another group of people is not a social justice movement at all. Feminism is pro-people…elevating both women and men to equality. I hope you aren’t suggesting that men should be threatened by the concept and reality of elevating women to a level that is socially, economically and politically equal to the standing of men or other gendered people.

    • J.G. te Molder says:

      For a “good men” to be for gender equality, he cannot be a feminist. For a feminism has got nothing to do with gender equality, nor would it ever do anything against “patriarchy”. First, there’s no patriarchy, certainly not now, and not really ever. What’s always existed is gynocentrism, and feminism has and is pushing it to brand new heights.

      Gynocentrism is simply putting the female first, and center in everything. A simple phrase “women and children first” (do notice women mentioned first, children second) that existed since time immemorial long before any feminists were around exemplifies rather nicely. Men died while women lived, and they sacrificed themselves willingly. This is not a culture that considers women mere cattle and property, this is a culture that values the female far above the male.

      If gynocentrism did not exist, if women really were looked upon as cattle, no feminist would ever have achieved anything. In fact, the first woman with feminist ideas would be chained up somewhere and never allowed to speak.

      One tenant of this gynocentrist culture, this “patriarchy” is that women are the mothers and nurturers, and are better at it, than the emotionless worker drones – the men. In this culture it was easy for women to hijack custody of children in divorce away from men; today, 84% of all custody cases go to the women, and many of the remaining 16% are joint custody; but this joint custody is not enforced by gynocetnrist “patriarchy”, making them effectively female custody anyway.

      And feminism fights to uphold it, and even turn back joint custody. A man that wants custody is painted as a child-abuser by feminist. Indeed, even a woman-abuser; feminists love to wax that a good man for equality will not challenge a woman’s custody and does nothing but pay his alimony and does everything to help the woman out. (Even while in the next article lament men being not wanting to be fathers and not getting custody is their own fault for not fighting for it.) This is not surprising, for feminism is not only not against gynocentrist “patriarchy”, it will further it; indeed feminism is the ultimate expression of “patriarchy”.

      Feminism considers women in the work force such pathatic, whiny, childish, mentally-unfit people that they campaigned for “sexual harassment” laws that made it illegal to tell sexually-tinted jokes, or for a man to decorate his work spot however he sees fit. For women are threatened and can’t handle a sexual joke or a picture of a beautiful woman.

      Feminism considers women such weak, pathetic cry babies that not only are they not expected to perform at a man’s level to do an extremely physically demanding job on which lives rely, like being fire fighters, they enacted quotas so that even when a woman fails the already lives-endangering lowered female physical tests, they STILL get hired.

      And where were all the “21st century” feminists who supposedly believe in true gender-equality, to tell legislators and “stone age” feminists, that women are not so pathetic they can handle that some jobs are simply physically too beyond them to do (especially when lives depend on them), and that women who could be that physically strong and able are capable of simply working much harder to achieve and maintain it?

      :crickets chirping:

      • “First, there’s no patriarchy, certainly not now, and not really ever. What’s always existed is gynocentrism, and feminism has and is pushing it to brand new heights.”

        If patriarchy has never existed and still does not exist, why do women in the United States earn 77 cents to every dollar that the American man earns? If the patriarchy has never existed and still does not exist, then explain why is congress only 17% female…

        “This is not a culture that considers women mere cattle and property, this is a culture that values the female far above the male.”

        I’m not quite sure which monolithic culture you’re referring to here, but the transnational sex slave trade suggests that many different cultures commodify, traffic and sell women in a manner comparable to the way cattle would be handled.

        “Feminism considers women in the work force such pathatic, whiny, childish, mentally-unfit people that they campaigned for “sexual harassment” laws that made it illegal to tell sexually-tinted jokes, or for a man to decorate his work spot however he sees fit.”

        Feminists campaigned for protection from sexual harassment in the workplace because women, men and any gender in between or beyond are entitled to bodily security and dignity.

        If you or anyone else needs proof that patriarchy is still alive and rearing its ugly head, you can read your own words. I’m afraid that there were zero crickets chirping at the end of your comment. Your archaic and deeply misogynistic thoughts would make the mind of anyone who believes in human dignity and equality to rush, bold and rage over your words.

        • J.G. te Molder says:

          “If patriarchy has never existed and still does not exist, why do women in the United States earn 77 cents to every dollar that the American man earns?”

          Women do not make 77 cents to the dollar a man earns. Quite the contrary, women earn MORE than men. They get the better jobs, and usually get paid MORE for the same job, then men do. Men achieve a greater earning by two things, and the first, is do the job differently; meaning they work longer, getting overtime pay, they do the job at irregular work hours, getting those bonuses, the perform jobs in the open and dangerous jobs that will get them killed (93% of all work-place deaths are men) and get hazzard pay.

          For number 2, we require a little added explanation. You see, women make so much more per hour on average than men do, that 77 cents to the dollar, evil ideologues without conscience can only achieve that number by deliberately massaging the numbers. 77 cents to the dollar exists remains in existence only if you take the wages of ALL men, and ALL women, ACROSS THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, and then calculate the average. In reality, it’s women’s privilege to choose to take part-time jobs or even remain at home entirely to take of children (or just stay at home), while the man is forced to work for her; for he does not have this privilege. A man that does not work his butt off to provide for his family, is a man that gets divorced, and then society’s misandrist, and man as disposable tool look at men comes into play, which helped build our corrupt family courts; where the men is left without his children, without a wife, and yet is expected to provide for his wife anyway. Despite that we’re supposed to be equal and a woman should be able to get her own income.

          ” If the patriarchy has never existed and still does not exist, then explain why is congress only 17% female…”
          Blame women. First, far less women actually go into politics. Second, women are the majority of the electorate, if they had a problem with “patriarchy” and small number of women in politics, all they have to do is stop voting for men, and start voting for women, and the “problem” is solved. There’s no evil men oppressing women going on anywhere.

          “I’m not quite sure which monolithic culture you’re referring to here, but the transnational sex slave trade suggests that many different cultures commodify, traffic and sell women in a manner comparable to the way cattle would be handled.”

          A culture measures things the same way criminals do? Last time I checked a culture enacted laws AGAINST the actions of criminals which shows that society is AGAINST the practices of the criminals. Also, men and boys are trafficked and sold in the same way; but you wouldn’t want to be caught dead being equal, would you?

          “Feminists campaigned for protection from sexual harassment in the workplace because women, men and any gender in between or beyond are entitled to bodily security and dignity.

          If you or anyone else needs proof that patriarchy is still alive and rearing its ugly head, you can read your own words. I’m afraid that there were zero crickets chirping at the end of your comment. Your archaic and deeply misogynistic thoughts would make the mind of anyone who believes in human dignity and equality to rush, bold and rage over your words.”

          Actually, it more proves your own privileged self-indulgence. You didn’t even bother addressing the points of a mere joke or a picture of a beautiful woman pinned up in a man’s own work place. You spend your time thinking only of “a man grabs body and forces it onto her because he’s the boss”, and so sexual harassment laws were made! You care nothing about subsequent ever expanding definitions of “sexual harassment” that are utterly ludicrous, and treat women like pathetic children that need protecting from the awesome adultness of men.

          And as for bodily security and dignity, women have laws to protect them, but how many judges do you think would uphold those laws for men? Hell, if a woman constantly grabs a man’s ass, and keeps harassing him verbally, how many of these cases do you think are even allowed in front of a judge? It’ll be treated as “girl power”, and “you go girl” and a man should just “take it like a man” and not be so “childish”, despite the fact those things are actual sexual harassment, and not a sexual tinted joke not even told the woman but several feet away to different people, and a picture in a man’s own cubicle.

    • “I think of Hugo’s resignation as him distancing himself from complicity with patriarchal messaging about women and gender essentialism. Conversations that are simultaneously revolutionary and backwards moving can be dangerous and ultimately backwards moving for the feminist movement. It is my hope that the Good Men Project moves forward from these utterances that undermine the feminist movement because good men believe in gender equality and the disruption of rigid gender stereotypes that limit the happiness and success of themselves, their sons, their daughters, their wives, their husbands, their mothers, their fathers, their friends, their politicians, etc…”

      I read the above and was Flummoxed. P^/

      I had to check all meanings and uses of jargon a number of times to make sure I had not misread and misunderstood what had been written.

      I think that a great deal of Hugo’s resignation was due to the growing chorus of disapproval from so many men and women to his use of “essentialism”, involving men where he routinely referred to men as boys, children, weak, unthinking, uncritical, stupid and so many other traits he loved to sprinkle his work with. His list of negating adjectives, nouns and verbs was quite spectacular.

      I also wonder at how his misuse of facts and disregard for them also fuelled his resignation.

      Concerns over both issues predate Twittergate by quite some time and long before any Resigantions or other activities!

      A great many hope that as the Good Men Project moves forward there will be far less negation of men and misuse of negative, abusive and stereotypical “essentialism” – and to that end I hope that the Project actually brings on board a Female and Feminist Gender Expert and Columnist to replace Hugo.

      It may even be an idea to have a Rotation of such columnists to see who has the best fit within the Aims and Intentions of The Good Men Project. I have no doubt that some will lack the capacity to alter their “Frames Of Reference” as they write, and so end up writing and communicating in ways that are limited and even limiting. I am sure that there are those who Actively consider their audience as they write, and look at ways to communicate and use words that are not manifestations of Negative “essentialism”.

      I have looked widely at supposed male feminist writers – and so far my research has shown so many who are only negative about men in the same way as Hugo – with Misandry caused by Negative “essentialism” that is uncontrolled and wielded with supposed “privilege” motivated and constructed around poorly manifested academia and personal bias.

      I hope that there will be a Future Focus on Equality over feminism, simply because feminism is only a Subset of Equality and not Vice Versa.

      Equality is not just gender – there is sexuality, age, disability, race and so many others statuses too!

      I am still unable to find a single feminist Blogger or Writter who can explain how feminism intersects or even articulates “Disability Equality” and furthers it, especially for Disabled Males. I am aware that feminism has invaded the subject of Disability Equality, so if you need intimate care involving genitals women are allowed to require that such care is only provided by other women. Yet, men have no equivalent right. The same applies in intersections of such things as Disability And Sexuality. If a disabled gay man expresses preference for care by other gay males, he is labelled as sexist and even a lesbian hater. Yet, it is policy for many that a Disabled Lesbian can require that all care is only provided by lesbian carers. The failures to account for Disconnects in the Equality Issues is odd and It does need to be addressed.

      The attempts by some to make the Good Men Project all about Feminism have caused havoc, and I’m not surprised that some are still wondering why(?) , and what happened (?) from their “Frame Of Reference” which gives Equality a small letter “e” and not the Capitalisation that it should have!

      I’m wondering if it’s possible for the systems of The Good Men Project to force a subtle change. Each time the word “feminism” is written it is forced to only have a lower case “f” – and each time the word “Equality” is written it is forced to have an upper case “E”. Additional quotes around the letters to emphasise the focus would also be an option.

      It may be subtle, but it will help so many in grasping the “Frames Of Reference” that is GMP – and highlight how some people’s “Frames Of Reference are only “within” GMP and not the standard by which so many should be judged, blogged over and subject to so much that is nothing but Personal Bias and Cracked Frames Of Reference which are the “essentialism” of their minds and lives. P^)

  33. I liked this article.
    Thanks to those who want to find a solution vice just throwing rocks at each other.

    You are the type of people I want to read and digest.

  34. I’ve read over this piece a dozen times, and in general I find it “”Witheringly Ironic”” – double scare quotes intended!

    I do wonder about one phrase though:

    “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!”

    It does address the use of Sterotypes about women – but it fails to address the repeated stereotypical representation of men which Mr “S” has been called on so many times and which so many men find beyond offensive!

    Not sure if the piece is intended to address Mr “S”‘s wide spread and indiscriminate use and misuse of all Stereotypes or just one set of gender Stereotypes.

    Of course when asked directly to address such issues, Mr “S” never has. Maybe if he had then leaving in a “Huff”, as the OP describes, may have not been his chosen option?

    I have seen so many who appreciate and enjoy feminist writers, and even praise them, but I have observed that those who wield outdated and even abusive stereotypes as crowd pleasing performance tend to get Huffy when there are reduced calls of “Brava Diva!”. Exit Stage Left!

  35. ¡Féliz Año Nuevo!

    this is an angry and bitter rant. I thought this topic had died or on its way to death’s door…way to rehash this again! This writing sounds like some bloody wrath against feminists and feminism; and poor Hugo’s name getting dragged through the mud all over again. This article is long-winded…and should go under the comment section, instead of a stand-alone piece.

    Don’t read the comments if the posts bother you that much! Get off your computer and do something else. Sheez, people love making mountains out of mole hills on here.

    “If you can’t get past the anger, Megan Rosker writes, nothing will change.” — Please take your own advice.

    I think “wilma” is trying to articulate the fact that we now have two “new” categories, Men’s Rights Issues and Men and Feminism, and since that Men’s Rights Issues is from male POV (MRA), the Men and Feminism section should have its due – from feminist POVs, so that the authors and articles POVs should coincide with its category. So here, Megan’s piece doesn’t fit the Men and Feminist section, since her POV is from MRA perspective…which is evident from her writing and from Lisa Hickey’s support.

    It would be nice to have the Men and Feminism section really be dedicated to feminism in terms of written contributions from a feminist standpoint, especially since the rest of GMP is dedicated to all men’s issues (GMP doesn’t to want to make a compromise here?). No true feminist would describe other feminists as “what if they really are hysterical and crazy under their feminist armor?” and belittle male feminists with “Male feminists who defend the female anger and resentment and don’t encourage women to express themselves naturally are their unknowing spies, their puppets.” Please, please don’t bring feminism back to the dark ages with conniving comments such as those.

    This whole article is an insult to feminism and a wrath in of itself. It appears GMP has to have the last word on any heated feminist debate – and the goal appears to be that it must be from a male POV (MRA) perspective (putting down feminism). Score for MRA! Throw them a bone.

    • Megan’s piece doesn’t fit the Men and Feminist section, since her POV is from MRA perspective

      Megan wrote to close, “He [the god of gender wars] 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.”

      I dont see how are you getting Megan is an MRA from her piece. She wants to destroy what she calls patriarchy, like you do

    • I actually like the idea of the female feminist part, though is it needed on this site or is there a sister site it could be hosted and linked from as a standalone, or a joint venture? Hell, I’d love to see a good woman project too!

  36. Megan, youve managed to annoy two feminists and an mra(jean valjean). So you perhaps you hit the bullseye, or not.
    Im still deciding which – parts i agree with, others parts i dont.
    You spanked alot of arses, A very interesting and rollicking read.

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

    So to sum up: Feminists are angry, resentful “hens” who are afraid to express their true, feminine nature, and men who support feminist goals are girly men.

    Both these arguments have been around since well before women were allowed to vote anywhere, and rehashing them once more doesn’t seem constructive. Belittling people you don’t agree with isn’t the same thing as having a debate.

    • One’s own behavior is what makes a person small, not the assessment of it. The writer is 100% correct in her assessment of his behavior.

      I have seen that behavior before. When they are frustrated because of not getting their way, my daughters would absolutely do that IF we permitted them – storm out of the room, slamming the door in a over-reacting ,emotional, hysterical huff, determined not to speak to the offender again. (sound familiar?)

      Of course, they aren’t permitted to do that, and know how ridiculous, hysterical, and juvenile such behavior is. Yes, it is “girly man” behavior, because mature adult women don’t behave that way.

      • It’s been a few days since I read Schwyzer’s article, but I don’t remember it as overly emotional or dramatic. Either way, Megan Rosker’s article does the equivalent of going “Ha ha, s/he’s so stupid!” after the angry sibling storms out of the room. It adds fuel to the fire, sets men and feminists up as two opposing camps, and insults them both (the bit about Schwyzer acting like “hysterical women” seems to shame him for not being properly manly, which is a sexist thing to do.)

        What’s needed is diplomacy, not this.

        • He did the equivalent of slamming the door and storming out of the room by quitting in a huff when he didn’t get his way. Very little girly, juvenile behavior. That’s exactly what my daughters would have done when they were very little had they been permitted.

  38. “I love the term gaslighting that Yashir Ali coined in his piece”

    Correction – Yashir Ali has not ******coined****** or created the phrase “Gaslighting”.

    The Term, a short hand for specific forms of psychological manipulation and abuse, has been in use for over 30 years – and it is not gender specific.

    The Plot Motif of mental abuse in the pattern of Gaslighting even appears in Shakespeare’s Hamlet – over 400 years ago!

    In Hamlet the Gaslighters were Hamlet’s Mother and her New Husband Hamlet’s Uncle and Step-father.

    Further details http://goodmenproject.com/men-and-feminism/words-are-not-fists-what-the-twitter-blow-up-tells-us-about-men-women-and-anger/comment-page-1/#comment-85198

    I see that some commentators are already attempting to run with a New Piece Of Jargon! Well done to Hugo and all others who take mis-reported facts and allow and even encourage so many others to run away with them!

    Now we just need Google and other search engines to pick up on it and spread the error! OOpps It has already started!

    The God of Gender wars is giggling in deed – especially when people round here start to use the term so quickly and incorrectly – and a new cloud of myth descends as the smoke of battle!

  39. All of this sounds really angry and a bunch of gobbledygook; this piece puts down and shuts down women and also emasculates those Knights who support them. Shame. This piece is against women’s rights …100%.

    Just wondering…are you replacing Lori Day? I swear Lori Day would have written something like this. She always took it upon herself to play “referee” or “peacemaker” on this site. She couldn’t stand any amount of dissent between the sexes…and a piece like this always showed up after a long heated debate…or one that just about getting there. Julie Gillis is another “referee” on here, also a moderator. If these people couldn’t censor the heated posts, they felt it’s their duty to write up some gobbledygook to “flame out” the flames…which usually meant taking sides, that inevitably will always be GMP men, as they are the majority here and whom GMP and contributors have a duty to support. The GMP solidarity brand.

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      Are you saying it’s wrong to take the sides of men on a website that was created for men? I’d like to better understand your thinking there.

      We are actively working on ways to allow dissent, to allow heated arguments, to allow passionate discourse — but that also allows civil conversation for those who function better that way. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on better ways we can move forward.

      • “Are you saying it’s wrong to take the sides of men on a website that was created for men? I’d like to better understand your thinking there.”

        If the default of GMP is to always to support and side with men, no matter the topic…especially feminist topics, then nothing has changed on this site. Creating two new categories (men’s rights, men and feminism) is NOTHING new…it’s same old, because the consensus remains sexist – the male POV will always prevail on here (pretty sneaky to have a female write up sexist pieces like this one).

        Hugo S. was right to leave. I was hoping that he would return…but this site pretends to provide space for feminist dialogue, but the catch-22 is that GMP doesn’t support feminist goals/ideas – as you have stated: you’re here to support men.

        You might as well get rid of the Men and Feminism category entirely. What’s the point? For every feminist debate, it will always end with a piece like Megan’s to end ALL debates, to shut up feminism and put the male POV first – male privilege first. This is a bunch of BS. Hugo saw this BS and good for him for leaving…he stood by his moral ground.

        • Lisa Hickey says:

          Hang on — I’m really trying to understand this point, which I think is really important — are you really saying that supporting men goes against feminist goals/ideas? Because that to me would be the crux of the problem.

          And yes, to second Julie — write up a piece and send it to us and we will publish it.

          • Thank you Lisa, that was a very kind comment.

            Most men are Good Men,we just need to be perceived as good,instead of fighting negative stereotypes.

            For myself, all it would take is restoration of legal process under the law and access to legal recourse against VAWA injustices to bring me back to the table as far as dating and being amicable towards women in general gain.

            Those are basic human right,God given rights.
            Not too much to ask for?

            Let’s get it done,then we can talk as true equals.

        • Wilma-
          As a contributor, author, moderator, and contributing editor, I must say for the record that GMP, Tom Matlack, and Lisa Hickey have always supported me. Even when I called Tom to task (which has only been once, I have great respect for Tom), even when I support Hugo Schwyzer (which I firmly do), even when I plea with an angry anti-feminist commenter to see me as a HUMAN before a feminist, even if I am both.

          GMP didn’t gaslight Hugo, they had a mutual parting of ways. It may have come out very dramatically from the outside, and it certainly wasn’t easy for any of us at the time, but in the end Hugo, Tom, Lisa and the rest of us whom I know well enough to attempt to humbly speak for, do ultimately have the same goals, even if we walk down different roads on the way to that destination: to create a world where men’s and women’s voices are equally valued.

          Here at GMP the goal is to be sure men’s voices are heard (not necessarily agreed with) in a way that is heretofore unseen. It isn’t exclusive to men, but this site is designed for men. Supporting men doesn’t always mean agreeing with them, but it means allowing them to speak without shame.

          To the author – it makes me laugh to think that Hugo Schwyzer is doing the bidding for anyone. I don’t know anyone who pisses people off as regularly as Hugo – feminists and non-feminists alike. Even I’ve shook my head at him here and there. I still respect him, and I respect Tom as well. GMP has never made me feel I had to choose sides.

        • “…but this site pretends to provide space for feminist dialogue, but the catch-22 is that GMP doesn’t support feminist goals/ideas – as you have stated: you’re here to support men.”

          Where have the male feminists gone? What appears to have happened after Hugo’s departure is that, no one on here has the balls to identify themselves as a male feminist anymore. GMP has made it a guilt and embarrassment to support feminism…the articles as of late, including this one, has forced GMP men to take sides – whatever is trending at the moment, which is MRA. Feminism and male feminists are seen as “gay” right now; not something macho men want to associate with? Just read Joanna S. “I don’t know anyone who pisses people off as regularly as Hugo – feminists and non-feminists alike.” Speak for yourself Joanne or rather speak on behalf of GMP because that’s what you are doing. Don’t speak for me or on behalf of other feminists – GMP is your boss.

          Why don’t people just be straight up? Feminism ideologies (human justice) is really not welcomed here. Don’t pussyfoot around this…I know GMP is trying to keep ALL of your readership audiences and attempting to give the aura this site is feminist friendly – but then backstabs them (of all places, supposedly their backyard “Men and Feminism” section).

          • Would you mind elaborating on how GMP has backstabbed Feminists? I am not trying to be defensive, I am genuinely curious. I have never been backstabbed. When Lisa or Tom have questioned an aspect of something I wrote or said, they’ve done it to me directly and with respect. I am not so fragile as to not be able to face them eye to eye on any issue.

            Just as there are safe spaces for women to speak and work out issues, this is that space for men. If you are implying we don’t support feminism because we allow MRAs to disagree with feminists or even just women in the comments, then guilty as charged. Our commentors are not the project, but the diversity of voices is a fundamental element of the project.

            The anti-feminists and MRAs are welcome to disagree with me respectfully, and you and I are allowed to disagree with them if we choose.

            Please let me know, though, if I am wrong.

        • There are plenty of feminist websites focused on bashing males in every possible way. Why shouldn’t there be one that celebrates what is good about males and helps them improve without the incessant male-bashing that surely comes with feminism, or at least boxes it into a confined space?

    • Julie Gillis says:

      What the hell are you putting peacemaker in scare quotes for? If listening, hearing empathizing in the face of pain and anger and (not denying them their right to that anger) all while maintaining gconsistent community boundaries ( for everyone, not just people one agrees with) is peacemaking than I’m a bloody damn peacemaker. Peace? Involves very hard work, anger anxiety defensiveness and. Vulnerability. It involves,, at times, fighting. So if you want to place me in scare quotes you just go right ahead. I’m listening. Write a piece yourself and give it to Lisa.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Also? I’m a feminist as I point out a lot. And get dinged for. A lot . Do iagree with this piece, not really, but I do agree with Lisa’s stance on dialog between two polari
        Zed view and I believe that there are spaces in the
        Middle where understanding (not even meaning agreement) can happen. Again write and submit something and be part of that dialogue.

      • Julie – if you and “scare quotes” ever get put in the same room together, can you make sure we all get the memo well in advance! Some of us would need notice to find a bunker! P^)

    • This is really stunning. I have stopped writing for GMP, and have not commented here in weeks. I got so sick of the flame wars. I got so tired of the MRA’s who attacked me for being a feminist and who had zero understanding of the type of feminist I even am, and the feminists who attacked me for not being feminist enough, because there is some memo I never got. Now I get called out for trying to build bridges.

      As one of the great mentors in my life always said, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Which is why I have removed myself completely from writing on the topic of gender–anywhere. There is literally NOWHERE on the internet I feel comfortable writing about gender issues anymore. The level of anger on sites related to advocacy for either gender are so full of vitriol, there is no joy in it anymore…for me. Comments like yours are a big reason why.

      No one “replaced” me. I did not have any particular position or role at GMP. Like Julie and all the other writers, I simply gave generously of myself and my time to this site, writing on lots of different topics, occasionally leaning one way or another, often trying to be a peacemaker…which last I checked was a good thing. And, as Lisa says, this is a men’s site. Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a woman writing for a men’s site these days, especially if you have any fondness for your own gender at all?

      Thanks a lot, Wilma.

      • Glad to see you got the “memo” saying come back Lori! P^)

      • Lisa Hickey says:

        Lori, I just want to say that we appreciate all you have written for us, and thank you. We’re sorry that gender discussions cause so much hostility. We ARE looking to change that, but change is slow.

        We have been called “the only place on the internet where MRA’s and Feminists can openly debate each other.” And what we’re working on now is *places* that those debates can take place so that posts that have nothing to do with either one get over run by commenters using our posts to push an agenda one way or another. None of this is easy, but it seems more important than ever. If not us, who?

        • Applause! Applause! Bravissimo!

        • Lisa, I understand this. I can see the ways you are trying. I wish you all the best. No one is more dedicated or tireless than you.

          • Lori – Applause! Applause! Bravissimo!

            Now lets hear more of the rational and even centrist!

            “Illegitimi non carborundum” – as they say! P^)

            I would write it a different way, but I’m working on avoiding the Spam Sin Bin!

        • “None of this is easy, but it seems more important than ever. If not us, who?”

          Only you. You may get criticized a lot but the truth is both you, Tom, Lori and Julie are quite remarkable and your really the only ones who can keep this going. I understand the difficulty for you…you get criticized endlessly and never get appreciated. You have to control yourself while others exercise no control and nobody seems to appreciate what your doing. Instead everyone gets increasingly angry that you are not taking their side. You can’t win. But your not supposed to. The only way to really win is let go of your ego which is really really hard.

          Its a mostly thankless job you have. Maybe you think no one notices what your doing but some of us do even if we don’t say it. We notice it even when we are arguing with you.

          I think your doing a great job. I am actually genuinely impressed.

          • Lisa Hickey says:

            Happy New Year assman. And thank you. I am never worried that it is hard. As long as it is possible.

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Thank you Assman. (Loving that I just wrote “Thank you Assman:)
            XO

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            I second Assman 😉

          • Assman, I wish I knew your name, as you know mine, and then I could address you directly and personally in this comment.

            This is the first comment I read in 2012. It did touch me. Thank you for expressing it as you did.

            One of the things I really admire about Lisa, Julie, Joanna and many of the other writers (male and female) is that they have something I don’t–a thick skin. All my life I’ve been told two things–that my skin needed to be thicker so I wouldn’t get so easily hurt, and that it needed to remain just as it is because it helps me really feel. The angry comments don’t roll off me. The personal attacks really hurt.

            Anyone who uses their real name in blogging, opens themself up to hate email (and the certainty that everything about their identity can be easily found on the internet), risks future traditional employment opportunities due to the electronic trail left by their controversial blogging, lays their soul bare in an effort to really reach their readers, and opens themself up to complete strangers attacking not just what they write but WHO they ARE…well, those people are either brave or masochistic, and maybe both. But they are always generous, and I thank you for acknowledging that. I sometimes feel like a crazy, unpaid punching bag who should focus more on my “real” job and less on trying to change the world.

            MediaHound, if’ you’re reading this, thanks also for your comments. You were always good for some intelligent discourse and fun banter, especially on all things Godwin-related! People should have more fun on GMP. Life is hard enough, and the issues debated painful enough, that laughter could be immensely healing.

            Assman, yours is a perceptive and kind comment. You’re one of the last people I would ever have expected to write it given how difficult some of our interactions have been. I have often wondered who you are, as I wonder about many of the other commenters.

            My wish for 2012 for GMP is that everyone will take advantage of a fresh start. Even more than that, I wish that each writer and each commenter could search more deeply for points of connection than for points of contention. I really don’t see any other way for things to move forward productively, and for Lisa’s “Onward!” to become a clarion call for people with wide ranging viewpoints and from all walks of life to venture into a better future for everyone.

            • Lori – it’s hard to be told toughen up and then to be told stay soft! Finding a Middle Way, and even your own way, through those contradictions is just a part of the rich tapestry of life.

              I said that to someone once and they gave me a very quick retort – That’s Fine and it meant something before the “F”ing embroidery machine of the Internet went into overdrive! I could see their point.

              I just let others Prate and stay like the elephant as the blind grope to figure me out! They can grope and define all they like. I’m quite mild mannered really.

              The only time they will hear me really trumpet is when the blind idiots think they have me by some Spherical Anatomy – That’s when they get told It’s My Crystal Balls and they are in trouble cos they did not see what was coming! P^)

              …and I agree with many who have pointed out that “Dear Assman” is a wonderfully ironic and net-centric salutation that causes much hilarity and even confusion – but also shows so much respect.

              I can see 2012 being very much about respect – so “Onwards” in deed!

      • Hope I didn’t contribute to running you off 🙁

      • That’s a pity, I quite enjoyed your article on the “why boys are failing” article. I hope you do write more, my best advice is to ignore the haters because someone is always going to disagree in life but what you have to say is equally important.

        The more diversity in articles showing feminism, masculism, etc I think the anger will die down. From what I’ve read I’d say you’re far from the Hugo and Amanda version of feminism that is like dancing with flares on a tightrope over a massive open silo of fuel (dramatic scene, kapow!) and I’m always interested in seeing the diversity in ideas the feminists have, from Neely to even Hugo, where I can read an article and be everything from annoyed as hell at the generalizations, to others where I want to high 5 them for actually seeing male suffering, or female AND male suffering without trying to ignore either.

        So I do hope you will write again, maybe set it up as more moderated and tell people to discuss without anger? I personally try my best to ignore the anger and understand WHY they’re angry, it’s a “hidden” message but usually it’s an important one and from the looks of it both sides feel very very ignored, belittled, antagonized by the OTHER side. The more masculists and feminists that can write articles of both genders, can actually work together I think the less anger will overpower the comments when both sides feel they are thought about.

        • Archy, thanks, and btw, that article I wrote on why boys are failing got me more hate email than anything I’ve ever written. But only when I posted it here on GMP. When I first ran it on Huffington, it got a very different reception. After running it on GMP (because I noticed a lot of commenters saying this topic of boys’ education needed to be addressed, and I had recently addressed it on HuffPo) it drew fire–much of it in my personal email inbox–for being anti-girl. It was not anti-girl. It was PRO-BOY. The reverse happens just as much. 🙂

          People want you to be in a box. Either you are supposed to write advocacy pieces about girls and women on feminist sites…or, to write advocacy pieces about boys and men on men’s sites. If you’re on a gender-neutral site like Huffington, you do get angry gender-based comments, but mostly you get comments that address the *content* of what you are saying more than the content of your character for being whatever gender you are and writing in support of one gender or the other. There seems to be little understanding of why someone like me might write powerfully in defense of boys one day, and in defense of girls the next. The reason is actually simple: because I am a CHILD advocate, and NEITHER gender has it better than the other overall. I am super worried about kids today–all of them. Not a difficult concept.

          If you are a solutions-oriented writer, that means you are going to take both sides…in turn or simultaneously, or take no sides at all sometimes, remaining centrist. I actually feel there is something deeply dishonest about always and only writing in support of one gender at the expense of the other. I frankly believe there is male privilege AND female privilege. I feel it is a lie and extremely unproductive to deny either of those things, and I won’t. As a woman who does care about the welfare of my OWN gender, women and girls, their rights, and the ways in which they suffer now and historically…is there a place here on GMP where someone like me can empathetically address the experience of men while NOT simultaneously throwing women under the bus? How about WHILE also acknowledging the problems faced by women, when relevant to the topic? Or is there no place on GMP for “whataboutthewomenz??”

          I get the problem with there being too much of that! But do people really feel that women do not suffer, or that their suffering has ZERO place on GMP? I see many MRA commenters here who have no tolerance–absolutely none–for the notion of compassion towards BOTH sexes. How is that any more acceptable than when feminists will not acknowledge the ways men suffer? Look, it goes both ways, and if that is not patently clear to both men and women, then whoever is unclear about it needs to open their eyes, and more importantly, their hearts.

          Thanks for your kind comment and your obvious desire to find some middle ground, Archy. That’s where it’s at.

          • J.G. te Molder says:

            Could you name one male privilege? I’ve heard this term hurled around, and yet, I’ve never once come across and actual male privilege. Any claim of male privilege is either never backed up at all, or something is named that once you go look at reality, that is statistics, you actually find is a male drawback, not privilege.

            • I could but I won’t. Not interested in this same boring inflammatory dialogue, which is the whole point of what I’ve been saying about why writing and commenting here has become so onerous for me. If you’re interested, Google male privilege, read the lists of dozens and dozens of things, and see if you find even one of them have merit. My guess is that you will find every single one of them to be completely without merit, because you have already decided that this is the case. I have no desire to be a part of this bogus process with you. I know where it will lead. And it’s not my job–that work has been done. You can avail yourself of it or not. Bye.

              • DavidByron says:

                Lori the problem is you are part of the process but you are not admitting that. When someone replies to you and says in effect there’s no such thing as male privilege you see THAT as “boring inflammatory dialogue”.

                But YOU started it. You started that “boring inflammatory dialogue” first by saying there is male privilege. Do you see what I mean here? Even if you don’t agree with me can you understand what my perspective is here?

                Nobody is going around constantly saying “there’s no such thing as male privilege” all over the place and starting a fight where there was none. But plenty of feminists pepper their comments with statements that assert there is male privilege, when nobody was even talking about it.

                If you find you cannot substantiate your controversial statements — or are unwilling to do so — you have no business making those statements.

                It’s actually against the comment rules:

                Don’t generalize. No, all men aren’t dogs—just some of us. And if you want to say something like that, show us some evidence, post a link with more information. Don’t group people together just because it’s “your opinion.” That’s lazy and leads to all sorts of problems.

                Saying men have privilege just for being men is a generalization you refuse to substantiate. Not only is it a generalization but it is controversial and many posters here find it offensive and think it negatively stereotypes men.

                • How aggravating.

                  I said I believe there is BOTH male AND female privilege. And I DO. BOTH!!!

                  Immediately, a commenter challenged me to prove there is anything resembling *male* privilege. He singled that out of my quote. I responded to him to go look it up, and that, essentially, it is not my job to teach gender theory to him. And that this is boring and derailing.

                  David, my response to him would have been IDENTICAL if he had challenged me to prove female privilege. But he didn’t. He drilled right in on male privilege, denying utterly that it exists, ignoring 50% of my original statement.

                  Did you even read the comment thread? Did you see how this transpired before accusing me of breaking commenting policies?

                  You wanted to know earlier if you were a part of why I stopped writing at GMP. I did not answer you because I did not want to be hurtful. Now you can have your answer, since you unfairly just went after me…AGAIN.

                  Yes.

                  You, and everyone else who distorts and derails comment threads for the fun of it, and repetitively shoves your own agendas down everyone else’s throats. I refuse to debate gender theory. I refuse to pander to commenters trying to bait me to do so–on behalf of men OR women. Whoever wants to know more about male or female privilege, or any other aspect of gender theory, is invited to consult The Google or anyone else, but not me.

                  This was my quote: “I frankly believe there is male privilege AND female privilege. I feel it is a lie and extremely unproductive to deny either of those things, and I won’t.”

                  As I said, I won’t. I won’t deny EITHER. Period. I have generalized NOTHING. I said there is privilege on BOTH sides.

                  Is your eyesight ok?????

                  Ok, now I’m getting upset. See? It happens so easily. It is so pointless and so boring. You clearly enjoy this so much. I do not. Goodbye DavidByron. Have a happy new year and a happy life.

                  • Lori

                    I’m wondering of you are a bit Like Tom was?

                    I’m wondering if you may have developed that chronic disease – “Short Arm Syndrome”. It’s a terrible affliction and you have all the symptoms!

                    It manifests in only one particular observable symptom – the inability to pat yourself on the back as necessary!

                    There are only two known cures – a large explosion which seems to defeat the neurological shackles – else repeated pats on the back from others until the sufferer gets so fed up with what they perceive as being patronized they swear – tell others to jump of very high places – and to prove the point the sufferer then pointedly displays the ability to lift arm, rotate , bend and use hand to repeatedly pat self on back!

                    I’m just wondering – which is your preferred therapy? P^)

                    Pats waiting as required!

                    Bunkers prepared just in case! P^)

                    Sometimes memos are not enough. P^)

                    • “I’m just wondering – which is your preferred therapy? P^)”

                      Thanks for that question.

                      Answer: Happy Hour

                      Oh look, it is 5:00 pm EST!

                      Thanks for the laugh! (Laughing, of course, being me real preferred therapy).

                  • DavidByron says:

                    Lori, I am not trying to attack you. I am trying to help you by explaining to you the perspective of other people. I am trying to help you understand why your comments draw the fire from other people. I am trying to explain to you how to stop unintentionally provoking people.

                    Rest assured I did carefully read what you said.

                • Lisa Hickey says:

                  David — calling Lori Day out on two words in her entire post when clearly her intention is to want to find some common ground to start the discussion is mean-spirited and not the way we want the conversation to go. And then telling her she is violating commenting policy on top of that?

                  Unless you are a moderator, please don’t misrepresent what our policy is.

                  The intentions need to start with opening up conversations, not shutting them down.

                  • Lisa – far be it from me to disagree with the Editors.

                    I do know of “The Wrath Of Editors” [Ducking Quickly],

                    But, I think that David was coming from a particular view point which he assumed was understood!

                    I agree with Lori and her views that there is both Male and Female Privilege, if you view matters from the “Model” Of Patriarchy and Feminism.

                    On the other hand, David has been arguing and articulating from some time that from his perspective there is no “Model” that supports Patriarchy, and a different view and model needs to be considered. When you take that view and perspective, what David said was on topic, right and what he said, and even how he said it was not wrong!

                    [Ducking Head under Table]

                    I actually have great regard for David’s Incisive mind and ability to look at so many matters from different and novel view points, which I can see as opening up discussion and ideas. He does have a sort of “Beautiful Mind” that keeps getting him into trouble.

                    I just wish he would stop just commenting and Write a series of articles for GMP so that his insights and analysis would get more detailed attention and consideration.

                    [Ducking Head under Table… Again!]

                    Maybe you could get him to write a piece and see if it pans out?

                    [Smiling wanly – wondering if Ducking and Running is still an option] P^)

                    • Lisa Hickey says:

                      Ahhhh MediaHound,

                      Funny, my relationship with you and DavidByron started almost exactly the same way. First you challenged me, then I hated you, then I considered blocking you, and then…..Sound Effects Please as mind opens sloooooooooooowly…..then I came to the conclusion that you both do indeed have “Beautiful Minds” that get ME to think more insightfully and critically. It was a pretty amazing experience.

                      That said, *sometimes* people just want to start from a place of agreement and not get challenged Every.Damn.Time.

                      I have asked DavidByron to write for us but will again — David, you there? I believe he said he’s just better at responses.

                      I am actually kind of excited to get 4 different viewpoints on the hot gender topics. It would be SO cool if we could get a 1) female feminist 2) a male feminist 3) a male MRA and a 4) female MRA to write about these things:

                      — Privilege
                      — Gender Essentialism
                      — The Patriarchy

                      I’m very excited and am moving to search and discover mode.
                      thanks MH!

                  • DavidByron says:

                    Yeah that didn’t go the way I hoped it would 🙁

                    • Well David – If at first you don’t succeed – Blog! P^)

                      You are for me one of the most reasonable and articulate commentators, and you do keep a cool head and an open mind. There is a little known disease that even Prince Phillip, Husband of Betty Windsor of Buckingham Place, is often accused of suffering from – “Dontopedology – the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it”.

                      I can see how some would want you quarantined with “Dontopedology”, and I hope it never happens.

                      I have loved the dialogues you and Julie have had and how they have developed. I would even like to see the two of you being thrown an issue and responding Independently – a sort of he said she said – and then see how it develops as people comment and you both carry on the discussions. In many ways, the more contentious the opening Salvo you both comment on the better!

                      You are a very serious Guy, but you also have a very good sense of humour too – quite dry, like a good Martini and neither shaken or stirred – and I suspect garnished with an onion al la “Gibson” – named after Charles Dana Gibson, the guy who was responsible for The Iconic and satirical Image of The “Gibson Girl”.

                      Gibson was not welcomed at first and his work was not always appreciated – but he persevered until his message was gotten across, and now commands very high prices! P^)

                      Else where The Editor has said she started out thinking we were both a pain in the …errrr …. . editors ink well ….. so we had better stick together! P^)

                      “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”

                      Moshe Dayan (1915 – 1981) – Dayan believed that the Temple Mount was more important to Judaism as a historical rather than holy site. No jew could set foot on the mount. Dayan was the man who had the flag of Israel removed from atop the Al-Aqsa Mosque. A wise man who is missed for his courage to communicate and act.

                • Guestopher says:

                  People who ask for evidence that there are male privileges, White privileges, heterosexual privileges, etc. almost always seem to be arguing in bad faith. I’m not a perfect person and do not have a perfect response for the situation. “Go look it up on the internet, and tell me what you find” seems to be a pretty good response. Like if someone asked if evolution actually happens/happened. In a perfect world feminists would have infinite time to go back and forth with everyone who asks these questions and have an honest discussion with people who’ve done internet research but are still legitimately curious.

                  “or something is named that once you go look at reality, that is statistics, you actually find is a male drawback, not privilege.” This suggests that the conversation isn’t going to end with someone pointing out a legitimate male privilege. Anything can be argued as having a minor drawback… and then built up into the worst thing ever.

                  • “People who ask for evidence that there are male privileges, White privileges, heterosexual privileges, etc. almost always seem to be arguing in bad faith. I’m not a perfect person and do not have a perfect response for the situation. “Go look it up on the internet, and tell me what you find” seems to be a pretty good response. Like if someone asked if evolution actually happens/happened. In a perfect world feminists would have infinite time to go back and forth with everyone who asks these questions and have an honest discussion with people who’ve done internet research but are still legitimately curious.”

                    I agree that you can make a case for those but as lori said there is also female privilege. What I think is a common mistake is to suggest that anyone who disagrees with male privilege is also the same kind of person who would disagree with white privilege.

                    There are quite a justified rational arguments behind objecting to the idea of male privilege. There are intelligent people who make well reasoned arguments that it is actually hard to prove that male privilege is better than female privilege. It is also demonstratively easy to show sexism is not a one way street.

                    “or something is named that once you go look at reality, that is statistics, you actually find is a male drawback, not privilege.” This suggests that the conversation isn’t going to end with someone pointing out a legitimate male privilege. Anything can be argued as having a minor drawback… and then built up into the worst thing ever.”

                    That suggests to me that the theory of patriarchy that is most likely to be advocated is not quite as solid and rational that you believe it is. There are many statistics showing women are doing better than men in some areas it cannot however be said that there are statistics that show blacks doing better than whites. It is really hard to justify that there isn’t white privilege. And that is completely different to gender privileges.

                  • I also object to the idea that the only people who would disagree with feminists are right wing MRA etc. You can’t get most feminists to agree on everything to then suggest that the left is 100% behind everything feminist or else that person isn’t a liberal is kind of presumptuous. What I am saying is the patriarchy theory often presents women as oppressed and restricted. For me to agree with this i would have to go ignore most of my life experiences.

                  • DavidByron says:

                    Basically what you are demanding is that before a conversation starts all your statements must be agreed to be correct ahead of time. You are unwilling to accept that other people have the right to disagree with you.

                  • “People who ask for evidence that there are male privileges, White privileges, heterosexual privileges, etc. almost always seem to be arguing in bad faith.”

                    I have to disagree with that idea of bad faith.

                    It is a well known and well established rhetorical device and debating technique to undermine and imply that the person asking the question is in some way deficient – and then direct them to the library! That Is Bad Faith!

                    If you ask someone to articulate their view, by asking them to provide an example that is supported by their view – that is never Bad Faith – only Good Faith. But, assuming it is Bad Faith is most certainly Bad Faith and deliberate evasion and Derailing! It even shows that some lack the capacity for free thought and even shows where some just use “Thought Terminating Clichés” to stop their own thinking and even imply that others can’t think or are stupid!

                    Some could do with going back and doing debating club 101. I have even joked that each person posting and commenting could do with being fitted with a faith scale, so that Bad Faith is marked down and Good Faith marked up!

              • J.G. te Molder says:

                It has got nothing to do with inflammatory language, it’s got all got to do with FACTS, and debating claims of things.

                You tell me to go look for them, and that the work has been done; and yet, I have looked, and never found a single one of that holds up when you test it against reality. Let’s name a few:

                Men get jobs easier than women, because men like hire men more, boohoo. Once tested against reality, you find that there more men that are unemployed than women, even more so after the latest economic crisis.

                Men make more money for the same job than women do, boohoo. Once tested against reality you find that no, women in general get the better paying jobs. If a man does manage to get more money for the same job, it isn’t actually the same job, because man is more likely to choose to this job longer, overtime, during irregular work hours, or in hazardous environments, netting him bonuses. In contrast women choose not to do these things and even choose to do the job part time. Even then, the only way men on average still make more than women, is if the unfair ideologue with an agenda, chooses to test wages across their entire lives, where the women’s choice to take of the children and not work, will push it over the edge. Of course, if you realize that most of men’s wages get spent by or on their girlfriends and wives, it completely falls apart.

                99% of the men have all the CEO positions! First of all it isn’t 99%. Once tested against reality you can look above on why men are more likely to work themselves to those positions as opposed to women. It has got nothing to with male privilege, it’s men working their butts off to get there.

                Health care is entirely male centric, it’s the default! Once tested against reality we see that female health issues get a lot more funding, and there four female-only health departments, including in the bloody armed forces, which really should end the debate there. Let’s add the real ender shall we: women on average live 7 years longer than men, and this difference over the past century has steadily increased. But (oh, boy, apparently it wasn’t ended) they do all the drug tests on men unless they can’t! Once tested against reality, this is not male privilege it’s male disposability. After all a men gets hit by side effects like, getting crippled, ruptured internal organs, impotence, or death; well it’s just one more body on the pile. A single holy vajajay getting unnecessarily hurt in a drug test we could do on a man? No, must not happen!

                And we can keep on going, on and on, and on. Every single last instance of so-called male privilege once tested against reality we find it is not male privilege at all. That’s because the work actually hasn’t been done! (Well, not by the ideologues advocating it.) It’s the problem with feminism you see; they don’t care about reality, reason, and science, all they care about is who things feel to them. If they feel men have privilege, men have privilege according to them. Then when someone else actually goes to do the science, goes to check the statistics; the whole thing comes crumbling apart.

                • Lisa Hickey says:

                  What I am going to do — and I’ll put it up in a much more visible place — is that I would like 4 different people to write about “privilege”

                  1) A female feminist
                  2) A male feminist
                  3) A male MRA
                  4) A female MRA

                  I think that having those four points of view all in one place, and declaring “open season” in the comments — will actually be very interesting.

                  J.G. te Molder or DavidBryon, would either of you like to take position #3?

                  Lori, let me know if you have any ideas for others (or would like to tackle it yourself).

                  Email me at lisa at goodmenproject dot com

                  Thanks all!

                  Lisa

                  • J.G. te Molder says:

                    Maybe you should ask for “male feminist” Dr. Warren Farrel lhttp://www.warrenfarrell.com/, maybe he’s willing to write a piece. He probably still considers himself a feminist, even if feminist have excommunicated him for breaking the mold and actually doing the work, and accepting what the statistics he found out told him. He’s the guy who wrote many books among others, “Women can’t hear what men don’t tell them”, and “The myth of male power”.

                    • Lisa Hickey says:

                      Great — thanks J.G., will contact him.

                    • JG I was just looking at Dr. Farrel’s web site and his “15 Intriguing Thoughts About Men, Women and Relationships”

                      Oh My – I can see some real interesting debates over just those 15 points.

                      This one tickled me immensely:

                      ” Falling in love is biologically natural; sustaining love is biologically un-natural. Sustaining love requires a learned discipline. The discipline of love. The discipline of understanding our partner. (I’ve never heard someone say “I want a divorce – my partner understands me.”)”

                      Dr Farrel does have some intriguing ways of expressing ideas!

                      And I wonder how many people reading it used the frame of reference of their own gender to agree with the observation – and consequently missed the obverse side of the coin? P^)

                  • Lisa, this is a good idea, but I’m not the right person to write on this, and wouldn’t want to. I’ll let you know if I think of anyone else, but you’ve probably got some good ideas of your own. I’m sure you’ll find four great people to take it on.

                  • Lisa ? [Ducking Head]

                    Is there an option for a number 5?

                    A person who sees feminism and mascualism as subsets of Equality?

                    It can be argued that when viewed from lenses 1 to 4 you can get a narrowed view that distorts the bigger picture.

                    I keep seeing this elephant in the room with a big tattoo saying Equality! The other folks may not be able to see it, as they may be blind to a Grey Tattoo On a Big Grey Elephant?

                    • Lisa Hickey says:

                      Ahh, sure, an equalist. Are you volunteering?

                    • Not Quite that fast Dear Editor.

                      There is one big question that needs to be addressed.

                      You have already walked into a bar with one feminist – and now you seem to be asking a great many other people to enter the bar drink green tea in search of a punch line!

                      Who’s buying the drinks and is it on expenses? P^)

                  • 1) A female feminist
                    2) A male feminist
                    3) A male MRA
                    4) A female MRA

                    Lisa, their view also would depend on the type of feminist or the mra they are. Youd need a rep from both wings of both movements – the equalist on one wing, the sex supremacist on the other.
                    In feminism there are those who tend towards equality/egalitarianism, and those who hold more matriarchal/female supremacist views.
                    In the mra there are those who tend towards equality/egalitarianism, and those who hold more patriarchal/male supremacist views.

                    Would be interesting to see how their views all differ, coincide, agree, merge, disagree

                    • Lisa Hickey says:

                      Agree — I’ll put out an open call and see who bites. I’ve already been talking to someone else about having an “equalist”

                      but yes — how their views “differ, coincide, agree, merge, disagree” — could be really fascinating. That’s the point.

                      Let me know if you know anyone who might be interested. I’ll put up the Call for Submissions as a blog post so it can be linked to. I’ll include some of your thoughts — thanks!

                    • J.G. te Molder says:

                      You’ll be hard-pressed to find an “mra” with male supremacist views; to the rest of the mras they aren’t even considered mras. And finding one that hasn’t been ridiculed and debated into the ground by mras, is even more difficult.

                      Unlike feminists where the so-called “equality feminists” do nothing about the supremacy core of feminism that is actually in position to create laws and are spouting their hate everywhere unopposed, except by us mras.

                  • DavidByron says:

                    I’m not MRA. Most MRAs are right wing and many are happy with traditional gender roles. I’m left wing. I’m very left wing. I disagree with both feminists and MRA on different things. As I said elsewhere I think MRAs are too easy on feminism in a lot of ways because they see feminism as sort of like they are but for women.

                    I suppose it is a bit silly of me to have this “thing” about writing articles. My thoughts tend to be more “reactive” than self-starting.

                    • J.G. te Molder says:

                      What the hell are you talking about!?

                      You need to get your ass to AVoiceForMen.com and come in contact with actual MRAs. To an MRA, feminism is the enemy, it is a vial and evil ideology, even religion that exists based upon the vile, incorrect religious notion of patriarchy and all men suppressing, hurting, and raping women causing intimidation and fear from the first time they picked up a stick.

                      Even the “fun-fems” have this at their basis for all their continue claims of equality, it’s the reason they continue to sprout the bullshit of the men abusing women, as opposed to the reality of men and women abusing each other, and men raping and abusing children, as opposed to a small minority of men and women raping and abusing children in equal numbers; working to achieve ever greater draconian laws that vilify men. It’s the reason that posters vilifying boys and babies can continue to be hung up schools like it means nothing; and they’re too blinded by their religion to notice how the very ability to hang up those posters defies their patriarchy religion.

                      To MRAs feminism needs to be destroyed, because they are the cause of pushing gender roles, gynocentrism, to heights never seen before.

                      MRAs by contrast, are the only ones who want actual equality, advocate the removal of chivalry, and the complete destruction of gender roles.

Trackbacks

  1. […] 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 […]

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

Speak Your Mind

*