So, apparently we’ve moved! Fuck, I have to stop taking a vacation now and actually post. My life is so haaaaaaaard.
GMPers, you may not know much about me. I’m Ozy Frantz! I’m the person who posts most often on NSWATM. I swear a lot, I’m a college student, I’d call myself a radical feminist except all the radical feminists have disowned me, and I am way too geeky for my own good or for the good of people who don’t want posts to occasionally be illustrated with pictures of Matt Smith. We have a couple of other posting-type people, all of whom are awesome, and one of whom is the fabulous Noah Brand, current Editor-in-Chief of the GMP.
Our comment policy is right over here. Short version: if your comment annoys me, I will delete it. Disagreement is fine! Debate is fine! Criticism is fine! I love disagreement and debate and criticism and have often changed my mind because of such. But if you’re being a stupid fuckhead then I will delete your comment, and then I will read it out loud to my friends in my best Fluttershy voice. So don’t be a stupid fuckhead, or if you do then be a stupid fuckhead in a way that isn’t even remotely funny when read in Fluttershy voice.
I’m still trying to figure out where all the new buttons are, so comments may languish in moderation for a while or I may miss something horrible that someone said. Shoot me a Tweet or an email (ozyfrantz at gmail dot com) if that happens. Or if you just want to chat. I answer all my email.
About ozyfrantz
“Short version: if your comment annoys me, I will delete it.”
Confused. What does this mean? Are you in charge of moderation now, or just on your pieces? The commenting policy now is to not annoy you? So, anything that’s not radical feminist-compatible will be deleted?
Guess so. Suppose you could email Ozy as requested if you had questions. Seems like that would be the logical choice.
Seems like a highly illogical choice to me. Does Ozy really want a 40 emails asking the same questions about the moderation policy. We are all wondering the same things as Eric. If its in the comments everyone can read it.
If you look down there a bit then you’ll see that I did comment to clarify these points! I’m not in charge of moderating anything that isn’t NSWATM. Also, I am not the kind of radical feminist you’re thinking of, and even if I were the set of things that don’t annoy me is much larger than the set of things which are radical-feminist-compatible.
I think Ozy is a radical feminist in the “rad 80s” sense, not the “man-hating” nonsense.
Ozy has spoken to this several times, both in the body of hir post and in comments. If you still have further issues understanding, I’d ask Ozy. And if Ozy doesn’t want to answer emails, zie’ll say so.
We are working on making sure all the moderation is generally consistent as there are changes with new blogs, new staff of those blogs and so forth. A lot of evolution going on right now.
What I’m seeing is immediate anxiety both from the GMP regulars who seem somehow convinced that they are now the enemy (which has not been proven here) and new readers from the other sites who are feeling cautious about sharing opinions on the GMP site. Which frankly points out to several things for me all of which are fascinating.
1) turf issues. Always comes down to turf issues and my tribe vs their tribe.
2) A general desire for fairness and consistency and easily accessible information
3) Group identity. Outside readers see GMP comment threads as highly contentious and lacking in actual dialogue, and perhaps GMP regulars see something similar in other blogs.
I’m thinking about West Side Story right now, wondering if perhaps we’ll find some sort of commenting love story between the worlds, if only we can avoid that final scene with the gun. Man that movie makes me cry.
Let’s all offer each other the benefit of the doubt here, be patient and listen. And, if any of the GMP regs are interested in moderating, perhaps that could be a great benefit both to you and to the site. Otherwise, you’ll have to live with how we are trying to get things in place and moderated.
If people think the GMP lacks dialogue, I’d suggest they start expanding their mind. There is an immense amount of dialog going on, it’s possible that the dialog isn’t in a way that outside people are used to? On the mansplaining article for instance it detailed one form of communication that I think some of the women were assuming didn’t respect another person’s feelings, whilst missing the key part, the men viewed that style of communication in a different way so it wasn’t harming other men’s feelings. Maybe perception of the comments could lead a person to believe X, but the commentator is actually saying Y.
I know the comments do get heated, I generally look past the heated parts and try to understand what that commentator is trying to say, there is a lot of dialog there but it can be hard to read especially when it’s behind a layer of pain, anger, hurt, bitterness which manifests as generalizations, hating a group because of negative experiences etc. Communication is very tricky, and once we’re triggered by something into anger, annoyance at a comment, our ability to empathize, listen, understand can often be severely diminished. I guess it’s a skill to be learned, to look past the initial shock of a comment and see what the person is trying to say, quite often it’s just an outburst from a feeling of desperation, feeling abandoned, just wanting someone to validate their feeling as legitimate. I guess that’s why the heated arguments don’t always bother me, as I’m actively ignoring the fire and looking at the fuel.
Well, it’s not easy to be that prescriptive is it?
Just expand your mind and you’ll understand feminism…:) It’s more that both styles of dialogue need to have room for, people need to set mutual expectations of how to navigate the differences.
I know Lisa loves social media (I do too) but I think the best places for mutual understanding (and the work that comes with it) occurs in real space where facial expression, vocal tone are present, there aren’t multiple lines of conversation happening (people can cross post and miss things online) and there is a facilitator that can hold people to their agreements and point out things folks might not see.
It’s extremely hard to do here in the internet, and I think it takes a certain kind of commitment and ownership of one’s own biases and a willingness to yes
open the mind.
I understand some parts of feminism, but it gets confusing reading between different websites, I truly do believe there are multiple forms of feminism as one site will be about both men and women, another will be about only women, another will be about how men never suffer, another will be the same with the cull the men type mentality, but all use the same label, feminism:S. The feminism that is talked about here for example is one I found a bit rare when trying to find a decent site on feminism, especially one that caters for both the male n female issues. Though that also can just be my lack of luck in finding a place to go, I kept meeting mostly radfems(negative style).
It’d be great to talk in face to face, but I think it’d actually cause some to keep quiet on issues, I myself would find it very hard to talk about much of what I do talk about online from my shyness n fears. It’s also hard to find those places, AFAIK they’re mostly in the college areas (at least here in Australia). I’ve never seen a feminist space talked about in Australia where men could actually talk about their issues.
I see so many longing for discussions on male issues but many can be scared to talk about them in feminist spaces, The GMP seems more of a neutral ground allowing both mra’s, feminists, but even neutral people to add their voice which is why I read it so much.
“I’m thinking about West Side Story right now, wondering if perhaps we’ll find some sort of commenting love story between the worlds…”
When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet….
Guess so, what? Is he in charge of all moderation or just his pieces? Are non-radical feminists unwelcome on his pieces only or everywhere?
If he’s in charge of all moderation, then GMP has now advanced from a feminist-leaning site to a radical feminist, which means that average men (like me) are now the unwelcome enemy. And will obviously need to find a new place to hang out.
I’m in charge of moderation of just NSWATM posts. I have no control over any parts of the GMP that don’t have my shiny awesome header on them. I’m also much more of a bell hooks-ish radical feminist than a RadFemHub radical feminist (God forbid).
BTW, my pronoun is zie.
“BTW, my pronoun is zie.”
Was trying to figure out what this Zie stuff was:P
Like I said, ask Ozy or Lisa. Better to get a more immediate response on things, rather than going on about being unwelcome enemies. That’s a bit dramatic, imo. I’d assume that since there are new blogs being fed into GMP many of them will have their own moderators and GMP will also keep their same mods.
Yeah pretty much what Julie and Ozy said. It sounds like the blogs that are combining forces with GMP just have their own moderators. Makes sense…they had their own moderation policy and moderators prior to combing with GMP.
Julie, let us see how many non-feminist blogs get fed into GMP (curious phrasing) before declaring Eric’s response dramatic. There is already a tone on GMP that implies certain male experiences and perspectives are unwelcome. That was heightened last year with the inclusion of a certain individual, and I do not think adding in a radical feminist blog helps matters. It makes GMP look more like a space for feminists, not for men.
Because men can’t be feminists, what?
Well, they can, but very few want to. It’s just like women can be college football players. They exist but are a very rare breed.
rare breed? I’m fortunate enough to have many, many men around me who are feminists, even when some of them don’t use that word. It’s not a rare breed in my environment, although it is a somewhat rare breed in society, unfortunately.
I’m a man and a feminist, because I believe in equal rights and opportunities for human beings. I’ll fight to make our society a level playing field for people of any gender (or skin colour, sexual orientation, body type or other human characteristics).
I’m a white, (mostly) straight, (mostly) cis-gender, able-bodied male – I didn’t do anything to be any of those things, and I can’t easily stop being any of them. It’s just a fact of life. I don’t feel guilty about this, but I *am* aware of it: It does mean that a lot of things are a lot easier for me than for others who are *not* one or more of these things.
And that is simply not fair. That’s why I am a feminist.
The reason I stopped reading GMP is because too many commenters seem to be allergic for words like feminism and privilege while they don’t actually seem to understand their meanings, and too many commenters seem to deny the fact that the world is heavily skewed towards people like me: straight, white, able-bodied, cis-men.
Too many comment threads turn into a giant repetitive derailment fest about feminism, misandry, privilege and other Gender Studies 101 topics. We’re not getting anywhere if we keep hammering on the basics, such as suggesting that male feminists don’t exist.
If GMP is a place exclusively for men, or a place where men’s issues are pitted *against* feminism, then it is definitely not a place for me. And I’m disappointed that a fantastic blog such as No Seriously What About The Menz moved to an environment that is, in my opinion, bordering on toxic.
Lux, thanks for your honest comment. One thing I”m noticing is a lot of mirrors. I see similar comments on both sides of the fence. To me, this indicates a number of dynamics, but it actually gives me some hope. I try my best to be a “both/and” kind of person. I’m a white, cis, feminist with some alternative views on love and romance. I’ve actually learned a great deal here while I’ve been a writer and moderator, and much of that is because I’ve had to do additional work on my own beliefs and views. I don’t agree with everything I hear from MRAs, but then again, I don’t buy into everything I hear from feminists either. I think, to put it as simply as I can, all systems are comprised of groups which are made up of people. People can be toxic or healthy and create toxic groups or healthy groups, but one thing I know is that all people are fallible.
I’d love to see more conversations (as frustrating as I can admit I’ve found some of them) about all the topics around masculinity. I do think when threads derail into 101 territory (or the denial of said) it gets clogged up and problematic.
This may be an issue to work on as moderators.
I hope to hear your voice.
As much as “omg what you said” comments are a cliché, I agree with that 100%, well put. I have learned heaps from online discussions, and my own beliefs about social justice, gender, politics and, indeed my own alternative views on love, sex and romance keep evolving. The Internet is a wonderful place for that.
I guess when I feel that discussions just keep repeating the 101 stuff, I stop learning, and I tend to stop reading… this happened on GMP and on a few other sites – and you’re right, feminists aren’t automatically right, and I get as tired from discussions *denying* privilege as those that use the word as an accusation and a way to invalidate someone’s opinion.
If amazing blogs such as NSWATM are rolled into GMP, and if the moderators manage to steer the discussions away from derailing 101 “men vs. feminist” discussions, then I guess there *is* hope for GMP.
Hope for GMP financially? Or do you mean because you believe the site is wrong in some way?
The hope I am seeing is less about whether various members of the two blogs agree or not, and more, can they actually listen and learn and find intersectional points where there is agreement.
But you are correct that can’t happen easily if the threads are derailed constantly in either direction.
In any case, glad you are here!
I feel that GMP (especially in the comments) is a little one-sided sometimes. I don’t think you can properly discuss men’s issues in society without discussing gender roles and feminism, and the “feminism is bad for men” sentiment that I sometimes perceive in comment threads doesn’t make sense to me at all.
I love reading NSWATM because its articles are dealing with men’s issues *and* feminist at the same time – they are in fact the same thing in many situations.
The hope I have is that GMP will be a more diverse place with the inclusion of blogs such as NSWATM. With a positive attitude from commenters and the right moderation policies to keep everyone on track, that diversity will create a healthier space for everyone, including staunch feminists such as myself.
I am all about the intersections as well, and have really learned a huge amount here (as a feminist and woman) and think it’s vital to support men. I’m ultimately a humanist idealist though. Not naive by any means, but I refuse to sit at a pole right now. I’d rather figure out what’s outside the poles.
“I’m fortunate enough to have many, many men around me who are feminists, even when some of them don’t use that word.”
If they don’t use the word the aren’t feminists. Men are not so unintelligent that they don’t know whether they are feminists or not. The vast majority of men, when asked, say that they are not feminists.
Right. In similar vain, is someone not racist unless they call themselves racist? Is someone not a philantropist unless they declare themselves to be one? Is someone not an alcoholic unless they realise they are? Is someone not intelligent unless they proclaim this fact?
If you answer “no” to these questions, yet maintain that someone is not feminist unless they say they are, then “feminism” must somehow be different from every other -ist and -ism. Like Ozy said elsewhere: “if you’re in support of reproductive rights, ending abuse and rape, lesbian rights, the Equal Rights Amendment, ending the pay gap, etc., I’m not sure in what meaningful sense you count as ‘not a feminist.’” — whether you say you are one or not.
This is exactly the kind of 101 discussion I have seen so many times before. That has nothing to do with intelligence; if you see this as questioning foundations, because you think those foundations aren’t sound, then we have such a fundamentally different world view that we are never going to be able to discuss anything beyond basic semantics. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong; just that I get more out of discussions that are based on at least a few core assumptions I agree with.
Just to swing this around, do you support rights and awareness for males? If so, you’re an MRA. What’s interesting is that some could call you both a feminist and an MRA. Are you ok with being called an MRA?
No, I wouldn’t, because I don’t want to be associated with some people who call themselves MRA who have extremist, misguided and unhealthy views I vehemently disagree with. So, I see what you mean. Someone for whom feminism has such a negative meaning would not like to be associated with that. I just don’t agree with their idea of what feminism is, even acknowledging that there are many, many different kinds of feminism.
I’m not sure what it means to support rights and awareness of males. I think it’s important to support men in the sense that society’s mainstream gender roles and gender essentialism are very damaging for everyone, and the focus on that idea is why I love reading NSWATM so much.
I also support rights and awareness for any individual or marginalised group who needs it, and those consist of people of any gender, including (cis-)male.
However, I *don’t* support rights and awareness of “males” as a group per se, because I believe that males, as a *group*, are pretty much the opposite of marginalised and have *plenty* of rights already and *way* too much awareness.
I’ve always wondered if in our western countries, like Australia and the US if women actually still had less rights or if feminism was now moving into the “issues” territory, tackling everything apart from actual Law given rights? The only rights difference I see for men in the US is selective service, and coverage under VAWA possibly (Though this is meant to be updated) and reproductive rights for men (financial abortion).
In Australia I don’t think there are any actual law differences, but there are plenty of things to combat like boys lagging girls in schools, gender roles, heathcare for both. I am unsure of what you would call many of the issues faced by goth genders today, rights to me implies law, I call them “issues” currently, is there a better term? I believe both men and women suffer various stuff, though I am still unsure what to label the suffering/issues as.
You’ll find very few people who disagree with the statement “Women are people too and should have the same rights as any other person.”
If that’s the total definition of feminist you want to go with, then sure, why not, I’m a feminist.
If you go from there to “therefore women should be given special preferential treatment and/or lowered standards to do things that aren’t already at least 50% women, and possibly even then”, then I stop agreeing. Equality doesn’t mean special explicit systematic privilege for one group.
Or perhaps an argument that relies on the assumption of women as always victims and never perpetrators, or of women as never being deceitful, malicious, cruel, or otherwise horrible, you’ve lost me again — those are human traits, not gendered traits. A *lot* of feminists particularly engage in this one, for example claiming that women are never violent, or only men rape, or women *never* falsely accuse (one particular popular feminist blog I’ve read in the past likes to make this claim, and summarily delete/ban anyone who provides a contradictory example).
Or maybe, “we need to discriminate regarding victim services with respect to gender.” Or to go all radfemhub on you, “therefore we need to employ biological solutions to dealing with the male problem.” Or that “when women are behind in some field or activity it shows that there is something wrong with that event or activity; when men are behind, it shows that something is wrong with men.” Or that gender privilege is a one-way street (it shocks me that feminist women [the only women you ever hear talk about male privilege] can claim that “privilege blinds” when referring to men not seeing advantages, but then not realize the same statement applies to women).
The three above paragraphs all reflect things I’ve heard feminists argue in the past. All pretty terrible. All stuff I disagree with. That’s one of the problems with “feminism.” “Feminism is not a monolith” lets you get away without having to defend feminist positions by simply claiming that you don’t hold them and they don’t really count. At the same time, it lowers the bar to be a feminist essentially to the point of meaninglessness.
Personally, I believe women are people too and should have the same rights and responsibilities that men do, or equitable ones in any case where identical rights and responsibilities are literally impossible. I also believe that men are people too and should have the same rights and responsibilities that women do, or equitable ones in any case where identical rights and responsibilities are literally impossible.
That means holding both to the same standards and requirements, everywhere.
That means giving men some means through which to opt-out of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, and the mother having no say in that choice.
That means enforcing custody arrangements as strongly as child support.
That means taking a rape accusation seriously regardless of the genders of perpetrator and victim, investigating it thoroughly, trying it properly on the basis of actual evidence corroborating testimony like any other crime, and it means taking the possibility of false allegations seriously as well.
Schadrach – very comprehensive comment. Those are among the reasons that the vast majority of women, and even a larger majority of men, when asked if they are feminists, answer with a resounding NO.
Men should not have to be feminists or go through a feminist lens to talk about their experiences and perspectives as men, regardless of whether they can be feminists or not.
And that is agreed upon here at GMP. GMP is a space for ALL to discuss experiences of maleness and masculinity. And that includes male and female voices, masculanist and feminist.
The question becomes, how open to dialogue do we really want to become?
That is one of the aspects of the website that I feel draws a lot of men and women in: an environment that is based on inclusion rather than exclusion. GMP is more or less a unique platform because it is not based on any ideology. The concept is straightforward: men are good.
The threat to this uniqueness and the strength of GMP is importing voices that reject discussion and assume that the basis of their opinion is unquestionable. The pieces that I have felt are lacking are the ones where authors make assertions that become challenged (with , and the challenge is then ignored or dismissed out of hand.
Certain people and groups have invested a lot in gender studies as an academic model. Saying something is “101″ does not make it unquestionable. Just because there has been an ornate fancy building built on the foundation does not mean the foundation is sound. It would be the ironic that a blog with a title based on rejecting an exclusionary statement would turn around and act in an exclusionary manner on a platform that is all about inclusion.
It doesn’t make it unquestionable, but I have read many “101″ type discussions revolving around concepts such as privilege, feminism and intersectionality that go nowhere and all follow the same pattern. I personally don’t get anything out of those anymore, so if that’s the kind of discussion dominating a comment section I am just not that interested. It doesn’t mean it’s not important or valuable to discuss these things, but I’ve been there, done that and have the t-shirt.
How do you know they go nowhere? Why do they go “nowhere”? What is the pattern?
Emmeline, why should they have to be? I think that is the fear here. Would non-feminist blogs be included under the GMP wing giving more of a variety. I myself don’t want to see it as a feminist-only zone, or even a feminist-dominated zone. I’d rather see it a nice mix of feminism, masculism, and neutral ground.
I read her comment not as “they have to be ” but..”you mean there aren’t such men?” They don’t have to be. But they can comment and should feel free to comment if they are.
Julie is correct. All the guys I know are feminist and they haven’t been forced into it. I’m just saying that the kind of people who say “men can only be allies and if they call themselves feminists they’re sexist” are ridiculous and aren’t helping their cause.
Why is it ridiculous? Feminism was created as and remains a movement for women. Men are not the focus and given some of the “101″ underpinnings of feminism, men being feminists would take away from focus on women. Having men as allies means they can identify with the movement, support it, but not threaten the heart of the movement.
What I feel is actually ridiculous is the claim that men should not have a movement for themselves. There have been many posts on this site that have done a great job detailing the need for one. A men’s movement can absolutely coexist with feminism. There is justifiable bitterness and large egos to get past, but I am certain a dialogue can be reached in the right environment.
Because you’re just making yourself lose support for an arbitrary reason. Like a more minor version of not allowing trans* women into “safe spaces”.
Is this debate about NOT allowing feminist men into the GMP space? (I am on pain meds and may have misread something)
I have no problem with feminist men on the GMP, I like to read a wide ranges of opinions, I learn more that way. I myself don’t find male allies as sexist, people can call themselves whatever they want, I try to look at the peoples intentions and actions, hence my dislike for labels.
It is not an “arbitrary reason.” It is a reason that goes to the purpose of the movement, the reason for its existence, and the core tenets that link its members together.
Furthermore, you don’t really “lose support.” Under that view, men can be and are allies of feminists.
Actually I’ve seen quite a few feminists argue that they can’t, but I’ll accept (and welcome) thay you don’t.
What Jacobtk said.
Radical feminists tend to get a negative associate. By radical feminist do you mean the type that deny men suffer, do not believe sexism can affect men, will gladly use terms like privilege, mansplaining to silence or do you mean more the wiki-style definition of just believing in patriarchy theory? Also are you egalitarian-radical feminist, or gyno-centric? (I presume egalitarian). I just want to know what radical feminism means to you, as it is generally the label applied to the extremists which may cause you to be misidentified to be the radfemhub style, or the highly antagonstic style which many on the GMP have faced in very negative ways. And to clarify the comment policy, are posts critical of SOME feminism allowed?
“And to clarify the comment policy, are posts critical of SOME feminism allowed?”
According to the current moderation policy it’s generalisation that isn’t allowed. So “Feminists are man-haters” will end up in the sin bin, but “Some feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin, have openly shown that their ideology focuses on the hatred of men (as exemplified by this quote from her book)” is ok.
And what a surprise, this comment ALSO goes “into moderation.” I’ll be shocked if it ever gets out.
So we’re on GMP now! Hello GMP people, please be nice because some of us are terribly scared of the comment section on GMP.
Scared why? It’s interesting to hear scared as many of the GMP commentators are scared on other blogs too:P Might be a great opportunity for both to understand each other n lower their fear?
I wonder if it’s scared because people seem to know a dissenting opinion will create verbal commenting chaos in backlash? I feel that way here at times (GMP) and I am a mod. Imagine how a regular reader feels.
I’m with Julie. The biggest impediments to discussion here at GMP are Pile-ons (a whole bunch of you come in and tell the commenter something they did was wrong, to the point where nobody can barely even find the original position or other commenters’ thoughts. Also, this makes people who want to have a discussion, who’s opinions aren’t of the people in the pile-on’s, feel it’s a lost cause. So while the pile-on works to silence dissenting opinions and make a few people feel they’re very “safe” almost nobody was actually discussed with and therefore able to understand the pile-on’s opinions. The pile-on merely looks like a cruel, overreactive, and selfish mob.
Second, the use of insulting generalizations and extrapolations about a commenter. A commenter says something simple and well-intended (regardless of whether it’s right or wrong) and is called 1. An apologist of male-rape 2. A denier of male-rape or 3. a misandrist. Fact is, this name-calling doesn’t work because the name-slingers are seen as bullies. YES bullies. So many come in and talk to people who normally might be open-heart and open-minded enough in these extreme ways, and the open-minded person suddenly is insulted, degraded, and bullied to the point that they believe that YES, indeed the MRAs (regardless of whether you identify as one) over at GMP are bullies.
PS I’m not saying other sites’ commuter’s don’t do this(saying some of you guys do it doesn’t mean others don’t), I’m just telling you all what people at large say about the commenters at GMP, and therefore some of you guys end up being a bunch of people talking amongst yourselves because most people won’t engaged you. And maybe it’s just a few who do that, but those voices are SO prevalent in the comments that people like this NSWATM commenter here, who expressed a real and genuine fear, either won’t read GMP or comment here.
PS I’m not saying other sites’ commuter’s don’t do this(saying some of you guys do it doesn’t mean others don’t), I’m just telling you all what people at large say about the commenters at GMP, and therefore some of you guys end up being a bunch of people talking amongst yourselves because most people won’t engaged you. And maybe it’s just a few who do that, but those voices are SO prevalent in the comments that people like this NSWATM commenter here, who expressed a real and genuine fear, either won’t read GMP or comment here.
What makes my soul burn with a passion that surpasses even the Power Cosmic is that some of these compaints are coming from places that literally engage in the exact same behavior.
I’ll admit that when faced with this fact there is a bit of “let’s see how you like it” feeling going on.
(I know you aren’t trying to say that others don’t do this kind of stuff, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone that has been treated that way. It would be nice if all the guns could be laid down but goodness how can we get everyone to lay down their arms so we can start talking? All I see now is mostly a constant string of demands from people that everyone else should stop being hostile while at the same time defending their onw hostility.)
Julie, I gave up writing at GMP and commenting entirely many months ago for this very reason. I swore that NOTHING would lure me into any conversation at GMP ever again. But thanks to you, your honesty, and your excellent articulation of this issue, I am making a comment. It’s a simple one: What Julie said.
Good luck to you all. GMP is growing and thriving and I wish you all well in this new endeavor.
Thank you for this Joanna. I watch this every day on the comment thread to the point it’s impossible to follow. And guys, I think we get that you value this space as a place to vent about things there are few spaces that allow it. And your safety is important. But so is dialogue and not accusing people who are trying to understand, moving through their own cognitive dissonance about the issues of being misandrist isn’t helping dialogue. And yeah, a lot of threads look like pile ons, drive by commenting, and derail machines.
If we really are behind what Tom and Lisa have started-figuring this out, it’s going to take having dissenting opinions (with safety boundaries) and actual listening and hearing on both sides.
And we are working behind the scenes to continue that goal in how we work together as moderators.
Is pointing out a certain statement/quote is misandrist still fine instead of just calling the commentator misandrist? Maybe have it so commentators can only call a quoted section misandrist, vs saying Eve is misandrist.
Except even then, using a term like ‘misandrist’ or ‘homophobic,’ etc to describe even a person’s statement causes problems, especially when we’re all talking online and without facial expressions and body language to help communicate. I try to avoid those terms altogether, and instead say something about how a statement is “problematic” and explain exactly what I mean by that.
I do use the term “heteronormative” quite a bit, but that is less meant as an insult and more descriptive a term.
AH, I spose I just use the terms as it describes the problem in them. I see misogynist is used extremely commonly in feminist articles and gets the message across nicely. Maybe saying the statement SOUNDS misandrist would be better, without labelling it flatout misandrist?
Yeah that’d be better…though again…using any of those terms is problematic (see what I did there, lol). It really depends on what you want to do with your side of the conversation. If you just want to point out the bigotry (as you perceive it) in another person’s statement or belief, then using a term like ‘misogynist,’ etc, will do that effectively. However, it’ll also pretty effectively shut down the conversation…so the only time to use those terms is when you’re pretty sure any further conversation won’t get anywhere anyway.
I don’t disagree with the above. Many of the pile ons I see are usually of people showing quite a lot of bigotry, but it tends to be in the forms that are the last remaining versions that are acceptable in society (bigotry towards men for instance). On a site for men I find the pile ons are bad, but they have a very valid point in calling out such bigotry, the women fearing men article had quite a few prejudiced views of men for instance and people called out commentators on their prejudiced view. There are of course the extreme reactions, one might call them over-reactions but are they really over-reactions? After the thread on respecting another persons feelings I find it harder to call it an over-reaction:P Maybe an unhelpful response.
The funny thing is some of the arguments I see here are pretty damn similar to the arguments quite a few of the male commentators on the GMP talk about with their experience in SOME (not all) feminist blogs, is it a group-think behaviour? Mob mentality? I try at times to redirect the negativity, get people to refocus their arguments and drop the major generalizations. You’ll see that many of the GMP commentators feel that same fear on certain feminist blogs, they raise an idea and quickly get swamped, their dissenting opinion will generally get slapped down. I’ve had that happen quite a few times myself which left a bitter taste that was only changed after reading the GMP. When a person gets multiple negative experiences in a row, where they become quite common I think it can often leave a person feeling that group is quite negative, I see this clearly in the comments by both those who are cautious/afraid of MRA’s and feminists. It simply adds to the mistrust between the groups, and quite frankly neither are more correct/legitimate in their arguments I personally find. I think both have legitimate concerns and hope to see more communication between the 2.
The GMP itself has actually been a great way for MRA’s and feminists to talk I think, I’ve seen plenty of beneficial commentary..commentary that actually stopped me from becoming anti-feminist as I was only exposed to negative radfems (unsure of what exactly to call them still, but it appears Ozy is not one of them) but on here I was exposed to egalitarian feminists and egalitarian mra’s (which also stopped me becoming anti-mra, go figure).
I do wonder why there is such a focus on the negative aspects of the MRA’s here, I personally find similar levels of negative male n female commentators of all political leanings on the site, but they’re the minority and the majority generally leave great comments. I’ve learned an immense amount from them all. One tactic that does help is to read a comment with a mind-filter turned on, if you see a generalization, mentally change it to “some”, eg some feminists, some mra’s, and the comment usually makes far more sense. Pretty much all of the anti-mra, and anti-feminism I see is actually anti-negativemra/feminism, both groups usually have a lot of people with similar goals (egalitarian goals) but the hyperfocus on radicals/extremists tends to muddy up the communication.
How do you get both groups to communicate, whilst still respecting each others opinions? Well when someone figures this out, lemme know, I’ll be sitting on the fence eating popcorn trying to learn each side’s beliefs hoping they both get over their differences n work together…..and I’m running outa popcorn!
Joanna, in fairness, the same thing can be said in the reverse. One of the reasons I do not comment here often is because of the feminist lean of the site and the unspoken demand that men play by feminist rules, especially when it comes to talking about violence against men and boys. I know several men, particularly male survivors, who do not to comment here for that very reason. There have been very anti-male articles posted here, plenty of hostile comments and pile-ons from feminists, and enough feminist rhetoric and name-calling to make it clear to non-feminists and male survivors in particular that they are either unwelcome or should know their place.
Couple that with the majority of the articles approaching men’s issues from a feminist perspective, the hostility towards advocates for men’s issues, and that the vast majority of GMP’s audience is largely female and feminist, and it creates an environment breeds conflict because as much as the space is “for men” it is not geared towards men’s needs, concerns, or interests.
I suspect you disagree, and I think it is that disagreement that is often the source of conflict.
What Jacobtk said is 100% accurate in my observation, except I try to comment anyway.
By here, do you mean nswatm or the GMP?
I think it probably relates to the broader population of the GMP. The gmp commentators includes masculists, feminists, mras, traditionalists, all kinds of things. It’s a lot more diverse than NSWATM so I guess conflict is more likely.
I’m sorry to hear this. I stopped reading gmp a while ago for various reasons, most importantly because I got sick of the MRA trolls polluting the comments — fwiw, I’m a (mostly) straight, (mostly) cis-gendered male, and no, I’m not at all full of self hatred, thanks. I love reading your stuff, Ozyfrantz, but I’m not sure if I want to risk ruining my mood by accidentally reading the comments on GMP.
@Archy I think it’s mostly what Lux said, don’t really want to ruin my mood. It’s not that I don’t like people questioning this stuff, it’s more that nothing ever really gets solved or even discussed properly in forums, It’s mostly just yelling what you think at another person.
So on that note, I am going to post about Diablo 3 on the open thread.
There is a great deal of tension in comments here. As one of the main mods, I’d be very interested in learning your thoughts on how to shift that into more of a space for dialogue. Please feel free to get in touch with me at julie@goodmenproject.com
Can you link to the D3 thread?
I personally found the debate between feminists and mra’s quite useful, it was how I learned to seperate the groups into individual groups, to see not all mra’s were extremist, n same for feminism. I actually met some great feminists and MRA’s on the GMP. I think the problem would be if one side dominated in numbers, being a male commenting in a 99% female space for instance you can definitely feel unsupported n vice versa.
As someone who has read NSWATM for about six months and contributed for the last three, I find it odd that anyone would be scared off by Ozy. Zie is a RadFem, but not in the way that you think. Unless you think Patriarchy= All Men you have nothing to fear. (check out Ozy’s Law, which is pretty right on.)
I agree that Ozy’s Law is one of the greatest pieces about what happens in conversations that prevents real understanding.
Should some of the contributors here introduce themselves (as in posting a short profile of their history and views) and a label next to their name (ie., MRA, Rad Fem, etc.)? It seems sometimes the arrows keep flying from two extreme ends of the spectrum and I think the two ends will never meet…I understand there is a lot of anger and past grievances that people want to express, but I want to sit somewhere in the middle and have a civilized discussion (heart to heart, if that’s possible) and hear people out [while keeping the tablecloth still white and the food from flying and the discussion level at a hospitable volume]…
Luv ya, Joanna, Julie, Tom, Hugo, Justin, Jamie, Mark, and Noah…!
I am Egalitarian, but I don’t really like labels to be honest. My focus is towards males as I feel there is already a huge amount of female focus feminist and egalitarians vs very very few male, plus I myself am a male and know more on the issues of men than I do of issues for women. I’m still concerned quite a bit for both genders however and hope there is full coverage for both genders.
I’m not sure how well that would go. It’s already bad enough that people start to see red at the first hint of someone being an MRA or feminist adding a label to their name would be more like adding a bullseye.
And that’s before you get into the territory of people who think they can just decide what someone else’s label really is.
I’m an egalitarian.
For some definitions of feminism I’m a feminist: I support women’s rights issues advocacy and I agree that gender roles hurt women. But I also maintain that gender roles privilege women in other ways which tends to make many feminists very very angry.
For some definitions of masculist I’m also a masculist: I support men’s rights issues advocacy and I very much agree that gender roles hurt men. I also acknowlege the existance of male privilege (in some areas, not all, and in the context of other privileges like class and race) and I really hate the slurs that many MRAs feel the need to throw out there.
I don’t get behind the idea that one gender has it worse than the other, it’s a meaningless statement, even if it weren’t it can’t be measured and even if it could it wouldn’t be relevant.
My other political views range from center right to far left depending on the issue.
Ozy doesn’t need my defense, but I’d like to list some of the things I’ve observed zir write about on NSWATM.
-Ozy had continuously written about the way male victims of sexual assault are dismissed or ridiculed.
-Zie has frequently written about the Success Myth.
-Zie has written sensitively about Nice Guyism and concluded that there can be Nice Girls.
-Zie has frequently written on male body issues.
-Zie has stood up against the idea that men are brutes with no self control when it comes to sex.
I think this is important to point out because I think it’s wrong to dismiss someone because of a label, even a self-given one.
“a rare breed? I’m fortunate enough to have many, many men around me who are feminists, even when some of them don’t use that word. It’s not a rare breed in my environment, although it is a somewhat rare breed in society, unfortunately”"
Not how it works. A man is a feminist if HE says so, regardless of what you or anyone else claims about him. Only a very small percentage of men claim to be feminists. When asked, the vast majority say NO. They are intelligent enough to know whether they want to be or not. And the vast majority have made the (IMO) wise choice to not.
There are lots of people I’d consider feminists who don’t identify as such, many of them because of incorrect and misleading ideas about what feminism is, drawn either from our sexist society or a few feminists who give the sensible people a bad name. But if you’re in support of reproductive rights, ending abuse and rape, lesbian rights, the Equal Rights Amendment, ending the pay gap, etc., I’m not sure in what meaningful sense you count as “not a feminist.”
I was about to reply exactly that, but you worded it much better than I could have, thank you Ozy. I would like to add that I’ve seen many women claim not to be feminist — the word is so loaded and has so many negative connotations that many shy away from using it even though they are in support of equal rights for people of any gender.
Is this form of feminism pretty much the all inclusive egalitarianism/equalism style? I see lots of egalitarians, even those who call themselves feminist, but I wouldn’t call all of them feminists as the feminism label itself seems to mean multiple things. This is just a personal observation, you can see why I find it confusing when you read some of the articles by Jasmine on the GMP and others who say “MY feminism does/believes X”. Some people might think I am feminist, but I don’t want to be labelled as such as the label brings judgment and often leads to confusing in online spaces that I’ve seen, I like the egalitarian label as it’s quite neutral.
Hell many of the MRA’s I see on the GMP could be called feminists by some, fitting a definition of those believing in ending pay gaps, supporting reproductive rights, etc. It might help to clarify exactly what feminism means in the sense you’re using it as I and others have seen a variety which don’t all share the same opinions.
You realize that you don’t have the right to choose other people’s labels for them or the authority to define a term for society as a whole?
But if you’re in support of reproductive rights, ending abuse and rape, lesbian rights, the Equal Rights Amendment, ending the pay gap, etc., I’m not sure in what meaningful sense you count as “not a feminist.”
In the meaningful sense of “I don’t want to identify with that label”. I know you don’t mean to sound like it Ozy but this kinda sounds like you’re trying to nonchalantly declare that no one has any business saying they are not a feminist.
Just like with most other labels there are perfectly valid reasons for one saying they are not a feminist. But I’m glad you said “many” about those incorrect/misleading ideas about feminism.
Just as with the label MRA I don’t claim the label feminist because I simply refuse to put up with being lumped in with the negative elements of that movement.
Lux:
However, I *don’t* support rights and awareness of “males” as a group per se, because I believe that males, as a *group*, are pretty much the opposite of marginalised and have *plenty* of rights already and *way* too much awareness.
I have to disagree with that if for no other reason the opposition that comes up now when people try to talk about such men in such topics. I’ve been struggling with my body image for years and when I brought my struggle online some of the biggest opposition (in fact only opposition) came from women and feminists.
I’m not trying to say that men have it the same way as women (despite how often I get accused of that, against by women and feminists) but I think in some ways men are marginalized as men.
Julie Gillis said “I wonder if it’s scared because people seem to know a dissenting opinion will create verbal commenting chaos in backlash?”
Hello, I’m a compulsive reader and somewhat regular commenter on NSWATM since about 6 months.
First of all, I resent the term “scared of”, because I feel it’s a term that’s been kidnapped and is commonly used by certain branches of “hostile” feminism/feminists to alienate and denigrate men who don’t (always) agree with them.
Second. What I want from a discussion is the personal touch, people sharing their stories and experiences. What I DON’T want is discussion about forms, labeling people (with or against their will), or statements like “None of my friends are like you, hence you’re an anomaly”!
Unfortunately from my POV, what I’ve seen here in the first discussion under the umbrella of GMP is very much of what I don’t want to see.
I thought my computer was broken because everytime I clicked on NSWATM’s old address I ended up here.
I’m blaming you for this
@OirishM That’s actually quite annoying! And especially that I can’t link my blog to NSWATM anymore. It just links to the GMP front page. Blog link duly removed.
Interesting…I’ve linked to NSWATM without any trouble. Actually, my old link just redirects to the new NSWATM page. Hmmmmmm
Hmmmm indeed
I tried making it http://goodmenproject.com/category/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/
but it just reverted to GMP
This is from a Blogger blog btw
That’s weird. The only workaround I can think of (assuming you still want to link to NSWATM) is to continue to link to the WordPress blog, which redirects to NSWATM-on-the-GMP.
The link was to the WordPress blog, but Blogger (or something) switched it to the GMP homepage rather than the NSWATM subpage. Trying to reestablish it doesn’t make any difference.
But I don’t really want to link to GMP anyway. My own browser bookmark works, so I can get here direct myself if and when.
Yeah, my link is from a blogger blog too. Sorry I can’t be of any help, except to say that it’s working for me. So really I’m probably just a source of frustration rather than help.
Wow, had to install an ad blocker AND flash blocker in order to even begin reading anything (started using Chrome, so I guess it was really just a matter of time anyway). Sorry, Ozy, but I guess I won’t be contributing to your girlfriend’s petticoat fund. :T
And yeah, wow the comments, while not rage-inducing like there are elsewhere on GMP, a lot of them definitely have that vibe. I think I’ll definitely be lurking at best. If any of the old NSWATM regulars are interested in still talking with me for… whatever reason, I guess, then here’s my tumblr: http://aquapunk.tumblr.com I post all sorts of activist and social justice-oriented stuff. Also robots.
Cheers~
I must say that I’m not too fond of this new site for some reason.
“Welcome GMPers!”
And goodbye NSWATM.
First, I loved the NSWATM layout, with the “Latest comments” list on the side, the chronological comments where you don’t have to scan the whole list to see what’s new, the automatic avatars, etc.
Gone.
And the climate. I’ve been down this road before. There are more blogs and discussion boards, where the mere mentioning of non-male-performing and its subsequent problems will immediately get you stonewalled by regurgitation of feminist theory and shame-blame-game, than you can shake a stick at. I felt that NSWATM was past that, and (for the most part) had an atmosphere for sharing and caring, which really meant a lot to me. This place? Not so much. (I’m talking about most of the commenters, not the contributors!)
Well, I do hope it turns out for the best for you. (You won’t miss my whining anyway.) I’ll probably continue posting now and then, but it’ll be very rare with personal information.
First, I loved the NSWATM layout, with the “Latest comments” list on the side, the chronological comments where you don’t have to scan the whole list to see what’s new, the automatic avatars, etc.
The additional to GMP of a ‘latest comments’ list, and the option of reading threads either in nested or chronological form would be great. I dont know how much coding it would need, especially with the archive
Congratulations on joining the Good Men Project! I subscribe to your RSS feed, and now it is only showing brief summaries. Since I read on my phone when I am without internet connection, this merely entices me
Any chance you can can get your feed to show full-stories again?
Thanks.