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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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^)
My white wolf still has teeth I guess
Julie – all wolves have teeth, It’s what you do with them that counts!
Great White Wolves – Ghandi – King – Mandela. Ouch! P^)
… but do remember the “Memo”!
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^)
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.
Happy New Year assman. And thank you. I am never worried that it is hard. As long as it is possible.
Thank you Assman. (Loving that I just wrote “Thank you Assman:)
XO
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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^)
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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”.
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?
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
“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!
“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.
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.
¡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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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^)
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.
*neely
I disagreed with a lot of it, but I liked the way it was all said somehow.
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.
“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.
“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.
Yeah there seems to be a lot of symbolism and prejudices represented in the article.
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!
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?
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?
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?
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/
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?
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.
EDIT.
I forgot to link the study – ht tp://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm
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.
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.
Stop crying rape Zorro.
This is not a space for feminist hysterics and mass accusations relating to rape.
Sarcasm is not a sign of intelligence and is usually used when people run out of arguments.
.”..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.
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?
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.