Brent Brookhouse joined an online stay-at-home-dad group for discussion and support, instead found a faction of fathers who railed against the stereotyping of men, while marginalizing and harassing women.
—
I’ve been afforded the tremendous opportunity to stay at home with our now ten-month-old daughter since her birth, thanks to my job as an online sports journalist. This turn as a stay-at-home dad is a drastic change from what I expected as a younger man, but it is an experience I would not give up for anything.
Still, between work and watching a very active baby, I have very little time for adult interaction with anyone aside from my wife. Given that I have no friends with children, I ended up joining a Facebook group for stay-at-home dads (SAHD in shorthand), embracing the opportunity to talk to other men who deal with the same situations as I do on a daily basis.
The group, affiliated with the National At-Home Dad Network*, did initially provide some interesting discussions while seeming to serve as a solid resource for questions and advice. While I didn’t partake in the complaints about spouses the way some did, I understood the value for some in venting in what they considered to be a “safe space.”
Where the group started to lose me was in what I felt was an increasingly negative attitude toward women. Complaints from women about stay-at-home dads or behavior thought undesirable often resulted in calling the woman in question a “bitch,” and there were several bro-tastic sexist jokes that floated around.
Where this strikes me as odd is that sexism and gender stereotyping is at the heart of the mission of the National At-Home Dad Network. If you want to rile up the group, simply find an article that calls into question the masculinity of a SAHD or brings up comments from strangers about “dad being stuck babysitting” or discusses broken or missing changing tables in public men’s rooms. TV commercials or online memes that depicted fathers in anything other than a glowing light stirred up similarly passionate responses.
So why, if bucking gender norms was of such high value in the SAHD community, was the same positive gender valuation not given to women? I bit my tongue for weeks as this behavior seemed to increase. Until the following post popped up:
We have a babysitter come every Friday to help out. She totally caught me looking at her boobs 🙂 #awkward 🙂
The post was accompanied by a photo of the babysitter from behind while she attended to the poster’s son.
The comments quickly filled with questions about how much trouble he’ll be in for sneaking “a picture of her ass” and calls for pictures of her chest so they could “see what he was looking at.” The original poster admitted to trying to get a picture of her “side boob” for the group. After explaining that she gave him “the look” and a half smile when she caught him—“They were hanging out!”—he posted another photo.
This photo showed the babysitter from the front/side as she folded a blanket. She was now in a tank top, as opposed to what appeared to be a three-quarter sleeve sweatshirt in the first photo, and the top of her cleavage was slightly showing. “Now you can see why I was looking at them it’s 41 outside and she’s wearing this,” the photographer explained. Ignoring that it likely was not 41 degrees in his house and the first photo showed her in a sweater.
After another joined in with, “If it’s that cold out, that shirt was chosen for a reason,” I finally voiced my objection.
As I tried to explain how creepy I found taking photos without her consent in an environment where she should expect to be safe and posting them on the internet and the corresponding comments from the group that her tank-top meant she was “asking for it,” I was met with a constant flow of “the weather calls for more clothes than that” or “everyone is just joking around” comments. This is a community of fathers. The idea that a babysitter—a role that many of our daughters are likely to eventually find themselves in as they grow up—is not safe from the leering and consent-less photos being taken by the fathers they are working for is disgusting.
I eventually linked to an article by Soraya Chemaly at Feministe, hoping it would get through to them. Chemaly deftly explained the links between photos without consent and rape culture:
People take pictures of girls and women, without their consent or desire, for public consumption and review, all the time. What does this have to do with conservative rape qualification and women’s reproductive rights?
Well.
To begin with there is privacy. Or lack thereof.
And consent. Or lack thereof.
Then there is volition,
coercion,
bodily autonomy,
actual freedom,
and, yes, elusive-to-females, basic physical security.
This type of thing happens on a smaller scale to girls and women every day. Just a few weeks ago, as my early-teen daughters and I stood outside of our house, a truckload of men driving stopped to hoot. One yelled, “Smile for the camera, ladies!” and snapped a picture as they drove away. But, woo-hoo, it got even better. Behind them, in another car, an older man stopped to scold my children for wearing bathing suits, beach cover-ups, and flip flops for the walk to the car from the front door. “You see! You see what you did? Put some clothes on!” Bundling up in 98 degree weather just didn’t make sense to any of us for what would be no more than a 30-second sprint to the car. Clothing is irrelevant, of course. Even girls in hijab and chador have these experiences.
But the article wasn’t going to get through to men who, quite frankly, just wanted to bro out and claim that, “We’re men. It [sic] genetically programmed into us. Hence the reason they put in the commandment that says we shouldn’t want to bang the wife next door. Either that or the guy who wrote them was a pussy with a hot wife.”
That comment was the culmination of what ramped up to become a microcosm of what I felt had become my biggest issue with the SAHD community. Far too many involved in the community are men who want to embrace “genetic programming” and nonsense “boys will be boys” attitudes toward women while angrily shouting back at the idea of gender roles in parenting. The community should strive to be better than that.
As dads, we should push for women to feel safe. Push for our daughters to not feel that they can’t wear clothing in which they feel comfortable lest they “ask for it” through pictures, looks, or physical action.
And teach our sons, through example, that we are not the worst of our urges.
♦◊♦
A note from the NAHDN:
The National At-Home Dad Network deeply regrets Brent Brookhouse’s experience with one of our affiliated private Facebook groups. He sought out a group to help him be a better dad, husband and man and we let him down. We did not effectively encourage our affiliate to moderate comments so all dads feel safe to express themselves. The comments he endured are grossly counter to the values of the National At-Home Dad Network and we sincerely apologize to Mr. Brookhouse for allowing such a disgusting conversation to take place. It is not who we are. – Al Watts, President, National At-Home Dad Network
Editor’s Note: Our apologies go out to the National At-Home Dad Network, which is a fantastic organization designed to support dads and families, for not reaching out to them before this post went live. Upon receiving critiques on this post, we reached out to them and will include any follow-ups they offer us in this posting and elsewhere on the site, should they choose. – Joanna Schroeder, Executive Editor.
Author’s Note: To be clear, my issue is not with the National Stay At Home Dad Network, they were only mentioned to establish the ‘legitimacy’ of the Facebook group. They are, in fact, a tremendous organization and we have had the opportunity to speak at length and I’m happy to hear that they have a plan for how they intend to address the concerns raised in the article. – Brent Brookhouse
Credit: Image—Jonas Strandell/Flickr
Men have been pigs since the beginning of time, you’re just NOW realizing it?! It’s bad enough they do it at work, now they’re doing it from home! LOL The busiest, hardest working man will always find time to gawk at women; it’s what they do *shrug*. What surprises me more than the gawking and bashing is the fact a stay at home dad needed a babysitter in the first place. What’s the point of staying home to care for your children if you’re going to hire someone else to do it for you while you’re there?! That’s the shame… Read more »
The events described in this situation are disappointing to say the least for more than one reason I was a babysitter and nanny for a number of families when I was between the ages of 15-25. Based on what I’ve seen, heard and experienced, babysitting may not be as safe a job as previously thought. I actually don’ think lusting after the babysitter is actually not all that uncommon. It’s just sad that a man will lust after the woman or teenager hired under his employ to care for the children he had with another woman. What a slap in… Read more »
You are not a stay-at-home-dad. You are a work-at-home-dad. There is a big difference.
There are quite a few of them in the group. I don’t understand it but apparently you can work 5 jobs and still qualify as a SAHD.
There are a few things I feel people here are losing sight of. 1 is that there is tremendous benefit to these SAHDs to be able to speak openly about their concerns, ie to this being a “safe space”. Not everyone learns at the same pace or in the same way. 2. The post was deleted and people were banned. That’s pretty much what was expected of the group when it comes to policing itself. 3. How much damage did Brent do to the legitimate discourse conducted within the group as trust was violated? 4. Was posting what he did… Read more »
My understanding is that the “self-policing” action took place after the article was published. If so, that’s not self-policing, that’s responding to public criticism. And in that case, then yes, publishing the article was necessary. The woman walking into her workplace had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It’s reasonable for her to expect that her employer won’t take pictures of her and post them on the internet. The…gentleman…who passes a picture around to SIX HUNDRED of his closest friends does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He has a reasonable expectation that at least one of the six hundred… Read more »
@ ally “My understanding is that the “self-policing” action took place after the article was published. If so, that’s not self-policing, that’s responding to public criticism. And in that case, then yes, publishing the article was necessary.” Based on 2 things, I would tend to disagree. The only people who know are the guys who took it down. Even Brent admits to not knowing. He left. They seem to indicate that this action was taken independently of this post. I think you give them the benefit of the doubt unless proof pops up. I’m not sure how long the group… Read more »
So I’m going to take one more crack at this and then I’m going to go away because even I’m getting tired of me. You make a valid point that none of us know exactly when the post was taken down, which is why I’m careful to qualify the statement. And maybe I’m not giving them enough benefit of the doubt. But there’s also a reasonable room to question their judgment. Not least of which is the primary moderator commented on this article and confused this inappropriate pic with another inappropriate pic that had been posted! (Which he made clear… Read more »
@ Ally
I’m not getting tired of you, but I’m one of those weird individuals who prefer to speak with people who don’t share the same ideas with me. I think that’s how we challenger our perceptions. Don’t get me wrong. Like I told Brent, I appreciate that he had to make the best call he could and even if Chris wasn’t a co-moderator, if he believed it, he acted on this belief. I wonder if given another opportunity, Brent would have handled it differently.
I know. I would hire a skywriter to say how awesome they’ve been if I thought anyone would care. Shia LeBeof or whatever his name is totally ruined that move. 😉
I wonder how those dads would’ve felt if someone had taken similar pictures of their own daughters…
Exactly.
First and foremost, thank you for this article, Brent. We need more examples of men calling out other men for sexist and misogynist behavior, and you did so perfectly here. The comments on this article are so absurd that it would be comical if it didn’t say so much about men and privilege. Simply put, if you didn’t want to be put on blast for being a creepy misogynist who objectifies and violates their babysitter, then don’t take objectifying pictures of your babysitter’s body, let alone post them on the internet to share with other sexist men. To those who… Read more »
@ Jamie Utt
“To those who want to say, “But it’s not all men!!” Sure, but you don’t get a medal for NOT actively participating in this forum.”
But according to you, you get to be painted with the same brush. Cool beans, I guess I could call every woman a rape apologist then based on some comments to some posts here.
The response by NAHDN has been rapid and admirable. Their commitment to providing a community for SAHDs while still maintaining standards is to be commended. The writer of this article expressed his personal discomfort with pictures that were taken of a woman without her knowledge or consent and the lewd comments that ensued. It’s an opinion. He made it clear it’s an opinion. Opinion is not the same as writing a journalistic piece for the NYT. What some people seem to be missing is that those actions were ILLEGAL. It varies state to state but it generally boils down to… Read more »
So with that in mind have any of the people that are calling for men to “step up” reported this activity to authorities?
For the record, I didn’t call for men to “step up” and I commended NAHDN for their ethical standards in addressing a troubling issue quickly.
I simply asked that the those defending the thread stop making the ridiculous statement that Facebook privacy settings trump Peeping Tom behavior…which is illegal in many states.
The NAHDN is a truly exceptional organization.
My biggest regret, and I’m still so sorry about, was that it seemed like we were saying these actions of a few reflected them.
I’ve always been a huge fan, now I’m an even bigger fan of the NAHDN.
We all know that “affiliate” organization means they don’t have day to day involvement over content. But NAHDN didn’t quibble the semantics. They stepped forward as leaders in their community and addressed what I believe to be legitimate concerns over the behavior of a few. They could’ve shrugged it off as internal affairs of their community but they didn’t. They could have (rightly) justified it as the actions of a few but they didn’t. They could have rolled out all the excuses, justifications and arguments that we’ve seen here but they didn’t. Instead they demonstrated their sense of responsibility and… Read more »
As an organization one of our goals is to connect stay-at-home dads to community. For many stay-at-home dads this is a vital part of their success in that role. Traditionally this has meant connecting to local groups. More recently this has also included connecting to online communities. Mr. Brookhouse went to our site searching for one of those communities. He found a community that he didn’t feel welcome or safe in. We failed in our mission to help Mr. Brookhouse find the community that he desired. There is no question that the post was wrong. There is no question there… Read more »
For the record, I didn’t call for men to “step up” and I commended NAHDN for their ethical standards in addressing a troubling issue quickly.
I never said you did but that is something I saw pop up once or twice in the comments.
I simply asked that the those defending the thread stop making the ridiculous statement that Facebook privacy settings trump Peeping Tom behavior…which is illegal in many states.
And I’m simply asking that those defending Bret’s actions take it all the way through and take serious action. If is illegal then follow through and get charges pressed.
Great comment Ally, You are absolutely spot on, where I am from what transpired was without doubt illegal. Simply deleting the post and banning the member is not enough. The admins/moderators of the FB group should be tracking down the young lady so that she has the opportunity to decide what course of action should occur. If only the time and energy that some and I repeat some members of that group was spent making this right instead of spewing hate, threats, vulgarity and nastiness towards Brent then maybe a positive outcome might ensue but it seems they (a small… Read more »
The writer of this article expressed his opinion and made blanket statements in the process. He also was flat out wrong about his assumptions that the babysitter was not aware of the photos. The guy that made the post and took the pictures came out afterwards telling everyone that she knew and was actually flattered about it. Whether it is illegal in his state or not is irrelevant with that being said. Illegal behavior protected by group privacy rights is also irrelevant. There was nothing illegal about it. Everyone can toss and turn on the issue all they want, but… Read more »
You just don’t get it do you. Stop fixating on the alleged breaking of the man code, the fact he talked about Fight Club, what happened in Vegas didn’t stay there. Can you please send me a picture of your significant other/daughter/sister’s rear end/cleavage. Is it sinking in? The moderators/main contributors obviously contributed to fostering a culture within the group whereby the poster, those who commented and those who have subsequently defended them thought it acceptable to post/behave in that manner. That is a problem. No one doubts that the vast majority of members and postings are anything but on… Read more »
^This.
Matt, I tried to ban you once for calling me names. Somehow you worked your way around that. I’m leaving your comments up for two reasons. First, so people who saw it know that your comments weren’t deleted because you disagreed, but because you called the Executive Editor names. The other reason is to make clear that I saw the thread and what you’re claiming about Brookhouse is wrong on at least two factual aspects. First – the man who took the photo said in the thread that it wasn’t with her consent. Second – Brent did speak with the… Read more »
@ Ally
“What some people seem to be missing is that those actions were ILLEGAL
The internet is huge. Some would say international. I think it’s wrong and yes, creepy, but the legality is dependent on where the picture originated from, where the servers are located, what specific pictures are banned, does a portion of an under garment need to be shown, etc? I’m not saying your wrong, but you’re jumping the gun on this being illegal.
No. I qualified that it varies state to state.
Wow. Checking in on the GMP about once a week is the closest thing I have to an online forum for SAHD, as I try not to let the virtual world distract me from the real world. So I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I can best summarize my opinion of both the article and subsequent discussion as incredibly disappointing. While I do not condone the conduct of the person who posted photos and find that act deplorable, I also believe the GMP must maintain a much higher standard for its content. To discuss a private post,… Read more »
To sum up your thoughts:
It’s wrong for people to sexually harass women, but it’s more wrong to publish the fact that people did it, while not using their names or identifying them in any way?
I disagree.
If you don’t want to be called out for sexually harassing your babysitter, don’t sexually harass your babysitter. It’s super simple.
Bob: Well said. Apparently condemning the original poster isn’t enough, and there can be no other problems with what happened other than the stupid and ill-advised decision to put pictures of her online. What the editors of GMP don’t realize about this situation is the slimy slope created when people are quoted from a private Facebook group without permission. Because even though they didn’t name people specifically, the names tend to come out in the comments and ensuing discussion. But even beyond that, GMP is a site that pretends to have an interest in furthering discussion amongst primarily men, yet… Read more »
Thank you a million for this Files.
For some reason some of the folks around here have decided that in this particular case the ends really do justify the means and it is okay do things that they wouldn’t dare stand for if done to them.
Was taking the picture wrong? Most Certainly.
Was the commentary foul? Most Certainly.
Was it the right thing to do to cal it out? Most Certainly.
So I guess its not two but three wrongs that make a right?
While the information represented it calls to the ethics of everyone involved…including the author if this article. While the topic of conversation is disgusting nod inappropriate in so many levels, I gain an understanding that the information was basically used without knowledge or consent. Also the threats to reveal the conversation again call in to question the true moral compass of Mr. Brookehouse. It my understanding that Facebook has a report button, to report to admins if the content is questionable, you sir didn’t follow the appropriate ordered of reporting…gain I am not condoning the conversation just condemning the way… Read more »
So many genuine bloggers have voiced articulate objections to this article here and I will not repeat it all, only add my voice of support. As offensive as the “babysitter post” was, this article is equally offensive in the facts it leaves out and the shocking lack of journalistic integrity. I am a GMP project fan. I really enjoy the site and have wanted to contribute for a while now. But I am incredibly disappointed to see this posted here. The multiple qualifying statements that follow the article is enough to show how little thought, consideration, and integrity went into… Read more »
One of the problems with writing an expose about what happens in a private group is you can’t label all of the actions as being representative of all of the group without doing more work to identify how many members are in the group and how active they are. You might have a group that has a 1000 members but only a small percentage are truly active. Quite a few are populated with “members” who showed up one time, never came back and never removed themselves from the group. They didn’t pay to join so there is no financial incentive… Read more »
Jack, you’re not wrong about any of this.
But to be clear, the author didn’t generalize the whole group, and neither does the subhead.
The subhead says “faction”. A part of a group.
(faction: small, organized, dissenting group within a larger one, esp. in politics.
“the left-wing faction of the party”)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faction
Joanna: The original subhead did not include the word faction. It was changed after people complained about the inaccuracy. Shall I link to the definition of condescending for you?
I didn’t realize it was changed. My apologies.
I’m stepping into these comments as Executive Editor of The Good Men Project to make something very clear: Nowhere in this post is the particular SAHD group identified or any member identified. It is not until you read the comments here that you learn which dads were involved and which group allowed the non-consensual photograph to stand for the time that it did. But you learn that from the commenters, not the article we published. If anybody has said something they regret in these comments, perhaps calling out another dad by name or even this particular SAHD group, and would… Read more »
You’re wrong and GMP is in the wrong. It’s true you didn’t name the Facebook group. So why, if you’re not going to name that group since that’s where it happened, would you mention the National At-Home Dad Network? It’s not their Facebook group, they had nothing to do with the comments, yet they are inexplicably mentioned and associated with something negative. That is wrong, that’s on you, and that is unacceptable. There is no excuse for it. The GMP published unattributed quotes from a private Facebook group taken without permission from the people who made said comments. That is… Read more »
I included their affiliation because I felt it relevant. This isn’t “Joe’s super cool dad’s group.” It is an affiliate group of a major organization. Both sides acknowledge the “affiliate” portion of things. I spent about 40 minutes on the phone with the National At-Home Dad Network’s president as well as their treasurer today and they are working to establish new rules in this group. I appreciated our conversation and have contributed a statement to an article they’re putting together on the statement. But I do find it odd that they can enact new standards and rules for a group… Read more »
To be clear – we do have documentation that these comments were real.
Does the GMP have a policy for handling off the record conversations? Is anyone who submits a post here granted the privilege to use those rights to record and comment upon conversations where those who are being recorded are unaware their comments might be published online or elsewhere?
Jack, as the Executive Editor, I can say that I have seen the records and confirmed that these statements (and worse, actually) happened.
Joanna,
Are you speaking personally or for GMP when you say you have the records and that worse happened?
Joanna:
While the specific group wasn’t mentioned by name or a link given, the article DID say that it was a Facebook group affiliated with the National At-Home Dad Network (and a link provided). When you follow the link, the “unnamed group” is easily found by clicking the “Groups” tab from the NAHDN’s home page.
I agree with the other Brent’s feelings about the thread in question, but I do feel publishing comments from a private group (when the group is easily found through the first link in the article) is in poor taste and should be apologized for/retracted.
Brent, I have a ton of respect for you and so I really sat with what you’re saying and thought about it. What I landed on is this: A member of that group took a non-consensual photograph of an employee who was in his home, caring for his children. He posted the photo *without her knowledge* to a group of hundreds of men. He admitted to looking at her breasts, and the fact that she (or was it is wife?) caught him doing so. After being told by members (many of them) that they wanted to see more of her,… Read more »
Not a single dad I’ve talked to today about this has shown anything except disgust at what the original poster did with the pictures of the babysitter. It is so wrong in so many ways, and had I been a member of that group I would’ve come down so hard on the person who did it, the sound would still be echoing. And that’s how every other dad I’ve talked to has felt. Universal condemnation. Were there a few jackasses in the group who encouraged it? Yup. And they were booted too. Bad apples removed from an otherwise forward-thinking and… Read more »
You based this post on one single thread. A thread which the owner of the group in question objected to himself. Personally I feel this nothing but a drama-queen over-reaction, or simply an attempt to get your name out there, for the wrong reasons.
Mr. Brookhouse is absolutely right that the conversation he described does not reflect the mission or vision of the National At-Home Dad Network. He is also correct about the hypocrisy he describes. It is completely disingenuous for men to complain about women who treat stay-at-home dads like lazy, incompetent idiots and then salaciously post pictures of an attractive babysitter. It is wrong on so many levels and grossly counter to the values of the National At-Home Dad Network. Overall I think the group has been a positive experience for dads to share and debate all kinds of issues, but that… Read more »
I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut that the “dad blog” sites have some female moles/trolls checking these sites now, gaining some ammunition so as to show their friends how men/dads don’t have their act together.
I had so much to say that I just wrote my thoughts on my own dad blog: http://gofatherhood.com/2014/04/brent-cant-enlightened-time/
I’ll offer an executive summary: Parenting is hard. We need to be supporting each other, not judging each other. I applaud Brent’s apparent level of enlightenment, but suggest that he might learn a bit more about how most private parenting groups, for moms or dads, exist to let members share and trade tips, but also to “vent” as part of growing, supporting and becoming better people.
How does calling your female partner to a group of men online, a “bitch” and making lusty comments about the babysitter make men better people? In case there is any doubt, this is a serious quesiton.
This guy claims the picture was taken with out consent and posted online (which I agree is wrong) However, he then proceeded to take screen shots of the entire conversation and write an article about it without asking for consent.
Posting screen shots of people’s private conversations and then posting them online for everyone to see without permission is also a violation of rights, the same as posting someone pictures. He needs to practice what he preaches.
Lee-Ann Austin: A full time SAHM
actio = reactio.
it’s just a symptom on how far and extreme the discrimination agains men has grown, that it reaches ant outrages every corner and aspect of life, whenever it comes to men. every men is attacked and discriminated in very little space.
actio = reactio.
My husband is active with the National At Home Dad Network and he gets so much out of it. I find it unfortunate that one person wrote an article disparaging the entire group/community and took a lot of things out of context (as commented above by fathers very involved with the National At-Home Dad Network). He’s left other Facebook groups that have objectified women. These Facebook groups are supposed to be a safe forum for people to post and comment. The offending post was removed, as it should have been. But damage has unfairly been done to groups that are… Read more »
It appears we are talking about two different incidents, so my apologies on doubting what you said. An inappropriate post was made before this one, which is what I thought you were referencing. I was aware of that post at the time as other members brought it to my attention (as I wish you would have done in this instance). I deleted the post and banned the poster and updated our rules to include that we would not tolerate lewd pictures at that time, months ago. Apparently, the picture you mention was posted by David above. Accounts from other members… Read more »
I never had any intention of posting the PDF until people began stating that I was either lying or misrepresenting what happened. Everything is entirely fairly and honestly represented up until the point where I made the decision to leave the group. Chris stated he was “in charge” and that if I didn’t like it I should unfollow it. So, to my knowledge, an admin was plenty aware. No one attempted to contact me at any time other than his stating that I should unfollow the post. The idea that things should be ignored because there are issues with the… Read more »
What happened in the group was a single incident that after a day or so resulted in the post being deleted. Yes the rules and guidelines do speak against these things from happening but in a group with over 500 people something get said that shouldn’t. Of all the men in the group maybe 15 participated in the conversation and maybe 10 were saying things they shouldn’t. To take something like this and write about it in the public eye and then to call out the entire National At-Home Dad Network is damaging a large group of men that did… Read more »
Most people who post on SAHD / SAHM groups vent about their partners. It’s a way of blowing of some steam. Grow up dude.
Is part of venting about your partner lusting after the babysitter? And how healthy is it really to call your own partner names infront of men that are online friends? I do believe that there are times to vent. But what exactly is “healthy venting? Is it calling the woman you say you love and is the mother of your children a name and making sexualized comments about the babysitter? Or is it saying to your group of male friends, “it really frustrates when my wife undermines me.” There is a way to “vent” and be respectful of your partner.… Read more »
What exactly don’t I understand about the “Good” in Good Men Project?” If there was even a smidgeon of integrity on this site this would have been removed the moment this cowardly man, this supporter of violence and hatred through his condoning of a “sport” where grown men bloody one another and women are seriously objectified, threatened to slander others. If I were you Brent, I’d back down. Now…
I don’t understand how the entire reputation of the site is somehow called into question when, after publishing literally hundreds of pro-SAHD article, the site ran one opinion piece by one SAHD who had a negative experience with a FB group.
The author has the freedom to write about his experiences. And people who disagree with him have the freedom to write about their objections.
We can be adult enough to not make “I’d back down now” threats.
As for my mixed martial arts writing, there is plenty of it where I have written about how the sport needs to stop objectifying women, and I did many large articles on a sort of “rape culture” in a specific segment of the sport. If you’re interested in reading them I’d be happy to provide links.
I have questions for Brent. “I eventually linked to an article by Soraya Chemaly at Feministe” Does that mean that you endorse everything that feministe posts or Chemaly writes? GMP itself is not without controversy, yet you chose to post here. I sided with GMP on that one, but even if I didn’t, I don’t think I would have left like others did over ONE article. Unless you left your first day, there must have been something that made you feel part of the community. Don’t you feel it’s a mark of privilege to be able to disengage from an… Read more »
I think it’s more important for my daughter that men voice opposition to the kind of behavior talked about here and in the Chemaly article than it is to teach her to just ignore it if you don’t like it. There were things I liked about the community, and that’s why I was around for a while. But there were other things (none as extreme as this one case) that I did have some issue with. This particular thing was a deal breaker for me after other posts, such as a guy calling a woman a “bitch” and saying that… Read more »
“Chris stated he was “in charge” and that if I didn’t like it I should unfollow it.” There’s a difference between leaving your community and being asked to leave by a mod. If Chris was indeed in charge or you believed him to be and he essentially asked you to leave, that makes a substantial difference. It explains a lot about why you decided to post here. You should have been more forth coming. I think people would have been more sympathetic. Social interactions are voluntary or should be (cancelable by either you or them), but not having you a… Read more »