One thing is clear: The discussion needs to continue.
Starting today, there will be two new sections on The Good Men Project. One will be on “The Issues of Men’s Rights” and one will be “Men and Feminism”.
For the “Issues of Men’s Rights,” we would like to be able to highlight, discuss, and look to solutions around the specific issues the Men’s Rights Activists have. We will start some of the topics that were highlighted in the post that ran on The Top 10 Men’s Rights Issues, including Father’s Rights, Anti-Male Double Standards, Reproductive Rights, False Accusations, and Educating Boys. We are open to others.
The “Men and Feminism” section will be a place for intelligent discussion about the ways in which feminism can benefit men. Articles for this section, like all of our posts, should be framed within a male POV. In the spirit of continued discussion, we will repost some of the original posts that put us in the crossfire. We will continue with some new, additional posts on the debate; some that are critical of the way that we handled the situation, some that are supportive. We are clear on one thing: This is a discussion that needs to continue.
We will be moderating comments. This is not an invitation for MRA’s and Feminists to go to war. It is intended to continue the discussion of topics that are important to men. If you do not think that Men’s Rights or Feminism are worthy of discussion, please reserve your comments for other articles in our other sections, which include Dads, Sex and Relationships, Sports, Ethics and Values, Advice and Confessions (including many of the first person narratives that are at our core), Psychology/Health/Addiction, and many others.
If you comment on posts within these sections, you must follow our commenting guidelines. In particular, you cannot attack the author of the post, The Good Men Project as an organization, or other commenters. You must remain on the topic of the original posts. In addition, you cannot criticize the ideology of the other organization. You cannot bash feminism as a whole nor Men’s Rights Activism as a whole, nor any of the individuals within those organizations.
We encourage civil discussions and debate around the specific points of the articles. We also encourage you to submit counter-posts to any posts you disagree with.
Please send submissions or address questions to lisa@goodmenproject.com
–
photo by centralasian / flickr
About the Editors
It sounded like a good idea until I read the “you cannot criticize the ideology of the other organization” part. I am not sure how you have a discussion with people with different views if you bar them from critiquing views they disagree with.
I’m curious about that phrase too. I wonder if criticize is being used not as “critique” but as slander etc. I’ll ask Lisa.
I personally feel that critical examination is a good thing, but saying (on either side) “well that’s just wrong because it’s stupid.” Is not a good thing. Not a useful thing anyway.
Yes, good point. Criticism is totally valid and essential to the discussion. What I would hope we can avoid in these conversations are statements like “[MRAs/Feminists] believe [x]” without a strong defense. We’ve had some good content already, like the piece The Top 10 Men’s Rights Issues, as a starter for people like me who came here not knowing anything about what MRAs think. If we have some other good foundation docs we can agree are basically true (even if we argue with some of it), it will go a long way toward productive criticism that actually changes the way we all think about and relate to a concept.
It should go without saying, that there are more than two ideologies that contain truth relevant to the subjects we discuss here on the GMP.
Jacob – I got the impression that it was about not making Sweeping and Gross generalizations – the “all Men are”, “all women are” etc comments that some use quite deliberately to inflame and misdirect.
Frankly, anyone who did debating club 101 knows they are not of value when it comes to getting your message across.
… we will see! P^)
Exactly, MediaHound. What I really want people to get into the habit of doing is being critical of the specific points in the post that they disagree with. But to say “Feminists are this” or “MRA’s are that” just doesn’t seem to get us anywhere. I want people to stop attacking the groups as a whole, but debating the issues themselves, if they have an issue with them.
Please ask more questions if this is not clear. This is important.
Lisa – I think all editors are just bossy! P^)
Could we have a random selection of occasionally improper posts so that it gives people a “What The F ” moment. It can be a good reminder!
Like a best of worst of?
Julie – I’m shocked by your use of the Binary!
It could just as easily be the Worst Of The Best of! P^)
… but I think we both get it. Salad can be fun – and allowing a new and unusual dressing can give a whole new dimension to dinner!
Even I fall prey to the Dreaded Binary.
Note to Universe: We all need to do better. P^))))
… including the Salad!
I make a great salad, actually. I’m quite adept at making salad dressings too.
I want to have dinner with y’all. What a conversation we’d have.
Oh I agree! I’d love that!
Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle…….
“I want people to stop attacking the groups as a whole, but debating the issues themselves, if they have an issue with them.”
If this rule holds then I expect to hear silence from the feminist side. Their primary tactic is and has always been to shame and dehumanize men both in making their outrageous claims and also in defending them.
What will the poor wyminz do now??
Of course I’m being sarcastic here. I know full well that GMP is not capable of ensuring rational debate just as I know feminists are not capable of rational debate.
Oh was I being mean there? Take it like a man.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: This comment is an ad hominem attack and not allowed under our commenting policy. This is a warning. Further comments that are in violation will be removed. See complete commenting guidelines here.
Very good.
Let’s begin with the ultimate arbiter of justice,the courtroom.
1:Presumption of innocence returned to men.
2:Actual equal recourse under written law,not “administrative law.”
3.Due process returned to men.
No more ex-parte PPO’s or RO’s that violate men’s rights w/o a hearing.
These are widely abused.
4:Equal access to the same legal resources.
Right now men must find and pay for their won lawyer whilst women get it free through Federal subsidized VAWA grants/shelters.
5:Equal Presidential councils for men
None of these would detract from women’s rights.
I expect opposition.
I would not expect opposition beyond “Yes men have some issues, but…”
Have you tried posting that stuff before?
See, I would like to see a post on that. So my goal is to make this a place where someone would be comfortable enough to get those issues out there.
I am the only person who is a regular at Femnist Critics that read this post and thought of the double post system they use over there?
This is going to be interesting to say the least. One one hand I understand trying to give everyone a fair chance to speak. But on the other I worry that this is going to turn into a grassy knoll situation where people who dare to disagree (whether reasonable or not) will be dismissively told to go to the appropriate grassy knoll.
The goal is really to give everyone a fair chance to speak. I thought about the potential for the “grassy knoll” and decided it was still worth trying. Our moderators are fair. We listen if you disagree with us. We want you to be heard. We want people to be able to post about specific issues without their entire belief system called into question. That is the goal.
I’m all for giving everyone a fair shot to speak. What I’m worrying about is that this is creating a way for people to come to GMP to read “good stuff” while not being bothered by “them” (and you can fill those in as you wish when talking about different groups). Chances are your moderation will be true and fair but I think this may end up becoming another line drawn in the sand between the different sides.
Could you clarify what that double post system is?
The majority of the posts at Feminist Critics have two versions. The No Hostility (NoH) version and the Regular Parallel (RP) version. Each has their own set of rules.
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/about/newcomers-read-this-first-faq-12262008/
And how does that work out? I wouldn’t be allowed to post in a NoH at all.
The way the Feminist Critics comments work has actually been held up to us as an example of a really good system. It seems a little complicated, and we would have to put more resources into moderating, but I’d be interested to know if anyone thinks it would work here.
Lisa – I have been looking at how it works, but also at the language focuses that occur.
To me it seems that the NOH engenders focus on the Topic itself whilst the RP engenders focus upon the wide implications and manifestations across cyber society.
It’s not a scientific analysis – just observation from looking at how a post which has both NoH and RP status lead the respondents. That could even lead to different labels “Me” – “Society”. If people want to write from the First Person on a social issue it could get very interesting! P^)
That is interesting MH, and the use of language is fascinating. I think it does make sense to look at different tags for different posts and moderate them differently. Would love others thoughts.
I also have to remember myself that the Internet and Web (The application layer overlying the Internet which we all so freely interface with) are actually still very young and immature technologies. The tech may be highly developed, but it’s the humans who are still playing catch up!
I’m happy to see so much discussion of how it can be done better and in a more humane way. Reading web content is not the same as reading a book – and it’s not the same as a face to face conversation. Smilies were an interesting development as they did allow for some nuancing of communication.
I’m glad that social experimenting is going on – it’s just part of the bigger project.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to try at the very least. I know from moderating other forums that having a “silly section” in which to throw posts which breach a certain posting guideline can be more effective than just deleting them: to a certain extend posters will tend to self censor by voluntarily posting in the no-holds barred area rather than the one reserved for rational discussion.
It could really help clean up the discussion.
David – I can’t see your reasoning as to why you would not be able to post under an Noh heading.
I’ve been looking at whole sets of posts over at feministcritics.org – with many posted as both “Regular Parallel” and “No Hostility”. It is interesting to see which get used. Some there is only use of one thread and the other has zero comment.
Even under “No Hostility”, there is quite a level of critique and deconstruction of both The OP and comment, but that is not seen as hostility but quite constructive.
I’m looking at how the labels define and control both the language used, but also how such language is perceived, processed and responded too.
An old maxim comes to mind – “If you assume the natives are friendly they generally are, and the opposite is also true”.
I’ll say this David. Unless you say something that is actually hostile the worst that will happen is that the comment will be moved and you might be warned (but if you are warned Ill also say I’ve yet to come across anyone that was banned for just posting in the incorrect version of a post, unless they were specifically told not to before hand).
And I have a sneaking suspicion that there is another motive behind this….
Could you clarify? What do you think the other motive is? Let’s discuss.
Yeah, I’ll be interested in hearing this.
I’m also wondering at the mystery?
I’m still wondering!
Look at my comment below. I was wondering if this was a round about way to try to get Hugo back into GMP.
Danny – if you look at the time stamps of posts – you may detect a hint of Irony? P^)
Oh you’re not talking about that last post that just put up last night by Hugo are you? Nah that was actually something that was written before he left (and if I’m not mistaken that post actually had something to do with why he left).
My basis for the suspicion was only how this idea to create two new sections came very shortly after Hugo left GMP and that one of the new sections is “Men and Feminism”.
Your first paragraph is correct.
Your second paragraph is close — I can’t say Hugo leaving had *nothing* to do with the idea. It did — we want to continue the discussion because it is actually something that people like to debate, and certain key issues are important. But we want to make sure the discussion of Feminism if “men first” and I thought a specific section would help make comment moderation easier, because it would be clear that a specific post is only because we want to talk about a particular aspect of feminism — and it’s clearly labeled as such — and not “there goes GMP male-bashing again.”
At first I was trying to avoid it, then I decided I’ll hint to it, but no I should just grow up and ask it.
Is this some round about way to try to get Hugo back?
He was too mild. They should get some seriously pissed off feminist. They’re a lot of fun.
I’m glad you asked that Danny. Please, I would hope by now that you would think you could just be straight with me. But the answer is “no” because a) I’m not that smart b) Hugo and I have talked quite a bit since he left. We’re both sure we’ll work together at some point in the future. At this exact moment, it does not seem right for either sides. BUT c) we are going to run the post that he reportedly resigned over. And “yes” it is going in the “men and feminism” section d) so all that said, if I really wanted Hugo back I would flat out ask him. But until we resolve some of the other issues going on here, it doesn’t make sense.
Great question though.
Actually it wan’t you I was worried about, it was other commentors. Thanks.
What about feminists like Lori Day? Is this some round about way to try to get them back commenting?
This is not a strategy to get any one person “back”. What we want to do is make it a place where men feel comfortable telling stories, being honest, having open discussions. On the other had, we don’t want to exclude *any* women who also feel the same. And we certainly don’t want to exclude anyone from commenting. We want to continue to have a balance of voices. We don’t want this to *just* become a bigger Men’s Rights platform for example.
Ms. Hickey, you have certainly earned your pay as a publisher today. Brilliant at multiple levels. Kudos.
Thank you JustAMan. This job probably looks a lot easier than it really is.
Motivation: lots of threads end up talking about the same thing (MRA vs feminism war).
Objective: stop the MRA vs feminism wars taking over all the threads.
Solution: have a distinct area / tag / menu item / category for those the MRA vs feminism wars and try to herd cats into those areas on those discussions. Sounds like a plausibly good solution.
What are the likely problems arising with this solution? One issue raised above is that people might feel they are being dismissed by being sent to a “troll pit” sort of folder. My guess is that won’t happen because these threads are popular so that folder will likely end up with a lot of traffic.
What I’d like to consider more is how things are handled by the moderators at the point where “war” is about to break out. For example:
Typical situation is where someone is going along talking about whatever and they decide to throw down some feminist claim which critics would contest, let’s say “women are paid less than men” or maybe “male privilege” or even something as simple as saying “feminism means equality”.
So this is a provocation. But you can hardly stop every feminist making such a comment because they are so common. OTOH you can hardly stop every critic from registering an objection either. And that isn’t too bad if it is short (“I disagree!”) . It’s just when / if it starts going back and forth after that. So at what point should a moderator step in? Or what should happen? There’s a sense of wanting to have this thing move somewhere else, or reference somewhere else.. perhaps something as small as a link. Do we need a rule? Like, “you can post a dissent statement like “I disagree” or “that’s not true” but not more than one line of text.
My other observation is that maybe instead of two sections just have the one and make it broader. The two suggested new sections sound a little like one section for as-it-were MRA perspectives and another for as-it-were feminist perspectives. But if both allow “fighting” then you’ll always get both perspectives. And that’s kind of the point. Also if you do have eg. a mention of “gender wage gap” in a no-fight thread and people decide to take it outside then which of the two folders does it go to? It’s not a men’s issue exactly and it’s not what feminism can do for men either. But it is a prime example of what the fights end up about. I’d suggest one broad section called “Feminism” or “Arguing” or “Theory” or “Gender politics” something suitable. After all someone might want to talk about a men’s rights issue or some way feminism helps men without inviting a lot of arguing. They should be able to choose.
Hmm.. I wonder if an actual live example might be helpful… sort of dry run / test case.
David – as usual you are looking and words and meanings and being pernickety and picking up real issues.
We will have to see what Ms Hickey has to say and how she adjudicates.
Personally I would like to see a set of banned words, that get a post sent to the spam sin bin if they are used.
The two words I would have top of the list are “Conflate” and “Trope”; they are such nothing words that hide so much. “Essentialism” is on the hit list too, ‘cos mainly it is too specific and abused in dissection! All three get misused as stopping language.
So there are a few ideas here that might be worth exploring David:
1) I actually like the idea of making a section called “arguing”. You could even still have the MRA/Fem sections for civil discussion. But arguing could allow for more heated debates — you’d still have to have some groundrules like no personal attacks or racial slurs, but you could just moderate a lot less.
2) In the regular posts, if comments go off track — the moderators automatically step in and create a new post. Say someone writes a post on Divorce Laws. But then two people start arguing over the “Wage-Gap Myth” — because, for example, women might be awarded more money in a divorce because it is perceived they don’t make enough. So a moderator steps in, creates a new post called “Wage-Gap Myth Argument” and all it is is the question and comments. It’s almost like a discussion board/forum, but it’s right there on the site and not hidden.
3) Another thing we’ve been talking about is simply installing a discussion board/forum area. If the comments get heated the moderator steps in and says “take it to the forum”.
4) There is something interesting about the “No Hostility” tag for those who want it. Some people enjoy the really provocative discussion — and some authors encourage it. But especially for new authors — some are just scared away. One potential contributor said “no one wants to be a pinata”. So it could be up to the author if they want a “No Hostility” tag on their particular post. Then those comments get moderated more.
Let me know your thoughts. But your synopsis of the goals and potential pitfalls was good David, and right in line with my thinking.
Fair moderation regardless of sex is all I care about.
From what I have seen you, Julie and Joanna have been very fair with your moderation.
1) I actually like the idea of making a section called “arguing”.
Almost like a flame-pit that some sites have. I dont know, do people prefer more organically arising flame-wars(very heated discussions), to prearranged ones? If they do, then flame threads could be moved into the flame-pit so the firebreathers can continue there
2) In the regular posts, if comments go off track — the moderators automatically step in and create a new post.
I agree with your thoughts. Also, depending on the article rating level (discussed below), the mods could also have the option of pointing out that the discussion has wandered too far offtrack
4) There is something interesting about the “No Hostility” tag for those who want it.
Different authors have different tolerance levels when it comes to how wild is the discussions, prompted by their pieces. So I could see a cinema type of rating system working for articles.
With some articles having no comments allowed. Some articles with comments heavily moderated, and the discussion not allowed to wander too far from the theme of the piece. All the way up to other articles having unmoderated comments.
[Of course there are the attendant dangers with too many articles having their comment thread disabled, or very heavily moderated]
3) Another thing we’ve been talking about is simply installing a discussion board/forum area.
The board could have just a few sticky threads of the main debated issues eg. DV figures, divorce laws, wage-gap etc. That could save unnecessary sprawl
Love the idea of “cinema type rating system”. Brilliant!
An example of the “different authors have different tolerance levels” was when I worked with Tim Pylypiuk on his post asking for stories of abuse, particularly abuse of men by women. He had worked with me on that post because as he said “he got tired of sitting around complaining in the comments.” And as someone who had gone through abuse himself, and knew how difficult it was to talk about it, he wanted to make absolutely sure it felt like a safe place for people to tell their stories. I told him I would spend extra time moderating it, and if there was ever a problem he could contact me 24 hours a day. He had a list of words he didn’t want use. He engaged with every commenter on the post. Archy, a regular commenter here, stepped up to help and encourage as well. It was really beautiful. I encourage you all to read the post, here: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/survivors-tales-victims-of-abuse-come-forward/
And as a result of all that — change happened. People told their stories in the comments section and it changed them. There was empowerment and freedom and support. No one was not believed or talked down to or belittled.
Not every post is designed to do that, of course. We want argument where argument is called for. But where it’s not — it’s great to know it can be an amazingly positive place.
Yeah I saw that thread. Quite intimidating for a guy like me who likes to argue but I also felt encouraged to try to contribute in the manner requested.
As a matter of interest DID you need to do a lot of moderating there? (beyond popping comments from the queue)
What would be interesting is if you could get the commentators to sort of pre-moderate their own comments and self-flag as eg “OK I want to pick a fight / say I disagree with that other guy here” Maybe a little fist icon appears on their post. Another icon might mean “OK I realise this is way off topic and might get moved to the arguments folder”. Maybe give that a icon of a megaphone. Or even “OK I guess I am really angry and this post is pretty nasty” like maybe with a bloody skull symbol….. Or even worse one for “I was swearing and cussing and totally went off on someone.’
It may sound silly but I just wonder if you asked people to moderate themselves they (1) would do it (2) would therefore not mind when the real moderator did the obvious thing with the post they themselves had flagged and (3) acted more mindfully generally (4) if everyone else can see you labeled that awful post with a negative icon it kind of takes the edge off.
People like little icons. They can be cute and — well if you can alter the software as someone suggested below it might be a lot of bang for the buck.
They don’t have to be self-moderation stuff. You could imagine a “”Im new here (so dont jump on me)” icon or a “Im the author of the article” icon for example. But I really like the idea of self-moderation if it would work because it goes back to trying to get people feel like insiders, working with the system, not as visitors getting bashed over the head by the evil moderator.
And you might say, well who is going to report themselves for a totally abusive post calling someone out or swearing? Nobody right? Who’s going to say “delete this”? But I think they might. Because a lot of that sort of comment is venting. And too they know *someone* gets to see their vent. And just the extra step of “pick an icon” might be enough to make someone stop for a sec and say “yeah. I was a complete dick there.”
I wonder if any forum on the internet does that already or something similar.
Thank-you, didn’t realize I had that much effect. Even brought a tear to my eye.
Whatever happened to the forum idea? I think it is an excellent one and would allow for a specific section for male abuse, female abuse, etc and allow people to open up with their experiences?
@David, I can understand your meaning, I believe you are referring to how text doesn’t give any tone of voice or characteristic of our intentions? How a comment can be seen as hostile when merely it might just be inquisitive?
Hi David B,
In thinking about this, everyone should have the right to disagree, but I think we can generally come to a consensus where repeated claims and rebuttals on the same topic become not useful toward the mutual goal of gaining understanding on both sides.
I think you’re right, too, in that the multiple threads wherein the MRA vs Feminism debate takes over, and people stop reading and stop engaging. That isn’t good for anybody on either side. If we can all team up as editors, contributors, moderators, and commenters, we can create a space that is safe so that everyone can grow and learn from one another.
But this has to be a mutual goal. It is worth it to lay down arms if we can gain some understanding.
My two cents!
Oh no! I think those wars are great! But I know others really hate them. And then there’s that third group that sort of hates them but finds them a guilty pleasure.
I think I am part of the third group
are all comments now being moderated in all sections?
and who are the mods?
Right now, I’m one of the moderators, along with Julie and Joanna. Not all comments are moderated. There are certain words that automatically trigger the moderation system — most strong swear words, nazi, porn, racial slurs. Those comments need approval from one of us first. Also comments that are longer than average or that have multiple links. I try to check all links to make sure they go to where they say they are going.
Also, the moderators will also regularly go into the moderation panel that has all incoming comments and will unapprove anything as needed. So *most* comments get seen by one of us, but not all of them. Sometimes a member of the community will email me if things are getting out of hand. I will block people if I have warned them and they are still not complying with our moderation policy. But that is actually very rare.
Most of the comments that don’t get approved are direct attacks on either the author or another commenter.
thanks for the reply post
Shouldn’t some of the mods at least be male and not feminist?
Absolutely. We’ve only just begun testing out this system. I am always looking for more volunteers. The ones who are moderating now are only doing so because I asked for volunteers and they volunteered. If you or anyone else would like to volunteer, that would be great. The only criteria is that you have to have written at least 2 posts for us (so you can see for yourself what an author goes through when people comment on a post) and you have to attend at least 2 of our conference calls. (Fridays at noon).
Anyone interested should email me. lisa@goodmenproject.com
FYI, I also do occasional moderation, but I’m not as reliable about being able to check the queue several times a day. Since I’m more inclined to find technical improvements than to spend more time managing a comment queue where the only options are show/don’t show, I’m currently putting my energy into finding and hopefully implementing those kinds of improvements. Even though I’m not handling a lot of the moderation right now, I would say I’m heavily involved in the direction that moderation is going, both philosophically and technically. It’s still too much in the early stages to preview or promise anything, but that’s the direction we’re exploring.
The other thing I should explain here — if you ask me what my personal goals and intentions are here — they are to solve the f*ing problems. The really big problems that no one else can solve. The marginalization of individuals and groups based on things they can’t control. The shame and fear that abuse victims have when talking about abuse. Racism. Homelessness. Prison. Ageism. Sexual Violence. The inequality of the educational system. None of those things are particularly gendered, and I want to ultimately solve them because they are problems of humanity. And I don’t particularly want to discuss those things, argue those points, or prove factually that they exist. I know they exist. I simply want to solve those problems.
But obviously I can’t make a dent in any of them myself. Most days I don’t have a clue where to start. I only know I have to try.
And what I can do is to help build systems that allow those changes to happen. To get those changes to work on an individual level, to see the “how”, and then to gradually get those to happen in small groups and then large groups. Like Tom Matlack, I’m a huge believer of storytelling as an agent of change. Like Tom, I’m a believe in scalable systems that can have an impact. Like Tom, I realize that neither him nor I are scaleable. We can only build a scalable system whereby you — our community — can then go out and create the change because you are empowered to do so.
What we have wanted to do most with The Good Men Project is to build a community where you — you personally, you as individuals — could succeed first. Becasue if you can find value in this community — real value, the kind of value that helps you get a better job, lead a better life, have better connections with more people. Because if you can succeed — if you can have those “aha’s”, if you can realize that *you* are not scalable but you can be the catalyst for change to occur. I said to Tom the other day “and if you don’t think I can build a business model around love, just watch.” I was kidding of course. Only sort of kind of.
So what I’m doing here — it’s not because I don’t want you to argue if what you really want to do is argue. It’s not that I care whether you call me names, or think I’m an idiot, or a “lying feminist scum” (been called that before) or a dreamer or crazy. It’s not that I don’t want conflict or passion. I think that it’s hard to get people to become more open-minded but it’s worth giving it a shot. It’s such a wow — how much happier I became when I became more open minded! And I want to give that happiness away to anyone who wants it.
I believe we can do this. I believe we can create a community that makes the world a better place. I believe we already have. I just don’t want people being afraid to join in and help us.
That reminds me Lisa, I still don’t know the story behind how you stopped being afraid of men.
But what I said was that often changes like that can happen when someone meets and gets to know people of the group they used to distrust. And that is why the gay movement (and more recently atheists too) have asked members to “come out”. In this way people that know them will say, “oh well so-and-so is such a nice person and he’s an atheist so they can’t be all bad”.
What I didn’t say was that this trick applies all over the place and that telling stories is the next best thing to knowing someone in that position. Um.. I suppose coming in third place would be finding a celebrity with that problem to go public but that’s a bit tough with “homelessness” and … well problematic for all sort of reasons
Or “adopt a child’ works in a similar way, bur again only for specific issues.
At any rate these are all technologies for building empathy (or “love” as Lisa says it). Get enough empathy and suddenly the problem solves itself. Simple! And what I mean by “solves itself” and “simple’ is that activists who have been working for decades suddenly find the tide of public opinion running with them and their efforts suddenly start to create results a lot more powerfully — and gay rights recently is an example of that. But in principle with enough empathy — problem solved.
@David, that happened to me. The abuse by females took quite a toll on me. I can spot the abusive males very easy in my life usually, I’ve been called a good judge of character for it, but with women? Total mystery. So I became quite fearful of all Young women (40+ seemed to be nice to me), it wasn’t after I got to know some totally 100% awesome young women that I realized humans are individuals. One thing I noted especially was I was more fearful of beautiful young women due to the popular pretty crowd in highschool leaving quite a bad view in my mind, then knowing some amazingly sweet, nice, kind and typically beautiful young women (and noticing the evil in some not so pretty ones) it further set in stone the idea of the individual in my mind.
It became a gift actually because I can spot the good in many people now, even in some who others think are “losers”, or “criminals”, “bad” etc. An open mind really helps and empathy is great.
It’s great to hear stories of bikers who have massive hearts (combat the criminal stereotype), men who are great fathers and carers (combat the bad dad and pedo stereotypes), hard working mothers (combat the lazy housewife stereotype), etc. If we never hear or know these people then stereotypes can exist MUCH easier because we have no proof against them, it’s something I noticed here in Australia with the racism towards aboriginals. Sadly some people will see a group of them together and they were drunk, didn’t work, and they either don’t know any good and hardworking aboriginals (there are A LOT btw, I know of plenty and see plenty hardworking and great aboriginals) so their only exposure or majority exposure would be seeing them in a relatively negative state (Aussie’s generally hate people that don’t work, “bludgers”).
If all someone see’s or NOTICES are the bad eggs of a race/group (like many see of mras or feminists), they will assume most or all are bad. If the group is already a minority and rare to see in large “packs” then this is probably even more apparent. If you rarely see a shark, and your only experience with them is a movie like jaws then you’re probably gonna be shit-scared of them meanwhile most probably won’t even come close to you if you go diving at the reef. Fearing the many over the few is something that will end up harming your life overall in my view since you lose out on the far more common experiences that are positive.
I think this is a very interesting idea and I’m curious to see how it goes. Good luck!
I do believe you should be able to criticize the ideology of the any organization. I not saying that some form of feminism isn’t needed.. But I do believe that alot of it really needs to change.
We need moderators that are not feminist in order to make things more fair and balanced.
I am at a disavantage because I am a not a very good articulate writer. Although I am interested in attending one these conference calls..
I do believe you should be able to criticize the ideology of the any organization. I not saying that some form of feminism isn’t needed.. But I do believe that alot of it really needs to change.
Agreed.
I’m all for keeping the conversation on track but throwing out “I challenge the assertion that there is no such thing as misandry/female privilege/sexism against men.” under the guise of getting rid of “feminism is dumb because they don’t acknowledge misandry/female privilege/sexism against” is dishonest and a bit of the baby/bath water situation.
Right — that’s what I’m trying to avoid. I’d rather the conversation be specifically around the issues that are brought up in the post, and using the post itself for talking points about what people think is right/wrong, rather than dismissing either the movement as a whole or the people in it.
So, a discussion challenging the notion of “patriarchy” would be okay? It’s a key tenet in much of gender feminism, and while I agree that our society has repressive gender roles and expectations, I think labeling it “patriarchy” is dishonest and misleadingly one-sided. Would that be a legitimate point for discussion, or off-limits?
So — Copyleft, that is absolutely something we should be talking about. What I would like is a post *just about that* so then the comments will stay on track. The problem, as I see it, is not that we shouldn’t be having the discussion about whether the “patriarchy” exists or not, but that we keep having that conversation in other posts. It’s such an abstract concept that to have someone bring it up in the midsts of something else just doesn’t seem to get at the root of the issue.
But that comment is as much directed at the feminists as anyone — that is, if the words “the patriarchy” weren’t even mentioned in the post itself, to come in and start talking about it when half the people don’t even have a clear understanding of what is meant by that word — well, that is problematic.
I think you are attempting an impossible task, because you are focusing on content, not the focus of arguments. The solution to the problem you are describing is to have a forum where discussions are moved to different topic-specific threads if they stray from a given subject.
The fact that you need to do this at all is an indication of how pernicious political correctness has become when discussing feminism.
Why not say you are just trying to “create a safe space for male discussion” and ban any virulent radical feminist discourse outright?
Part of creating a safe space for people, and especially men, per the GMP mission, is to not allow attacks on people because of their sex *or* their ideology. Nothing virulent is likely to be acceptable, but if someone with radical views wants to talk and can do it respectfully, I for one want to hear what they have to say.
@Beste (or others) If you would like to join the call, email me at lisa@goodmenproject.com and I can explain how they work and how to get involved.
Here is a question I would like to have everyone on this thread answer. When I look at every single one of the past 250 comments, (just a days worth) they break down this way.
192 male
58 female
Of the male commenters, those are made by 54 different men. Of the female commenters, most are Julie, Erin and a few others. All but one of the comments by females are either pro-men or neutral.
Would you say this is a good sign and the way the website should be going? That is — 75% of the commenters being male, 25% female, with the majority of the female commenters being “pro-men”.
This seems to me a really important question for our community to answer, so thanks in advance.
Would you say this is a good sign and the way the website should be going? That is — 75% of the commenters being male, 25% female, with the majority of the female commenters being “pro-men”.
Ultimately its not the numbers but the attitudes of the people behind the numbers. Out of those 54 different men the majority are either reasonable pro-men/neutral and that’s what I’m looking at. Out of that small groups of women the majority are either reasonable pro-men/neutral and that I’m looking at. As long as the majority are either reasonable pro-men/neutral and that men actually have the fair chance to speak up (as per the stated mission of this place) I’m cool.
What worries me about the the way the site is/was going is that when it came down to some of the contributors some of them have no problem dictating to men how we are supposed to be. As if “you’re not a real man unless you….”. Kinda difficult to feel like the place is going in a good direction when you got people declaring that misandry does not exist (not “i don’t think it exists” but “no it doesn’t exist and if you think it does then you’re whining”), denying the experiences of male victims (claiming you take all abuse seriously but then changing who is responsible for what based on gender….?), and coming out the gate by insulting entire groups of people and then crying foul when the same is done to you months down the road.
But that’s just me.
Thanks. Danny, I’m working on all that you describe in the second paragraph — and I appreciate your continued involvement and engagement in working through these issues with us.
As for the first paragraph — that makes sense too. I really do want everyone to feel they have a fair chance to speak up.
I appreciate the efforts on working on the stuff in that second part (even though all three of those things I mentioned we done not in the comments but by contributors themselves, making the job a lot harder).
Oh – Lisa – Statistics…. B^0
As a straw pole they look good and reflect target audience, mission and desired out come. It would be interesting to be able see if the same straw pole analysis was the same for just page views, but the technology doesn’t go that far.
If the sex ratio were reversed, would you see that situation as needing quotas?
What do you mean by quotas?
If the sex ratio were reverse, I wouldn’t think we were doing a great job against our mission of being a place for men to tell their stories, speak the truth as they see it, explore the meaning of men, manhood and masculinity, and ultimately help figure out what it means to be a “good man” in this day and age. So my actions would not be quotas, but to go out and find more people who are interested in talking about those things. I’m just not sure it makes sense for it to be women talking about those things all the time — in order to be authentic, it needs to come from a male POV first. That is my belief. I’d be open to listening to anyone who thinks differently.
Quotas, meaning the need to recruit more men to post if the majority of postings were female.
Fair answer.
One way to avoid individual posters (of either sex) monopolizing the discussion is to delay a repost after four consecutive posts in a given period of time.
Yes, someone mentioned that is something FeministCritics does, I would like to look into that, thanks for the suggestion.
One way to avoid individual posters (of either sex) monopolizing the discussion is to delay a repost after four consecutive posts in a given period of time.
Thats a great way to kill a board. Ive seen it happen to another board that decided to adopt a daily post limit. The Conversational nature of the boards stops, and posts become disjointed standalone speeches.
People need to be able to expand on their initial posts, so the point can be more clearly understood – thats gonna take alot more than four posts in a thread. Would Lisa have been able to say all she wanted to say in just four posts in this thread? No.
Im so against posting limits
The way the folks at Feminist Critics do it is mostly geared towards keeping someone from getting piled on by a constant flow of people responding to their comment (“gang tackling” I think they call it).
For example if I make a comment then you respond, jameseq responds to me, then mjay responds to me, i respond to you, then MediaHound, Erin, Copyleft, DavidByron, Rapses,Tom, Marcus, etc.. respond to that response. Before it got to that point the mods at FC would intervene by getting you all to stop piling on me. It would not even be a matter of anyone being hostile, its just that you all would be hitting me up so quickly I would have a very hard time responding thus killing the conversation.
Posting limits can have value, but it does depend on how the Board Functions, Traffic and its aims.
The traffic on FeministCritics does appear appreciably lower than here. That does allow for the moderation time to monitor and enforce posting limits.
On a more diverse site with a higher traffic level and subject base, you would need a very complex and very well structured system to enforce such limits – and the number would have to reflect site usage and aim. Programmers are very good in some ways, but Programming for social/human patterns is fraught with peril.
Personally, I’m more in favor of a more humane and dynamic approach that allows Mods to make judgment calls from observed patterns and even intuition. That Intuition is often criticized and under valued, but going by the gut will often be right, even if it is impossible to articulate why succinctly to others!
Would you say this is a good sign and the way the website should be going? That is — 75% of the commenters being male, 25% female, with the majority of the female commenters being “pro-men”.
It doesnt bother me if alot of women, or alot of ‘anti-men’ commenters post, it keeps threads lively lol.
Ive seen comments that a number of women currently find these boards overlyhostile to post on.
Well ive certainly seen ALOT of hostility on women’s boards if the topic of ‘babies, toddlers in adult spaces eg restaurants’, ‘breast or bottle feeding’, ‘home or hospital birth’, ‘ sahm v career woman’ come up. Then those threads go for 700+ posts with women slamming HARD into each other
Check out the latest Feministe thread on hugo s, that went for 600+posts eventually ending in rad feminists v nonrad feminists clashing swords.
Women’s boards have plain speaking, and so should the Men’s.
“It doesnt bother me if alot of women, or alot of ‘anti-men’ commenters post, it keeps threads lively lol.”
Yes I agree. The danger of this site is always that it either becomes feminist or pro-men/antif-feminist. I think there needs to be an attempt to make the site neutral enough that feminists, anti-feminists and everyone in between can comment. If the feminists leave than the site loses a lot.
I felt that before the site was too feminist and now it has a danger of going in the other direction.
This site is very unique in that it is the only place where both groups can directly argue with each other.
THIS!! –>> “This site is very unique in that it is the only place where both groups can directly argue with each other.” Yes, exactly! This is what we strive for, and I think it’s great.
Do you have an outcome in mind, or is this site just happy with providing a forum?
I better bump up that female quotient then….
Lot of good ideas on this thread and I’m sure you’ll land on something that works – though please don’t be afraid to change/adjust course if it does not work as expected. The most common mistake I see in policy decisions is the entrenchment of a position for investment sake (time, energy and clout). Accountants have a wonderful term disbar such mistakes – sunk costs.
Future decisions should not be slave to sunk costs.
I agree elissa, thanks! No, actually I believe one of our strengths is to be able to really listen to our community and be able to adapt as we go forward. Especially now, that we’ve been at it a while and have stabilized somewhat in terms of mission/audience and growth.
ALWAYS open to listening to what people have to say about what is working and not, and I appreciate and value everyone’s responses.
Will there be the option of reading posts in chronological order, inaddition to the current nested format. After 40 or so posts on a thread, i find it hard to locate new comments
I’ve noticed that if I take a long time reply to someone, which is usually the case with me, the page will refresh and my comment gets bumped to the bottom. I wonder if this is an accident or deliberate?
At any rate sometimes disabling the ability to reply to individuals makes it harder to call out specific people in comments and creates a more sort of “address comments to the chair” environment. It would also mean all comments were displayed in chronological order. But I wouldn’t recommend it for all threads by any means. It might be better for a hostile debate format.
Lisa – Thank you for having the overies to do this. Now you know why we stay so busy over in the Manosphere. This “feminism vs. the burgeoning online men’s movement” that boldy and brashly counters it, is the “elephant in the room” and people feel passionate about discussing it…”it” being the “gender war”.
On a side note; I believe “The Good Men Project” is false advertising to the extent it’s very woman POV centric; almost reads like Glamour or Mademoiselle women’s magazines. I’d prefer the “Project” be called “Menimism: Feminism for Men” or something along those lines.
Thank you again.
It’s not false advertising at all. There are a lot of posts about feminism right now because that is what people are writing about. But as I said in a different thread — if you look at the comments over a 24 hour stretch, almost 200 are by men and 58 by women. Of our 350 writers, 80% are men and 20% are women. Hardly a “very women” site.
The “problem” — if there is one, is that we do tend to go very much in depth on topics once we start on them. We believe that is the only way to get a the root causes of the issues. So at varying times of the projects short (18 month) life we’ve been called (not all at once) “Too upper middle class white, too young, too old, too heteronormative, too gay, too much of a boys club, too female, too feminist, too MRA, too much talk about race, too feminine, too masculine.” We’re none of those or we’re all of those depending on how you look at it.
The site is MRA in the comments and feminist in the articles. So there is a weird imbalance where the articles are more feminist while the commenters are very anti-feminist. Keeping the site balanced will be hard.
That’s a valid point, assman. Two things to note: 1) We have been asking MRA’s to write more for us for a while. I hope some rise to the occasion! Please consider writing for us yourself, or encouraging others to do so also. 2) there are a lot of feminist articles right now because that’s what people happen to be talking about. It became a hot-button fueled by the internet and social media in response to a few posts. So I do think a balance will be achieved over time.
With regard to commenting — we’re taking some of the ideas we’ve discussed here and moving forward with them. Two that we’re going to implement right away are a message board/forum where people can feel free to have more heated debates outside of a particular post. Another will probably some sort of tag or symbol similar to the “no-hostility” tag used on feministcritics. Any post that has that tag will be moderated more heavily, and commenters seeking merely to argue or inflame or “pile on” will be blocked from that particular post. We believe this will encourage *more* commenting overall, make the guidelines clearer, and encourage those who aren’t used to the tone and tenor of some of the current batch of commenters.
I found the article on “grinding” to be very edifying.
The fact that someone who calls himself “assman” posts here speaks to the manliness quotient of the site, gay, straight or otherwise…..
Only in the last week maybe two has that been so. Assman you remember the autumn, comments were split equally between feminist and nonfeminist.
The current situation reminds me of spring 2011 when GMP did that Men’s Rights Series. My recollections are: GMP was overwhelmed with nonfeminist comments. Feminist comments were in the minority. For some reason within about two weeks most of the nonfeminists had left (perhaps the articles didnt interest them), and GMP returned to having a 70% feminist commentariat(i dont care about the dictionary definition) and feminist leaning gender-issue articles . This continued all the way through the summer until the early autumn, where the commentariat became equally balanced between feminist and nonfeminist, while gender issue articles continued to be feminist leaning [I remember late summer, early autumn as being a sweet spot for discussions, however I could be wrong].
Since Tom’s ‘Dude’ article went viral, we had first an influx of feminists, and then for the last week or so it has been overwhelming nonfeminists.
Im hoping the autum2011 balance in the commentariat is naturally restored soon
Would you say this is a good sign and the way the website should be going? That is — 75% of the commenters being male, 25% female, with the majority of the female commenters being “pro-men”.
No Lisa, As a Liberal Mens Righs Activist, I agree with Feminism in the sense that it calls for equality for both genders at least in theory. I would want some “Anti Men” or ‘Anti MRA” women to balance it out. There is no real discussion if there is no 2 true opposing viewpoints from both genders.
Conversely, I would want some MRA’s who regularly comment on such MRA websites such as “The Spearhead” and ” A Voice For Men” to be given due process as well. The only requirment to post is no disrespect to either gender, no cussing and to convey a viewpoint in a cogent, civil way.
This discussion is a longtime coming. Too much of the discussion between MRA’s and feminists turns into hostility on various internet forums or websites such as Manboobz.
There needs to be a forum such as this one to allow MRA’s and Feminists to have a civil discussion so they can eventually see their similarities and how both movements can help the other gender.
Thanks, this is a great assessment of the situation! We’ve actually been talking about this elsewhere — that this might be THE only place that MRA’s and feminists can argue with each other (or intelligently debate each other, depending how you look at it.)
We have asked more MRA’s to submit — we’ve run pieces from W.F. Price (Editor, The Spearhead) and Paul Elam (A Voice for Men) before. We are looking for feminists who want to continue the discussion as well.
At the same time — we’re looking at ways to make the comments more productive. Adding a forum/discussion board, so debates can take place separate from a post, and thus don’t derail the posts original intent. Also — we’re talking to the very commenters who create an environment that appears hostile for ways that allow them the ability to argue their points (or even rant or vent) without scaring away the other side. ‘Cuz you’re right — if this just becomes a place where MRA’s are talking to other MRA’s — well, you’ve already go that. That is not going to move things forward.
I’d love your help in finding more of these voices. I believe we can be truly pro-equality — and be seen as that — but it’s not going to happen overnight. But that would be the goal. Thanks for your help.
This is going to be a monumental task because whenever the topic of any type of gender debate between men ad women come up emotions through previous hurts arise but the task is necessary. How does one submit an article to be published on The Good Men Project?
I think once the word gets out about The Good Men Project being part of the MRM movement, and will help MRA’s , the Good Men Project will be a regular link on many MRA websites and the Good Men Project can really become transformational in terms of bridging the gap between MRA’s and Feminists.
Please email any article you would like to submit to me: lisa at goodmenproject dot com.
You can also submit on the website itself, here is the link. The link includes our guidelines. Thanks! http://goodmenproject.submishmash.com/submit
Though Im a nonfeminist, im not exactly happy with the current balance in the commentariat. Hopefully balance is naturally restored soon. I learnt to think about sex, gender, gender performance etc reading feminist thoughts, feminist opinions. They gave me the vocabulary, the structure with which to think about these things. And Though i dont agree with half or maybe even most of their conclusions(eg rape culture). As one of the main players who think about these things, the feminist perspectives on gender need to be heard loudly in comments( even if im rolling my eyes while listening).
With comments overwhelmingly nonfeminist at the moment, i think posting alot of mra articles at this time would cause feminists to just abandon GMP. A number of regular feminist commenters i havent seen for two weeks – im hoping that it is just the holidays that has them otherwise engaged.
Currently, until the commentariat balance is restored to 50% feminist 50% nonfeminist as in autumn2011, Id rather see more articles from extreme feminists. There have to loads of outspoken feminists that want to fill Hugo’s shoes. That would want the ‘controversy’, the international exposure, the wider career-feminist-break that GMP would give them (feminists send in recommendations for likely candidates. I might go hunting myself).
My impression is that (speaking broadly) feminists are less likely to comment on websites that are perceived to be overwhelming nonfeminist, they just abandon it. Whereas nonfeminists are happy to be outnumbered, and debate away. Another impression is that feminists post more on feminist leaning gender articles, that they seem reluctant to post nonfeminist articles. Whereas it doesnt matter to the nonfeminist whether the gender article is feministleaning or not
When it comes to gender articles. The formula that to my eye appears to have worked best, is:
A feminist leaning gender-issue article, to which feminists rally around and post supporting comments (like that dreadful ‘Why Women Aren’t Crazy’ article, which continues to hhhhhang around the ‘popular post’ window – urrrgh) . Then the nonfeminists query points in the article or in the comments. The feminists having committed to their positions, reply. And the debate is uuuunderway
Regarding Article moderation:
Will there be just two moderation ratings (‘no hostility’ and openseason)? I as feel that 3 or 4 different moderation ratings for articles would give mods and article writers more flexibility, more control.
Awesome comment jameseq, thanks! Very helpful.
A few things: 1) We would love it if you could go hunting for us. 2) Please feel free to submit a post yourself 3) Regarding the moderation ratings — We’d happily consider 3 or 4 different ratings — what are your suggestions.
Moderation/ civility level rating suggestions (a link to an article modded in a similar manner could be included, so commenters know what to expect).
1. comments disabled for this article
2. comments will be heavily moderated, and will be kept tightly on topic. discussion is to be kept as civil as if discussing with the queen of england.
3. comments will be lightly moderated, discussion can wander quite abit offtrack. discussion to be as civil as the average person is supposed to be at their workplace
4. open ssseason bunfight (hehe) – i mean minimal moderation, heated language, opposition baiting, snark, snide are ok
The feel for what level of modding is appropriate for the different rating, is one of those things that can only be determined by going live
Thanks for this jameseq. Appreciate your thoughts very much. I do like the idea of having posts called “open season” — with both the author and the commenters being aware of that. We would still prohibit name-calling or attacks on the posters or commenters as individuals.
We never have had to have comments disabled. So maybe it’s just the three. Or, I guess we could keep that as an option, you never know what might become completely out of hand.
“you cannot criticize the ideology of the other organization.”
So criticizing GMP for a gender feminist slant and collective blaming of men is off limits then?
This is silly and fully expected from a feminist run website.
Well I read that as within the context of the “normal” articles. In other words “criticizing ideology” is used here to mean “have a big fight between MRA and feminists”. You can do that but keep it to the articles that are tagged with the two new tags.
Of which there are many.
“The “Men and Feminism” section will be a place for intelligent discussion about the ways in which feminism can benefit men.”
Please god yes, especially the intelligent discussion bit.
“This is not an invitation for MRA’s and Feminists to go to war.” As if they need an invitation?