Meet John. He’s a pick-up artist.
—
John has a problem. John wants to pick up women. But there are some things John cannot change; largely, these have to do with his genes.
We’ve heard this story before.
♦◊♦
I was recently introduced by way of a feminist article to a “men’s rights group” called Pick-up Artistry. It’s difficult to not be judgmental going into the article: a “men’s rights group” fighting for “the idea that men’s worth is not tied to female approval” is not something many of us are unfamiliar with.
Short disclaimer: I do not know anything about PUA other than what the author writes. I had never even heard of them until they were brought to my attention here.
However, as I read the article, an image different from the one I was used to was being drawn. I was expecting to hear this diatribe on how men are oppressed and it’s so difficult for us and blah blah blah…when it started to look more like a common feminist argument that I am familiar with: that non-feminists (non-feminist men, in this case) are looking at the world the wrong way, and we can see the problem reflected in their written and spoken syntax.
Jackson Katz gave a TED talk that illustrates how some of these problems lie in how we approach the linguistics of things like race issues (we think black/Hispanic), gender issues (we think women’s issues) and foreign policy issues (we think of the Middle East). In men’s relationships with their partners, Katz takes the same psycholinguistic approach being advocated by the author’s take on PUA—recognizing the passive vs. the active voice when communicating relationship to another being. One of its incarnations you might be familiar with: victim-blaming, or “slut-shaming.”
The author of the PUA article is proposing for men to shift their perceptions of who the active and passive parties are to take power over the things they can change…in order to make themselves more attractive. What the PUA seeks (as interpreted by the author) in the heterosexual dating pool appears to be not manipulation of the feminine party (“3 magical phrases scientists say will make her take her clothes off!”), but, rather, manipulation of the masculine party.
Let me frame this another way. Here are two grammatically correct statements in the English language:
–“Here’s how to get women attracted to you!”
–“Here’s how to make yourself more attractive!”
Can you see the difference? One is something done to women. The other is something the subject does to their self.
Admittedly, having graduated from college recently, I can verify that passive vs. active voice was not a subject schools spent too long clarifying. While we can sometimes recognize the difference, the sociolinguistic applications of each were left nebulous at best. Thanks to Jackson Katz and the feminist writers that inspired his TED talk, we can see the application and how it affects the way men look at not just their partners, but their coworkers, their family and others.
Many of us will look for anything that offers us the opportunity to seize that bottom line. Don’t believe me; look at any magazine on the newsstands. The headlines are designed to grab our attention, and they work for a reason.
|
The PUA article has not gone without criticism. Some of the accusations being leveled at the article are that PUA is doing the masculine equivalent of telling men to go out and get makeovers, not unlike Cosmo or Men’s Health. This is not entirely untrue, but it brings us to another psycholinguistic concern: how advertising can distort the message. To illustrate, let’s look at Playboy.
Playboy magazine once perhaps had the intention of addressing a lack of discussion on (single) men’s issues, including fashion, the economy, romance and literature. It might have encouraged ideas like: “Be conscious of how your clothes define you,” or, “Educate yourself about the world; be that by taking a bike ride down a local street you’ve never explored or going to a different country,” or, “Read a book; here are some suggestions.” Perhaps it succeeded, initially—we’ve all certainly heard the adage, “I read it for the articles.”
But then, as it had every right to do as a for-profit institution, Playboy delivered its audience to advertisers. In the doing of so, it created an illusion of the ideal bachelor (the “playboy,” in fact): “Wear these clothes. Drive these cars. Visit these places. Drink this alcohol. That’s what looks attractive.” Rather than inspire men to be individually better along their own individual paths, Playboy through its advertisements eventually gave its readers something like a painted idol to aspire towards, one which a man could fall short from.
Yes, PUA is walking a fine line with its branding and its tactics, and there may be branches of it that fell or still can fall on the far side of the fence of moral integrity. That’s the risk John runs by joining groups like PUA.
At some point, John asked himself: are men who are worldly, respectful to their looks and their body, knowledgable about food in that they adhere to a tasty and/or healthy diet more “attractive” than those who eat TV dinners, stay at home, and let their body go? Objectively, John could not think of an example where the latter was more attractive; that is perhaps as much a cultural standard as it is an evolutionary one.
So, John begins to take his bicycle out. He explores his local community. He gets a library card and starts reading Yeats, Vonnegut, Oates, Shelley (both of them, because he can’t remember which one he was supposed to read in high school), even some Shakespeare (he won’t admit it, but he used the Sparknotes for King Lear). He finds an old guitar on Craigslist, but has to put it aside for a while because he’s too embarrassed to practice with roommates around. That Christmas, he asks his folks to pitch in for a Rosetta Stone in Italian, because of that girl Rosa he remembered from college. He screws up the recipe for chicken curry the first few times, but eventually gets it pretty down pat (he makes it for the next family gathering—his mother says it’s too spicy, but she said the same thing about his brother’s BBQ wings a year earlier, and they had hardly any taste at all). He finds his job increasingly dissatisfying. He drafts up a new resume.
Yes, John will probably go through a few more heartbreaks. He might get fired from his next job. He might never pick up that guitar again, and I know for certain that he’ll burn dinner at least one more time. He’ll have nights where he’s stressed and where he blows up and where he feels like an utter failure. But he’s changing…slowly, but surely.
John doesn’t know it, yet, and he certainly wouldn’t admit it if you pointed it out to him, but he’s becoming a feminist.
♦◊♦
Many of us—dare I say most of us—don’t think about these sort of things. We don’t come to these conclusions—not by ourselves, anyways. We look as we were taught to look: at that sweet, sweet bottom line, blurring out the costs and expenses piled high above it. The prospect of sex with women we find attractive, that’s what we see; the same way that we see headache relief in medicine or stress relief in alcohol or hunger relief in food. Many of us will look for anything that offers us the fastest opportunity to seize that bottom line. Don’t believe me; look at any magazine on the newsstands. The headlines are designed to grab our attention, and they work for a reason.
So that is where PUA must begin. Perhaps they learned from the ad revolution of the 50s and 60s, where advertisers became aware of the ability to manipulate the emotions of the target audience by addressing a phantom wound, that they must offer the same enticement as Playboy before it: in this case, the sexual gratification of their target audience’s mating pool. It’s a classic bait-and-switch tactic.
Men’s “help” groups aren’t the only place we’re seeing this; it’s the same maneuver in different words being pulled by many yoga studios, many fitness programs—even diet fads are starting to pick up the trend across the country, and it boils down to this: “Want x? Try becoming a healthier person!” CNN’s Don Lemon said effectively the same thing after the Zimmerman case, though he translated the message to address issues specific to a certain group of men. However, take away the racial specifics, and the advice remains the same—and it’s advice we’ve all heard before. Neither Don nor PUA are saying, “Buy x, y and z brand clothes,” or drive certain cars, or drink certain alcohol. The advice is this: respect your image, as reflected not by what clothing you wear, but by how you wear it. Respect your environment. Respect your self. If John—if all men—can learn how to respect themselves first, then they can learn to respect others.
It seems like a tiny shift, yes, just a mere realignment of words at first, but if the result is men who manipulate their selves rather than others, men who take responsibility for their actions, men who catcall less because their wit is Shavian or even Shakespearean—if that is not attractive to not just prospective partners or feminists, but the men and women who may become those men’s friends, their children, their coworkers, then I don’t know what is.
—
Photo: mrbill78636/Flickr
I do scientific research studying domestic violence. When looked at collectively, numerous studies have shown that while both sexes perpetrate violence and abuse, men are perpetrators of DV the majority of the time. However, it appears that female-perpetrated violence may be on the rise. Thus, Kevin’s statement does have “basis in reality,” and any nitpicking over what one or two studies say isn’t going to change that fact.
And while this may be obvious to most, it still bears repeating: while DV is most often perpetrated by men, most men are not perpetrators.
If people do not want to identify as feminists, then leave them not identify as feminists.
I personally find the notion of my current spate of self-improvement being labelled by someone else as “feminism” rather distasteful.
Amen. The notion that feminism “owns” the discussion of gender issues is not only false, it’s revolting.
I’ve often read that labeling “other” people is inherently wrong…….So why is it OK here?
Thanks for writing this, this is a concept I have been thinking about and I have been having difficulty putting into words. I noticed that some people were having trouble with John magically becoming a feminist… I have a suggestion that might help you come up with ways to reduce their reactions to statements like this in the future. Feel free to take it or leave it, “John doesn’t know it, yet, and he certainly wouldn’t admit it if you pointed it out to him, but he’s becoming a feminist. (or a Humanist, Egalitarian, or “Masculinist” the point is, by… Read more »
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, putting into the right words is an incredibly difficult endeavor.
I’ve taken some notes on the commentary should I elaborate or come across someone else making this point in the future, and I agree that something along that addition would be worth adding.
Thank you for your thoughts!
“Making yourself more attractive” still depends on the perceptions of other people. It takes two people for an attraction to take place. Whether or not you are attractive to most women, or any women at all, depends on what those women find attractive. They may be attracted to healthy people, or they may not. I agree with the advice in general, that if you are a healthy, authentic person with an independent sense of self then you are probably more likely to appeal to others as a partner. I wouldn’t bank on it, though. You should seek a good life… Read more »
Hi Kevin Macku
You impress me.
I hope we will see more articles written by you on GMP, and even more important ,that you have time to respond to comments.
You are clever 🙂
Thank you, certainly. This has been one difficult discussion, but certainly a worthwhile one.
“Absolutely, and I encourage you if you haven’t to look at the TED talk. The trouble is that the perpetrators of domestic violence are by an overwhelming majority men, so the argument here is not that we shouldn’t be using feminism—it’s that feminism *is* a men’s issue. We just choose to not always see it as such because of that “fem” in the beginning” The problem is Kevin is that almost every study in the last several decades including the CDC ones prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that most DV is fairly close to even and NOT the… Read more »
“The problem is Kevin is that almost every study in the last several decades including the CDC ones prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that most DV is fairly close to even and NOT the overwhelming majority done by men, and IMHO this is the main reason why we have this issue , even people like yourself who appear to be a moderate feminist still make these blanket statements that have no basis in fact or reality.” Wow. That’s a pretty rough attack. Here’s a few citations then (source: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm): “The studies that find that women abuse men equally… Read more »
Hi Kevin You went to a biased source for your data,. They (pro-feminist sources) attack the CTS when it is not a feminist version of the CTS ie. one that has been tinkered with to give a pro- feminist result (a result that hides the extent of female perpetration). “and does not determine who initiated the violence. [6, 7]” The data on who initiates more often shows that its women that innate more often, see below. “Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the… Read more »
Again, let me restate: I was responding to the attack on my character, that I make unsupported blanket statements. The data may be biased, but this isn’t the place for that fight. My point still stands: the extent to which men initiate violence is irrelevant when held against the fact that there *are* men who initiate violence, and even then, I wasn’t even really addressing *that*. This article, really, is about guys who get angry, or sad, or blame others when they can’t find a prospective partner. Yes, those are the men who are likely going to wind up causing… Read more »
I hope you are not insinuating that anyone who disagrees with your point is going to become a domestic abuser. If that is truly what you think, and I hope it is not, that would be the death-nail of your credibility with me. I think that most of the commenters who responded were not your target audience of men who cannot find a mate – I’m certainly not- but rather people who value logic and reason. Do you have any evidence to support the notion that those men who have difficulty finding partners are likely to become abusers or is… Read more »
I have no idea where you’re making that correlation with your first two paragraphs. That’s not what I’m saying at all.
“This article, really, is about guys who get angry, or sad, or blame others when they can’t find a prospective partner. Yes, **those are the men who are likely going to wind up causing domestic violence** at some point if it goes unchecked, but I am addressing the point that (hopefully) comes well before that.” Reading between the lines I thought I was starting to see the insinuation that people who were negatively commenting on your article were “guys who get angry, or sad, or blame others…” and that therefor they were likely to be abusers. While I do not… Read more »
Yes, I had to go back and look at that statement again myself, and I can now see where you got that interpretation.
I am not saying all guys who do not find partners will become abusers; the men who become abusers can come from that party (amongst others).
Fair enough. I can see that some people in that group of rejected people might lash out.
Kevin: the link you posted to ‘backup’ your claim that men are the overwhelming majority of abusers actually proves my point, that link only objects to the method used to determine the extent of the abuse and the impact of that abuse (and btw, for the record, I disagree with their conclusions) it actually admits that the abuse by women and men are fairly even and symetrical which is why I said what I said, You did make a blanket statement without any basis in reality. How are we supposed to solve this problem when people like yourself are writing… Read more »
So, here’s largely what I’m seeing: Men do not like the term feminist. I was largely unaware of this. I think there’s a (mis)conception that “feminist” is a thing that women are, and men should be not, because it’s largely women fighting for their own advancement in society, perhaps at the behest of men (two people cannot possess the same job opening, and if you’re fighting for the woman, you’re fighting against the man, right?), and men should just back the heck off. I think this is part of what the PUA article was trying to address. Men may not… Read more »
I am not saying men should not be feminists. In the older version of the term, I am both a feminist and a men’s rights supporter, because I think the two are addressing the same problem, from different fronts, and together they might manage to achieve something close to egalitarianism, if they can only stop focusing on anything the other is working on as a loss for their side. To the extent that it means “making up the differences when there are real differences and also being willing to recognize when the differences actually make sense at a deeper level”,… Read more »
To my knowledge, saying feminism is currently organized at all is itself somewhat of a fallacy. I am not aware of any organization that claims sole ownership of all ideas feminist the way that, just for example, the NAACP has for black equality. Now, I could totally be wrong in that regard, and I know there are a number of smaller organizations that do claim to have “a feminist angle.” And perhaps you’re right. Perhaps what I’ve been trying to do with this article is take the term “feminist” back to its old meaning, the one that you supported. Perhaps… Read more »
“those men who pursue self-empowerment without the need for the validation of women…”
What, like the Ancient Greek philosophers Socrates & Diogenes?
Or the French thinker Montaigne, the Dane Kierkegaard or the German Nietzsche?
Or half a dozen medieval religious thinkers? Or the Marxist period of Reich’s thinking?
This is the basic problem with co-opting the word ‘feminist’ in the way you have; the idea of self improvement/empowerment being something worth pursuing for its own sake has been with us for a very long time.
I think this is part of what the PUA article was trying to address. Men may not know it, they certainly won’t admit it, but in the eyes of feminists, those men who pursue self-empowerment without the need for the validation of women…those men become what some would call “allies.” I’m *really* hesitant to use that term because its meaning is far more undecided upon that of “feminist;” it’s easier to say that a man whose interests are congruous to the feminists out there is in fact a feminist. Feminism, and self-proclaimed feminists, has a long history of claiming credit… Read more »
I agree, very intelligent and well-written article. Anyway, I agree with the commenters before me: the use of the word “feminism” kind of confuses me here. I feel like there is so much semantic change going on that eventually we will have to find new words to define these movements. I get the impression that the Good Men Project, and other such conversations, began as a backlash against certain strains of feminism that sought to depict men in negative light–a defense of sorts. Is this not true? So, to say that when a man begins to take care of himself,… Read more »
I think my last paragraph was a little confusing. I meant to say that if a man is only doing those things for the validation of women, that is feminist, in a sense.
But if a man is doing these things for himself, could that be considered masculism?
I think that’s why we have to use “feminism.” It takes our dictionary some time to catch up with words, and it doesn’t help, again, that political groups will abuse the meanings for their own benefit. “So, to say that when a man begins to take care of himself, respect himself, better himself, educate himself, etc.–to define that as becoming a feminist–is almost to make it seem as if he is subjugating himself to feminine control, to make it seem like he is doing all of these things only for the acceptance or validation of women, which doesn’t sound egalitarian… Read more »
So, to say that when a man begins to take care of himself, respect himself, better himself, educate himself, etc.–to define that as becoming a feminist–….
I think that’s a part of the problem right there. Acting as if feminism has some sort of monopoly on such things. Are we to believe that a man cannot possibly do the things you list here without feminism?
Only in the way that the term “fruit” has a monopoly on tomatoes. Again, there’s a connotation (which has been mentioned, above) that comes with the term “feminist” that I was largely unaware of. To me, and I’d wager to many folks in my generation, “feminist” has the same meaning as “egalitarian,” and it means one who falls into a category of certain attitudes and practices. No one goes around and proclaims, “I’m a feminist!” (unless they’re doing so for some kind of political gain); it’s a distinction to us, largely, not a political affiliation. I’m sure John, were he… Read more »
The reason I brought that up is because of the way an attitude that I’ve seen in many a post and heard in many a conversation. The sentiment of, “You’re a feminist. Just admit it.”, “You’re a feminist and don’t even know it.”, “Do you believe in equality? Then you’re a feminist.”, “There is no sound argument against being a feminist.”, “Let me tell you why ‘I’m not a feminist but….’ is wrong.”, etc….. Now if you want to say that folks who engage in such arguments are doing so for political gain (or some other form of brownie points)… Read more »
Good article. Intelligent. I really like the way it focuses on true self-improvement, and points the reader to a positive track toward self actualization. In the end, I think that’s the track we should all be on. There were a few sentences that gave me a little irritation, however. The first is the blanket dismissal of men’s groups that uncover oppression of males in our society. Maybe it’s because I’m getting older (47), but when I was a young man, these groups didn’t seem to be prevalent, if they existed at all. And maybe it’s because I live in the… Read more »
Hear hear, Paul. These were my main objections to the article as well. Very well said!
You have two legitimate points. I was attempting to not criticize in a blanket statement the groups that attempt to uncover male oppression. I think there are places that do so, and do so successfully, GMP being one of them. What I was speaking to was the number of them that poorly execute their mission statement; again, a linguistic concern that at *best* alienates anyone outside of privilege and at worst attracts a male superiority group. In regards to the definition of feminism. I will admit that since about the mid-90s, the definition of feminism has been in serious flux,… Read more »
Paul, I very much agree with what you have said – spot on. Kevin, I think the term feminism can never really represent equality for all. The very word makes it clear that it focuses on females. My definition of “feminism” is the idea that we can achieve equality between the genders by focusing on the problems women face. This, in my mind, is bound to fail. The problems that men cause women are often in turn caused by problems men, themselves face. Domestic violence is a key example. Men who abuse have a high likelihood of having a history… Read more »
But that is the same escape by those who look at “race issues” and think (black/Hispanic) without counting for Asian, Arabic or Indian-American issues, for instance. “So, if we want to prevent domestic violence against women, we need to address the problem of domestic violence against men.” Absolutely, and I encourage you if you haven’t to look at the TED talk. The trouble is that the perpetrators of domestic violence are by an overwhelming majority men, so the argument here is not that we shouldn’t be using feminism—it’s that feminism *is* a men’s issue. We just choose to not always… Read more »
“The perpetrators of domestic violence are by an overwhelming majority men.” This has been debunked. When there is domestic violence by EITHER party, the man is overwhelmingly likely to be the one arrested and taken out. Female domestic violence is usually either not reported or ends up being reported as MALE domestic violence. I’m not saying that there are not violent men out there, but to discount the amount of abuse perpetrated by women in the home (both spousal and child abuse) is buying into a fantasy world that doesn’t exist. And by the way, why is it that when… Read more »
“I’m not saying that there are not violent men out there, but to discount the amount of abuse perpetrated by women in the home (both spousal and child abuse) is buying into a fantasy world that doesn’t exist.” “Until we’re willing to recognize female violence when it exists, we can never have this discussion. You can’t claim something doesn’t exist simply because you refuse to recognize it for what it is.” And that’s where I disagree. We do *not* have to wait for society to step forward and say, “Okay, women commit DV acts too.” before we can look at… Read more »
Yes, but YOU said “The perpetrators of domestic violence are by an overwhelming majority men.” and that is a falsehood.
Depends on the data. I’ve linked some below that says “more than 90 percent of ‘systematic, persistent, and injurious’ violence is perpetrated by men.” Now, yes, you could include or disclude certain categories of violence. You could take that data from a control group.
Either way, I don’t want to get bogged down in percentages. This isn’t about “he did, she did, but mommy they took my toys.” This is about addressing *those* men, whoever they are and however many there are, who are prone to becoming interested in self-improvement.
Kevin, your remarks about “mommy he stole my toy” are classic tools of shaming. They do not make you look like a man taking the highroad, they make you look like someone who is seeking to belittle the concerns of other not by the use of logic by by humiliation tactics. It disappoints me to see a contributor on this page use that sort of tactic.
I do believe that it makes things very, very difficult to address issues like DV which are shown to be more often than not complex and reciprocal when we essentially eliminate a large swath of the cause and effect chain. It’s been proven time and time again that a majority of the “scary” numbers we hear in terms of gender violence and the like are produced via coercive or confirmation-biased processes. But as long as the loud and clear backdrop remains “men are bad; women are good” we honestly can’t begin to do anything more than hopelessly react to violence… Read more »
“But as long as the loud and clear backdrop remains “men are bad; women are good” we honestly can’t begin to do anything more than hopelessly react to violence and abuse instead of proactively engaging in policy and social shift which can actually address the full spectrum of the problematic behavior.” This is why we shouldn’t address the full spectrum. Again, we cannot change everyone, and this article wasn’t designed to do so. It had a specific audience in mind: men who felt they were unattractive. Now, yes, there is advice in there that were everyone to follow, we would… Read more »
I think you missed the main point of my comment Kevin. Family violence is too deeply interwoven to be able to selectively prevent violence against any one group. Think of it as a fully involved house fire. If you put out the fire in one room but ignore the rest of the house the house will still burn to the ground, and with it the room you tried to save. The fact remains, men and women use violence against each other. Males and females experience intimate partner abuse at similar rates, 7 and 8% respectively. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/mlintima-eng.php So long as men… Read more »
So Kevin, How much extra effort would be required to include everyone in messages about domestic violence prevention? Does it really cost anything to change “We must stop domestic violence against women” to “we must stop domestic violence against everyone”. It does not seem like there would be a cost to anyone. I think this resistance to protecting male victims is more of a old school chauvinism dressed up in politically correct clothing. It is all about being the self sacrificing man who wants to protect women. If one believes that women are capable of all the amazing feats that… Read more »
I acknowledged the deeper advice in the article. I’ll quote it again for your benefit. It’s from the penultimate paragraph and I’m adding the sentences prior for a sense of context: “However, take away the racial specifics, and the advice remains the same—and it’s advice we’ve all heard before. Neither Don nor PUA are saying, “Buy x, y and z brand clothes,” or drive certain cars, or drink certain alcohol. The advice is this: respect your image, as reflected not by what clothing you wear, but by how you wear it. Respect your environment. Respect your self.” Now, for the… Read more »
Hello Kevin,
I was a little unclear in my last comment. I understand you are speaking specifically to men in the article. What I intended to say, but was unclear about, was in the greater discussion of domestic violence, aside from this article, is it really necessary to focus the campaign on only female victims. I don’t think it would cost any resources and it would make the campaign more effective. Male victims of domestic abuse are repelled when they are lectured about males abusing females. A wider focus also broadens the support.
Kevin, When you suggest that we should address this in segments, I can’t disagree. However, your list of who/which demographic is missing something telling: no one is telling women that abuse is wrong and working with that segment of the population. I find the whole thing to be a smokescreen in that I critiqued a few points as being very unbalanced in this conversation, and you came back and suggested that 1) it’s too big to address it all together, and 2) that it’s being addressed in smaller pieces. Yet neither is what I was critiquing the statements for, exactly.… Read more »
It all comes down to marketing. Black and white is easy to sell. But reality is complex and it makes for much longer, less catchy slogans.
Thank you for your clarification. I agree that domestic violence goes well beyond women-as-victims, and it’s far too complex an issue to be tackled in a 1600 word article, even assisted by a 20-minute-ish TED talk and another article of roughly 800-1200ish words (to which this is a response, let me remind everyone). I don’t think even a book could fully encapsulate the whole of domestic violence issues. I think that’s why I’m not trying. The point the article, actually, is this statement (” in the greater discussion of domestic violence, aside from this article, is it really necessary to… Read more »
Kevin, I did watch that ted talk. And to be honest it’s the same old story, the only difference this time is that he demonizes a subset of men rather than all men. The most telling aspect of that video is when he figuratively prostrates himself at the feet of the goddesses of feminism. I think perhaps for you, the word feminist may be appropriate. For myself, I refused to be shamed for the actions of others. I am responsible for my own actions and not the actions of others whom I have no responsibility for. I do not buy… Read more »
“For myself, I refused to be shamed for the actions of others. I am responsible for my own actions and not the actions of others whom I have no responsibility for.”
Fascinatingly enough, this is exactly what the author of the PUA article is saying men should do.
I call those men feminists. What you call them is of your own concern.
Your definition of feminism seems to be unendingly flexible.
I’ll help you out a bit by giving you the definition form the OED:
feminism
Pronunciation: /ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Yes. I am not the one saying that this advocacy comes at the behest of men’s rights or to men’s shame.
Scott, I can’t help but wholeheartedly agree with your point of view in your initial post on this article, namely where you addressed the issue of the semantic roadblock that is the word ‘feminism’ in the movement’s direction towards equality. Words pack such a punch to public perception, public persuasion, and so on, thus naturally a word for an equality-driven movement such as ‘feminism’ seems to doomed from the get-go to achieve or, in a lasting way, truly embrace equality in every sense of the word, which I believe the members of ‘feminist’ groups want to achieve and embrace, but… Read more »
My concern with the use of the term “feminism” to mean “egalitarianism” is that at its core, the puts one gender in focus. It would be like asking women to suggest that “masculism” was really about gender equality. I have known a great variety of women who consider themselves feminist, from those who honestly believe that it means equality to those who use the term as a thinly veiled excuse to hate all men, blame ALL of society’s ills on men, and generally convince themselves that they’re superior. That latter group is really no better than the KKK or the… Read more »