Hugo Schwyzer wants us to have a good-faith discussion, and points out a place he thinks we could have done better.
The Twitter discussion in response to Tom Matlack’s Being a Dude is a Good Thing has been fascinating. Much of it is archived here, summarized in the unhelpfully titled “The Wrath of the Feminists.”
As a regular writer for Good Men Project (as well as editor of the Sex & Gender section), I’m in the difficult position of disagreeing profoundly with the founder of this site. That’s not new; I disagreed with Tom about his views on feminism before, even before I joined GMP. But this Twitter latest exchange he’s had with some great feminist writers (Jennifer Pozner and Amanda Marcotte) troubled me a great deal.
Even before this discussion, there’s been a lot of writing here (and elsewhere) about a “gender war.” The idea that men are “under attack” by women, feminists in particular, has been repeated uncritically. Even the title “the wrath of the feminists” reinforces the tired old trope of women’s rights activists as humorless harridans attacking well-meaning men. A familiar tack develops: man says something patently offensive, woman pushes back, man throws up his hands and feigns dismay at her “tone”, wondering what he did wrong “this time.”
I joined GMP knowing that it was not an explicitly feminist site. From the start, the writing here has reflected a wide variety of ideological views, some of which border on the reactionary and many on the overtly anti-feminist. That’s fine; I’m genuinely proud of what Tom Matlack and publisher Lisa Hickey have done to foster an open platform for a variety of views about masculinity. That willingness to present so many divergent voices is one of our greatest strengths.
But I don’t think there’s any room for dismissing or belittling one’s interlocutors, which is what I think has been done quite explicitly with the title “The Wrath of the Feminists.” There’s a long tradition in men’s writing of trying to defuse women’s anger. Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men. The goal, intentional or not, seems to be to marginalize anyone who dares take what men say seriously enough to push back against it. You don’t want to be one of those scary feminists, do you?
I’m angry that a serious discussion got framed as “the wrath of the feminists,” a convenient way of absolving Tom of any responsibility for stoking this conflict. Obviously, in this discussion, I’m with Jenn Pozner, Shira Tarrant and Amanda Marcotte, long-time friends and allies in the struggle for gender justice. But even if I weren’t, I’d be frustrated at the way in which their thoughtful criticisms get dismissed as typical feminist overreaction.
We can and should disagree about what makes a “good man.” But I think we all have an obligation to take criticism seriously. One of the most pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. We either run away literally or figuratively, disconnecting with the television, the bottle, the computer screen. But we’re not little boys who will physically lash out in rage when challenged, nor can we be so fearful that we avoid the discussion by mocking those with whom we disagree.
“The Wrath of the Feminists” is a deeply unfair framing of good-faith discussion, and as a writer and editor for GMP, I want to publicly disassociate myself from it.
—
Image: uniraneal / Flickr
It is good to hear that Hugo decided not to show up anymore. I will not miss him at all.
The ‘GMP’ Good Men Project for sure is more trustworthy for most men without Hugo’s pro-feminist articles.
There are plenty of pro-feminist websites, including his own blog.
I do not see any reason, why even websites claiming to consider men and their issues must be filled up with articles about women as victims and men as the bad guys.
I miss Hugo and wish he was still writing for GMP.
There has been less divisiveness and anti-male rhetoric. For those of us who prefer it that way.
This is up to Hugo to decide – he was recently banned from a certain online-publication, but the GMP is open to him. He can submit his articles anytime.
I personally do not miss his articles, which all were solely about how to please women and blaming men for all and everything.
The problem with Hugo is that he wants MRAs to be banned from the GMP, and this is obviously not acceptable for the GMP.
It is good to see that this GMP did not turn out as a one-way only publication serving solely feminism.
You can find plenty of evidence in his articles that are still here. Schwyzer supports and excuses cuckolding, cheating your husband, abuse of male victims by women (or claims that its the victims’ goddamn fault), spouts nonsense like “in rape culture all men are guilty until proven innocent” ad nausea.
To be honest nothing encourages me more to oppose feminism in my country than reading articles like that (that are considered moderate here in America !).
Why is tHugo taken seriously? He’s an attention-seeking troll who is trying to win women over by putting on a front. He does that by pretending to be some knight in shining armour who is here to save all women from all of those evil men. The reality is he’s probably one of the worst men on this planet: he’s a sex-crazed liberal who has taken drugs and used his position as a teacher to bed students who wouldn’t have given him the time of day in any other setting. Hardly the sort of person I would want around my… Read more »
And apparently he has resigned from this forum, to which his writing was ill suited, to go back to writing about and for feminism full-time. This is probably for the best; a forum on men’s issues is not well served by a writer who always goes on and on about women’s problems and complaints.
Why on Earth was he brought here in the first place?
He doesn’t know squat about gender issues. His writings are a rambling mess comprised of grandiose verbosity that lacks any validation. He never uses facts. He only promotes myths. This site will get no where if it keeps on bringing in windbags like Hugo.
This is the exact kind of divisive ad hominem attack that will convince nobody other than those who already agree with you. I disagree with Hugo on a lot of issues, but comments like this force me to side with him. It is an exact example of the type of attack he was criticising in his article. If you think writing people off as “angry” is a good way of dealing with arguments that oppose your position, then fair enough, stridently disagree with the man, but making comments about the way he deals with relationships is hardly persuasive – good… Read more »
“If you think writing people off as “angry” is a good way of dealing with arguments that oppose your position, then fair enough, stridently disagree with the man, but making comments about the way he deals with relationships is hardly persuasive – good job.” Ummm…. I didn’t label Hugo and the women on here as angry, did I? I might have said that about old feminists and insecure women in some of my other comments, but I didn’t say it in the one you’re responding to. Besides, on what basis can you make such a weak argument? Do I need… Read more »
You did not label Hugo angry; (though he admits in the article he was); also, I did not label Hugo angry. Tom labelled a bunch of feminists angry and wrote them off because of it. It was a silly thing to do because it does not amount to constructive criticism, that’s what my comment amounts to. If you agree that calling people angry is an illegitimate form of argumentation, then you agree with Hugo. Next point. “Is it you have one rule for them and another for MRAs who don’t kowtow (sic) to feminists?” No – everybody who passes others… Read more »
ShrillBlog, thank you for this post. I have tried to keep an open mind reading all of the comments here but the ad hominem attacks and namecalling have distracted and detracted from the arguments being presented. It says far more about those who engage in these intellectually deficient modes of argument than it does about those they criticize. To the rest, you’re really damaging your own cause by engaging in this type of behavior. Clearly if you read this site and participate in the discussions you have an interest in the concept of “good men” and what that means. One… Read more »
A voice of reason in a sea of nastiness. Thank you. Hopefully, the comments left on this thread are not representative of good men and women.
“Tom labelled a bunch of feminists angry and wrote them off because of it.”
I see no evidence that he “wrote them off” but there is no disputing that they were angry.
As one of the most recent articles here noted (I think this is an exact quote): “The angry feminist is not a myth.”
Oddly enough, I wrote the article that you have just quoted. I have been ambiguous, please let me clarify, you are of course right to point this out to me. There are two levels. On the first, we object to something because the tone is wrong, and fail to delve into the arguments. This is clearly derailing. This is what Tom has been criticised for doing, and is to what I referred in the quote from my comment that you have given. On the second level is the idea that pointing out when anger is unreasonable or unfair in a… Read more »
Ok — we’ve been talking about this a lot on other threads, and I’d be really interested in figuring this out. Exactly when is anger “unreasonable”? Always? Never? When is “anger” actually just challenging the other person, arguing passionately that your beliefs are are different than their own? If we assume that it is ok for people to have different beliefs — then what exactly is the place where challenging those beliefs turns into anger? Using “angry words” like “wrath” and “hate”? Calling the other person names “you idiot” “you c*nt”? Or something else entirely? I guess what I’m most… Read more »
I want to move towards the idea that it is never unreasonable to express anger, but to direct anger at somebody who appears to have good intentions does always seem unreasonable. I would distinguish that from expressing anger at somebody who is clearly trying to be provocative/insulting, which is usually reasonable. The problem is distinguishing between the naive and the trolls. Separate from this is the condemnation of an outbreak of anger: When I express dismay at being rough-handled by angry feminists – this is a debate about tone, and should not be labelled “derailing” so long as it does… Read more »
Great comment
Lisa, I found something that may help understand the sources of hostility on comment threads, it was in an essay by Rawls, who was very much concerned with reconciling seemingly impossible moral and attitudinal conflicts, the quote is below: “First, the political discussion aims to reach reasonable agreement, and hence so far as possible it should be conducted to serve that aim. We should not readily accuse one another of self- or group-interest, prejudice or bias, and of such deeply entrenched errors as ideological blindness and delusion. Such accusations arouse resentment and hostility, and block the way to reasonable agreement.… Read more »
Anger is unreasonable due to being selfish and out of touch with reality when a highly privileged group is angry over not having even more privilege, and claiming that a oppressed groups are really the ones with the privilege. As I have said here and elsewhere, considering the data, information collected and provided by government agencies, educated white women are the most highly privileged demographic there is, with the possible exception of well educated white men. Hence, feminist anger is unreasonable because western feminists tend to be some of the most highly privileged individuals on the planet, educated white women.… Read more »
I can’t help but feel that tone really is a legitimate topic of discussion, especially with reference to feminist writing, and find it disheartening for this kind of discussion to be written off as: “A familiar tack develops: man says something patently offensive, woman pushes back, man throws up his hands and feigns dismay at her “tone”, wondering what he did wrong “this time.”” I chose to publish an article and received a similar (much smaller-scale) kick-back on campus from our feminist organisation – the thing is, a lot of the time there is no need for such strong language… Read more »
“even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men.”
Oh really?
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/12/08/now-lawyer-and-vawa-defender-lisalyn-r-jacobs-charged-with-assaulting-ben-vonderheide-aka-daddy-justice/
The Norwegian guy who killed 90 or so young liberals was physically assaulted by a feminist for merely disagreeing with her. I think she might have been his brother’s girlfirend. He mentioned it in his publication.
I believe the core of Hugo’s “problem” with TGMP is that it is, in fact, a site devoted to MEN’s issues… and Hugo is always, always, about WOMEN’s issues first and foremost.
The thought that men might discuss something that matters to men, without consulting women, is quite troubling to him. The thought that something might be discussed that does NOT revolve around women is downright alarming.
But unfortunately, that’s kinda the point of this site. Step out of your comfort zone, Hugo, and learn how to wrench your focus away from women’s issues for a change.
I don’t think Hugo gives a damn about women’s issues. He just says the sort of things that the insecure ones are looking for. The guy isn’t happy unless he’s able to fool old feminist nuts and impressionable young chicks into trusting him. He’s a player. Nothing more and nothing less.
The guy would make a great salesman.
the fact that you’re using the words “old feminist nuts” is rather revealing in and of itself. check your ableist, ageist language.
“The Wrath of the Feminists” is a deeply unfair framing of good-faith discussion, and as a writer and editor for GMP, I want to publicly disassociate myself from it. You know for as many times as I’ve had feminists say I was acting “butt hurt” when pointing out the lack of good faith in their arguments I find it almost hypocritical for one to turn around and cry foul when they get a taste of the same. Hugo I’ve crossed paths with you before and the few times I’ve asked you a direct question you either didn’t answer it (which… Read more »
Legitimate criticism isn’t called “man-bashing”, insulting the entire male gender because of the actions of a few is.
There are feminist who don’t have men or woman’s interest in mind and are unfairly attacking men, simply branding oneself a feminist shouldn’t absolve you from criticism.
Here hugo says “One of the most pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. ” Women were angry? So angry women and you were disagreeing with tom and somehow wrath is an inappropriate description? Look hugo you might have trouble arguing with women, I don’t you know why? I tend to see them as equals. But if you are suggesting I can’t tolerate “angry women” I think that is ridiculous. I don’t argue with anyone who is angry. I expect both women and men who i disagree with to… Read more »
I love arguing with angry women.
Where’s Julie? 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hi David! I was at rehearsal where I made dirty jokes and improvised being on a Victorian Steampunk Airship! Totally not angry!
“I made dirty jokes and improvised being on a Victorian Steampunk Airship!”
I hope it’s on YouTube! P^)
I’m quite sure some of it will be! I have the most delightful corset and bustle at the moment! I’ll write up a post about it on my own website. A very good time!
Corsets as well?
Ooh Hope you can breath! I used one once for Am Dram – Charlie’s Aunt. Absolute Hell!
My mind is still boggled at the image of a “Victorian Steampunk Airship”!
Charlie’s Aunt!!! LOVE!
We improvised longform narratives. We just did a Nancy Drew show, set in a school where mystery books come to life. This one is a steampunk serialized piece. 8 shows, one long improvised story set in an alternative US in the late 1800’s. The corset is so so pretty! I play a Duchess (of course).
Boggled squared!
>P^)
If you don’t mind me emailing you, I”ll send you links at some point when the photos are approved.
As with all things electronic I deal with them as inclination and whim decide!
E-myther© away! P^)
…and I do have to wonder what all this has to do with “Serious Discussion is Not “Wrath of Feminists”?
Boggling indeed!
Leta- I’m afraid you have been totally misreading Hugo Schwyzer’s writing. His stance has always, ALWAYS been that it is not that Women Are this way, or Men Are that way, but that it is inaccurate and harmful societal/gender stereotypes and roles that have always told us, erroneously, that we are. It is within, and because of, these gender roles that we criticize each other, name-call, and of course point fingers at All Men for being rapists. Schwyzer has never maintained that men are naturally bad, or naturally rapists. Where does he say that “men are terrible and somehow all… Read more »
“ere, Hugo is not saying that if a woman is criticizing harmful gender roles, and men who act according to them, she must be an angry feminist or a hen-pecking nag. He is saying that women and men are indeed rational beings, and both ought to be seen as such. ” No he is suggesting that the women were angry or were perceived to be angry and saying that men can handle women being angry (because men aren’t weak) so it should be tolerated. Which is why he is objecting to “wrath” as a description. He is saying that women… Read more »
“Schwyzer has never maintained that men are naturally bad, ” No he says men are unnaturally bad and any problem men face is actually the fault of patriarchy which privileges men over women. So his great empathy he has whenever a women is hurt or discriminated against disappears completely whenever ever the victim is male. Men don’t do well in education? couldn’t possibly be gender roles … oh no its because men are lazy even if it is gender roles hurting men women have it worse because its patriarchy so it benefits men over women so who cares? He doesn’t… Read more »
It’s good to see that you know the truth, leta.
It makes me laugh when I see people listening to Hugo’s self-serving drivel.
Hugo does not publicise facts. His opinion is not based on life experience. Everything he says is a bunch of pretentious drivel that is meant to appease old feminist nuts and young chicks who are looking for a daddy figure.
What I’d like to know is why Hugo hasn’t tried to pull of a large-scale scam that’ll make him rich! Probably because he’s neither talented enough nor brave enough to do that.
Elizabeth, I used to believe as you did, that was actually what brought me to the GMP, I read Hugo’s blog for about a year before I began reading this site regularly after he linked to it. Unfortunately, after regularly reading his work (and listening to his lectures that were posted online) I’ve come to the conclusion that either: a) Hugo is openly dishonest about his view of men, or b) that he is somehow blind to his own writings. Contrast the viewpoint (which he claims to espouse) that men and women do not have any fundamental differences with his… Read more »
Mate, I knew the truth about Hugo when I first came across his self-serving drivel. I knew right there and then that he’s just a morally-deprvaed dullard who has just enough smarts to fool old feminist nuts and young chicks who want a daddy figure. The bloke is a lousy debater. I recall Glenn Sacks making an absolute fool out of the dullard back in 2005. He either has a very poor knowledge of history or is very selective in what says. Either way, he is unfit to discuss gender issues. I feel sorry for the people who are silly… Read more »
Elizabeth,
I’m afraid you live in a fantasy world.
Why is anyone taking hugo seriously? He constantly loses arguments his statistics are refuted, he clearly doesn’t have an ethical standing on which to argue since his past behaviour is clearly unethical. All the while claiming men are terrible and somehow all men are somehow to blame which seems to be more about absolving himself of his own bad behaviour than any unique insight. He makes feminists look bad. Seriously he is constantly making feminists look bad why haven’t feminists tried to silence him i don’t know. The only people who agree with him seem to have this almost religious… Read more »
“Some feminists hate men as a group or class.” I know a lot of feminists, I know none of whom this is true. Most of us are married to, dating, or spend a lot of time around men, and we don’t hate them.
The whole point of most of feminism is to transcend this idea that to be feminine is to be one way and to be masculine is to be another. We are all just individuals and we should be allowed to experience our lives beyond the gender lines that were drawn in the dirt by previous generations.
So because those feminists date and marry men or spend a lot of time around them means they don’t hate men? Will you be expanding this to say misogynists? There are many men who feminists would call misogynists and they are also married and dating and spending a lot of time around women. Just because you don’t know them or notice them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And i am not concluding that the feminists you know aren’t haters of men i am just suggesting they might be. “The whole point of most of feminism i” You don’t get to… Read more »
leta, You’re a breathe of fresh air on an otherwise dull site that’s littered with dullards and evil propagandists. If the owners of this site have any brains they’ll make you an editor. Don’t worry about the likes of Shinobi. Her ilk think their intellect and charisma isso high that they can fool people into believing their lies about feminism. They try to achieve this by writing grandiosely verbose fulminations and “manifestos” that are meant to bore and and confuse the viewer into thinking they must be right because they use big words and seem articulate. What they don’t know… Read more »
Shinobi, if the basis of your your argument about heterosexual feminists is to be accepted, leta is 100% accurate. Feminists cannot claim a man is a misogynist (no matter what he says or does that suggest that he is) if he is heterosexual and happens to have ever dated women.
I believe that misandry and misogyny dqn only be established based on what a person says, does, and believes, not whether they are heterosexual or not.
The word “hate” has two meanings. One is the emotion and the other is the political attitude that you see in phrases like “hate group” or “hate crime”. Political hatred is a group action really. It takes a movement or cult or group. At the level of the individual the emotion that goes on is not usualy actual emotional hatred. That’s a real tough emotion to keep going for any length of time. I would say the emotion most closely associated with political hate is contempt. So “feminists [as a group] hate men” means “an individual feminist is likely to… Read more »
Well I am impressed. A couple of my posts have gone into moderation despite being just one-line comments because I used some “taking the word back” approach to a nasty feminist attack. example: I ironically applauded one comment by saying it was a great piece of “mansplaining” again: I just applauded Quiet Riot Girl for being a “gender traitor” (she was doing some great “mansplaining” too!) Now can we add “rape culture” and “male privilege” to the list? I’m definitely going to appropriate “rape culture” because if there’s one group that genuinely has a rape culture it is feminism. eg.… Read more »
The great irony is that I was approving that comment to QRG just as you were claiming we were modding them. Sigh. I have no idea why things wind up in mod, other than use of super rough language (c$nt, b$tch, @a@@hole, $fukc) but so long as they aren’t direct ad hominems I try to approve what I can when I’m online. If I’m not online….well if they wind up in mod, I guess I don’t have any recourse. So, I’m offering you the chance to relax a little. I am not shutting you down. I wouldn’t know who was.… Read more »
So basically I just have to suck up to you?
Alrighty then. 🙂
You’re a very smart woman and … Oh are those shoes new?
Hahahaha! I see I missed a great deal tonight! I may never get any sleep! Yes, I love these boots! So punk rock!
I’m enough of an “ev-psych” to believe that “patriarchy” is co-constructed by both man and women. From a cynical point of view, it can be said to serve female reproductive interests. True, we are poised to move to something else (at least in developed countries.) I see no advantage to using “oppression” or “privilege” discourses. Both genders receive different privileges under patriarchy. Feminism is essentially an interest of educated women who are interested in enhancing their labor market chances. Nothing wrong with that, but I regard the usual feminist analyses as less than objective. Sometimes the maso-moralism proffered by the… Read more »
One man at the top means all the others kicked down.
One man at the top means women get special protection.
here ya go….
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/lets-have-some-fun/
QuietRiot. I’m not sure who Hugo listens to.
QuietRiot. Hugo’s opinions count because he is evolved to a level above the rest of us guys, but still short of the wonderfulness of women. Andrew. You still missed the point. Your interest in the entire system needing to be fixed, mostly by going upstream against physical laws and human nature, is not my point. My point is that it is difficult discussing anything of this nature under what could be called Hugo’s Rules. Which are, agree with women or be wrong, etc. Women, when they complain, criticize, point out men’s badness, are never wrong. Never generalize, never demonize, are… Read more »
Well Richard I’m a woman and Hugo never listens to me. Damn!
As the masterful Oscar Wilde once said: “the only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everyone else, and this is a feeling that I’ve always cultivated.”
Truer crazy words have yet to be heard or spoken.
very good elissa. But Oscar Wilde’s superiority complex was entirely justified…
Ha ha yes indeed and agreed.
What we need is a reliable superiority meter that separates out the effects of personal ego amplification. Would we really be ready for such a device!
Most politicians would be crushed…..
If you do not agree with him, you are out – it does not matter if you are a woman or a man. Hugo wants to be the leader of the club and is angry and deeply offended when people do not agree with him. He is telling the ultimate truth. Only cheerleaders are welcome. Any opinion different from his own one is plainly wrong and not appreciated in his narrow mindset. It’s not only particularly about the MRAs he hates so much. Is it really wrong if you object to his opinion? Regardless if you are a man or… Read more »
@Yohan,
People like Schwyzer and Marcotte know their outrageous falsehoods do not stand up to honest debate. Also, with DavidByron, I’m waiting for the examples of society’s systemic discrimination against women. I think we’ll be waiting a long time.
You’re a gender traitor. 🙂
Andrew D. S. James says: December 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm Did you seriously just ask, “..who is protecting the straight ordinary white man?” There are 519 years of history in the way of me providing you a serious answer to that question. ———– Your reply is very evasive. 519 years ago? What can I buy with this argument in a supermarket as a white male? To be ‘white and male’ means nothing – I am talking about today. There are plenty of people who are ‘white and male’ everywhere, but they own nothing and I wonder where are all… Read more »
This.
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/famous-hillary-clinton-quote/
I agree with stoner’s post there – men’s lives and opinions just don’t seem to be valued as much as women’s when it comes to issues around gender. I have recently been in a discussion on a MRA site which has ‘exposed’ a feminist blog and the private conversations women have there, which basically boil down to wanting to exterminate men from the planet. I am not linking to it because the MRAs give names of the feminists involved and I don’t really approve of ‘outing’ people. But it really is depressing reading. The thing I don’t understand about Hugo… Read more »
Extermination of men has long been a theme in feminist circles. The book “The Society For Cutting Up Men” by Valerie Solanas is one of the most popular feminist texts even decades after it was written. Of course it advocates the extermination of all men. Similarly many feminist utopias feature all men dead or dying or else all women segregated from men somehow. Again the domestic violence movement (one of feminism biggest money makers) is explicitly sex segregationist. Most feminists are not themselves sex segregationist or wanting to kill off all men. However many are, and those who are not… Read more »
“privilege” this is what I found on an online dictionary: : a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office if men are so “privileged”-how come funding for prostate cancer is nowhere near similar to that of breast cancer? http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/ We are sick of what society is telling us, and we aren’t MRA’s…. We are sick of being disposable and unimportant. Vague statement, but look at the fact that more males successfully complete sucicde then females, they work more dangerous… Read more »
Andrew D. S. James says: December 18, 2011 at 9:17 am ….a personal example does not negate systemic forms of oppression. It shows that Men are also victims of harm – but it is personally dealt out; not made a part of our legal or judicial systems or as a fabric of basic governance. There is no government agency trying to take away the rights of White males ——————- I have indeed a problem to understand what you mean with this sentence. – There is no government agency trying to take away the rights of White women either. I could… Read more »
Did you seriously just ask, “..who is protecting the straight ordinary white man?” There are 519 years of history in the way of me providing you a serious answer to that question.
Andrew — the men I know — to borrow a line from Amanda Marcotte — the men I know are trying to figure out how they will make their daughter’s next tuition payment. The men I know are figuring out where to move their entire family now that the bank has foreclosed on their house. The men I know are working 5 part time jobs, because if they only worked 4, they wouldn’t be able to make their child support payments. The men I know are asking me what the f*ck are they supposed to do because they just got… Read more »
Lisa, With respect, I’m not here to make these Men feel good about refusing to see the systemic nature of gender and racial oppression. I’m sorry, I’m not. I have all the sympathy in the world for their personal travails (believe me I do); but their personal struggle does not excuse their denial or refusal to acknowledge that as Men they (and I) occupy a place of privilege. Until we can confront the real third rail of American society (White male privilege) we will never make progress. I’m here to make progress; to help Men become better Men, to continue… Read more »
I’m not saying that the system should not be fixed Andrew. I’m saying that the way you are going about doing that is not the way I am going about doing that.
I think that’s fair. I think our unique perspectives naturally engender a certain form of response to the issues at hand. I’m all for your approach. I’m all for my approach. Together, and with a whole lot of other folks’ approaches, we’ll be alright.
Thank you Lisa for calling out Andrew on his nonsense. He has a bad case of the “blinders” when it comes to feminism and all of it mythical assumptions.
Can you give me an example of this “systematic gender oppression” please? Against women that is. There’s plenty of obvious examples of it against men.
Also: again it is racist to try and link black oppression to feminism ok? It is racist to try and steal the legitimate sympathy feel for a legitimately oppressed minority group to appeal for more power to be given to a powerful majority group like women. Please quit doing that. It is racist.
Make your case honestly, or not at all. Don’t make bogus links to genuinely oppressed people.
David,
It fascinates me that you continue to admonish me for connecting the discourse of race and gender. You are willing to acknowledge that persons of color have been “genuinely oppressed” and yet unable to acknowledge or notice that Women also have been (and continue to be) genuinely oppressed in some ways similar and in some ways dissimilar than persons of color.
I’m going to go ahead and continue to connect the two because they are interwoven and share several intersecting points.
The gender wage gap is a known myth. That is to say a lie put about by feminists. Women are NOT paid less than men for the same work.
You are not talking to an uneducated audience here. People KNOW this stuff.
I’d very much like to point out that individuals may experience wildly varying ranges of what “privilege” is. It would help if we are going to talk about systems that we focus on actual systems, not my pain your pain. Otherwise it becomes a pissing match of who had it worse, rather than, how does the system at hand work for me or against me, for her or against her, and how can we find more collaborative ways of working together to make the system better for everyone.
I agree Julie. The system effects us all. It’s all about collaboration. I completely agree.
So would either of you two feminists like to give an example of how the system favours men over women?
Andrew – your understanding of human history is superficial.
Elissa – teach me.
I’d be happy to. The main point to understand is that the way the English law developed from the Romans up, the main purpose was to control and punish men, not women. Men and not women were targeted by the law and so it is no surprise that today the law still is incredibly biased against men and as a result something like ten times more men are incarcerated than women. In Victorian times the phrase used to refer to this aspect of sexual bias was “femme couvert”. Women were “hidden” from the law. The law saw male misdeeds and… Read more »
You’ve just framed “human history” as a discussion of English laws. Are there no other people and/or nations that have had a role in human history?
““Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men.” I’m going to explain how the violence that is inside feminism, has created most of what feminists call anti-feminism. The egalitarian domestic violence/shelters movement was co-opted by feminists in the 1970s, they used violence and intimidation to take the movement from its founder Erin Pizzy. They used the movement to lie about the domestic violence, they painted it as a gendered problem and set up services that excluded male victims and their children, its no a multi-billion dollar international industry… Read more »
Andrew. You missed the point. When Hugo’s around, there is no valid objection to anything a woman says. By definition, the man is wrong if he disagrees with a woman because a woman is always right in her criticisms of men and The Patriarchy and whatever else is the subject. Objecting is wrong and misogynist and repessive and several other things I could think of if I had another moment.
Richard, I appreciate your response. With respect, I do not believe I have missed the point. The point is that male readers and commentators of this blog (in my experience with it) echo the practice of pointing out personal experiences to demonstrate that they too have suffered abuse – but at the hands of a woman. This personal revelation is used as a way to prove the assertion of the existence of systemic oppression and a “the world is better for Men than Women view” is moot. When an individual suffers individual abuse it is unfortunate. When a gender is… Read more »
Andrew
The gov and society do oppress men to, and alwats have, and male victims of female abuse, are excluded and often punished as part of gov policy. VAWA for example.
Your feminist belief, that all oppression is stereo-typically female, and all privilege is stereo-typically male, is ideological and demonstrably false.
Give me just one example where men have been given rights that women lack in the US.
I’ve seen three examples given on this board in the last 24 hours where women have more rights. But I’m only asking you for one.
donch’ya know….
males have the “privilege” to sign up for selective service….
males had the “right” to be drafted in the Vietnam war even if they thought it was immoral….
alright, women aren’t allowed to walk around with their shirts off and men are….
I do support topfreedom BTW 😉
In NYC they are….
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_bowery.php
“Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men.”
http://tiny.pl/hjm5x
Or how about Lorena Bobbit?
She made a vicious sexual assault on her husband and was praised for it by feminists.
Hugo: Serious Discussion is Not “Wrath of Feminists” ….. I’m with Jenn Pozner, Shira Tarrant and Amanda Marcotte, long-time friends and allies in the struggle for gender justice. But even if I weren’t, I’d be frustrated at the way in which their thoughtful criticisms get dismissed as typical feminist overreaction. ———————– @HUGO OK, so you are with Amanda Marcotte and some others, Pozner (? who is that btw) or whoever all these people might be, but you MUST accept that MANY others using this GMP do NOT agree with you. If you cannot accept that, go back to your own… Read more »
Seriously??? This guy is angry because Lisa chose a funny little title for a twitter conversation? A title that she just copied from a _feminist_ who used that title? Well gosh this guy Hugo must be just SUPER SENSITIVE to causing anyone any sort of offense with his own choice of titles right? Oh by the way, what was the title of Hugo’s last article here? In Rape Culture, All Men Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent Now maybe Hugo didn’t get to chose the title for that piece (it certainly was 100% in line with the text) but he sure… Read more »
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/poor-poor-pitiful-men-the-martyr-complex-of-the-american-husband/
Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband
The picture of this article by Hugo speaks for itself.
I’ve felt recently with a few articles that there was no forward movement or discussion; just chest-and-drum-pounding, & tired attacks on feminism & what it’s done to men. Dudes & “manly” wrestlers don’t inspire me. As you wish, of course, but I say: How very 80s of you. I’m off to find other men who want to be more than their fathers.
Well said!
Thaniel: tired attacks on feminism & what it’s done to men… ———– It is said, this is a platform for MEN to talk about THEIR problems. – If you are tired of attacks on feminism and tired about reading why men are complaining… why are you here? Honestly, what kind of postings do you expect to find here? Most men do not have privileges in their daily life, even if they are ‘white’, many are or were badly treated by women, the majority of homeless people are men, the majority of successful suicide are men, and men are more subject… Read more »
Yohan, You make interesting points but the fact of the matter is that [White] Men have created a system that benefits [White] Men to the detriment of Women and Persons of Color. I see a pattern of discussion on these comment boards: I make the point about something being systemic and then people reply with a personal example to the contrary. I’ll say it again: a personal example does not negate systemic forms of oppression. It shows that Men are also victims of harm – but it is personally dealt out; not made a part of our legal or judicial… Read more »
What benefits?
What benefits have men given to men?
And btw? Quit with the racism. When you attempt to co-opt the legitimate grievances of black people to bolster your own grab for power over men that is racist. You’re trying to steal the sympathy people have for racial victims and use it for your own power. it’s racist. Quit doing it.
This is wrong. The system wasn’t set up by “white” men, it was set up by rich men- Who happened to be white. If it were white men, then my current inability to get a job even AT FREAKING MCDONALD’S wouldn’t exist. Has my white maleness helped me get a job? Nope Has it stopped the gradual draining of my savings as I attempt to keep myself out of debt? Nope. Has it helped me pay for my (third-rate community online) college education? Nope.Eventual debt and enslavement to the banks has. Has it even stopped me from being hassled by… Read more »