Good Men? Really?

The claims to be taking an in-depth look at the men’s rights movement. I don’t think so.  Far from it.  I think it was more like insulting the movement, softening the audience with indirect slurs and then throwing them into a pre-arranged firing squad of those who hate them.

Just imagine that the “good men” project was doing a piece on introducing the Black Civil rights movement back in the 60’s and 70’s. Would they introduce them with this sort of statement:

“It would be easy to write these Black activists off as nuts and not give them a second thought”

Or maybe something like this:

“Once dismissed as the looniest and fringiest of the lunatic fringe, Black civil rights groups have “gone mainstream.”

Or this:i l

imposing their views on our national conversations around race and a host of other social issues.”

Or this

“Black civil rights advocates can be easy to dismiss as crackpot extremists. Perhaps best known for descending like outraged locusts on southern towns… ”

I remember from the days of the civil rights movement that some media did indeed respond to the activists in a similar fashion.  We now see them clearly as bigots. Somehow it is easier to see when framed with race instead of sex.

But, it gets worse. Just as they introduce the Black activists with slurs and offer some writings from Blacks on their civil rights issues the host then says that they want to also offer a counterpoint.  So what do they do?  They ask George Wallace and a KKK member to offer their ideas about Blacks protesting for their civil rights.

Does the host want a fair introduction and an in-depth look?

I don’t think so.

It seems that given the situation what they would really be working towards is creating more chaos. Wanting some real mud-slinging and of course the best way to get that is to soften the target by letting your readers know right off the bat that it would be okay to insult them; likening them to the “lunatic fringe” or “outraged locusts” models for the readers the behaviors that are acceptable.

If the admin can insult them they must be fair game.  In essence the host is saying it is fine to bash these men’s rights guys, they may have a couple of good points but on the whole there is something wrong with them. They are not good men.

Notice also that the male feminists are never disparaged or made fun of in the same way. This also clues in the audience about their expected behavior.  The host is telling you which side can be bashed and which side is really the good guys.

It’s a misnomer to call this site the “good men” site.  No good man would ever do this sort of thing and set up one side as a scapegoat and tar baby as has been done here.  No, this is not the work of mature men, this is more like a middle school boy who is setting up a fight after school and wants to watch two boys beat the crap out of each other and gets the entire student body out there to watch. One of the boys is someone he really didn’t like and wanted to see him hurt and publicly embarrassed so he set it up.

A good man would have given the men’s rights folks a chance to speak their truth without insulting them, without calling in those who openly hate them and without setting them up as patsies to be bashed.  He would have evaluated them based on their ideas and refrained from making personal attacks that were unrelated to those ideas.  He would have clearly responded with his own truth after they had a chance to speak theirs.  This sort of interaction breeds understanding and highlights ideological differences.  The mayhem and chaos from the “good” men site seems more motivated to get more visitors through bloody combat than it does to seek the truth.

Is this the work of a good man?

I find it at least a little ironic that they have chosen to mock the men’s rights movement on the same week that a group of 34 male and female academics and practitioners have revealed a proposal that they have been writing for over a year on the plight of boys and men in the U.S.

This proposal is being sent to President Obama with the hopes of creating a White House Commission on Boys to Men.  The proposal offers page after page showing the hardships and discrimination that boys and men face in the United States today. Much of what the proposal offers can be seen in the statistics and ideas of the men’s rights advocates who have responded on the goodmen site.  Each of the 34 commision members have spent much of their lives working to better the lives of boys and men.

Were any of those 34 asked to contribute?  I don’t think so. Would the  call them locusts or lunatics?  Probably not.  I wonder why?  They are basically saying the same thing as the MRA posters.  Most of them are nationally known, have written books, given workshops or spoken to the media.

I frankly think that the owes the men’s right people an apology.  I’m not holding my breath.  That young man who started the fight after school is in no way mature enough to be able to evaluate his own responsibility.

A good man would.

About Lotta Goo

Lotta Goo is the pro for you! Goo works the business districts across the eastern seaboard, and when it comes to sexual orientation replies "flexible."

View All Posts
  • Harry Snacks

    A White House commission on Boys to Men? That’ll be One Sweet Day. It really will be The End of the Road when that happens.

  • Pingback: Bill Maher: Sarah Palin Is An ‘Unemployed Ego Lunatic’ Like Charlie Sheen | Katy Pundit()

  • Introspectre

    Lady Gyoo, well written piece and I agree. The Good Men Project are misandrist bigots, who don’t have the courage to admit that their supposed commiseration with the MRM, is just a way for them to set us up for their feminist masters. I won’t go near the site, it reaks of surreptitious hypcrisy.

    • Introspectre

      That should be hypocrisy.

  • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

    Don’t know who you are Lady Gyoo-but you’re awesome in my book. Though I don’t want to make this into a tit-for-tat between two camps, like two high schools with competeing football teams; I have to say feels pretty damn good to have this article done by a woman.

    And, you’re right. I suspect and have for a while, that the many downvotes I have been seeing is from the GMP guys coming in here. If I am correct than they just basically come in here to “cross out” what people have posted. Again, like two high school football teams. What’s funny is most from this site have come into those forums to merely speak our minds. The truth is, they come back with snide, snotty remarks which are meant to engender a little ire from the MRA posters. But the MRAs that post at least say something!

    Then again, once it occured to me that that site is decidedly pro-feminist and disparaging to those who are not, I decided never to come back to that site again. And haven’t. I let them know that and have not come back even to check for what the replies may be.

  • Evil Penis

    Well said Lady Gyoo.

    It was obvious from the start that they were trying to do us over. We extended our hand of friendship to them, hoping that we could open some kind of positive dialogue, and they bit it like the evil rabid femdogs that they are.

    On the bright side, I do believe that the vast majority of traffic they have been getting over there is from us, and any right-minded person will be able to discern the difference between charlatans, nutcases and real, honest, decent people who have issues that NEED discussion in the mainstream.

  • Carlos

    I personally think the Good Mangina Project stinks to high hell and don’t plan on visiting it again except to perhaps read an article a two if Paul decides to continue to contribute there. I think the very premise of the site is bull-shit with its Orwellian name. Reminds me of many of the Bush (dubya) era laws like the “Clean Skies Initiative” that were actually about the opposite of what the name claimed.

    “The Good Men Project” as brought to you by “Ms. Magazine.” Sort of like the “Definitive Guide to the Dangers of Open Source Software,” presented by Microsoft or the “Importance of Alternative Energy” a study funded by OPEC.

    Which doesn’t even touch on their obnoxious page refreshes or video/audio ads that they have.

    As well stated in this article, their “introduction to the men’s rights movement” was akin to introducing people to the village idiot or the courts jester. Gee thanks for making us feel welcome. The only real value in that site are the articles written by MRA’s and the comments added there by them. To which I say, we should stop trying to add value to a turd. No matter how much you shine that shit the only thing you’ll succeed in creating is a highly polished turd.

  • Kratch

    Well Said. And thank you for bring to my attention the “coincidental” timing of this “good men’s” look into the MRM with the timing of the Council for boy’s to men** proposal. I never noticed the timing (perhaps because I’m Canadian and we won’t benefit from the proposal directly), but it definitely seems suspicious to me.

    ** the name of the council bothers me somewhat. The female council is for women and girls, so why then is it for boys “to” men. Is it only for boys and their transitioning… and then once they are men they’re on their own? is this council not for men, only the boys on their way to manhood? this may be nothing, but in this day and age, even subtle things like this can mean a big difference in outcome.

    • Bombay

      Yes. I do not like ;’boys “to” men’ either. It suggests that “there are no good men out there” or there is a problem with men/masculinity and not that there are biases and prejudices against men.

    • The Man On The Street

      Indeed. I have stated that exact same thing when I heard of the name. It also reeks of the “showing boys how to become men” meme…

      Hopefully I am completely wrong, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing, if actually followed through, gets hijaked and morphed into yet another bad male/good female policy…


    • Nergal

      I get the sense that the name is a subtle form of “man up” or some such as in the council on changing boys INTO men, or that the council name is misleading and it is not actually a council to study boys OR men, but rather a tribute to the urban R&B group,Boyz II Men.

  • by_the_sword

    I am glad to see one more woman who has compassion for men. Thank you Lady Gyoo.

  • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

    I do have to say this- I came in to that site to give it a chance. Have an open mind about it. But, I visited the page with that article written by Maricotti (that right?). I immediately got sickened when this woman went on and on about the solution to MEN’S problems is “more feminism!”. But what really got me ( I admit) is when she says that MRAs are quick to label women as feminist even when “she does something as traditional as demand men pay for all the dates”.

    Well that in combination with her just previously saying that MRAs are just bitter because they don’t get the amount of sex they think they are entitled to. Basically she says men are not owed anything (ok, true) but women can “demand” that a man pay for the entire date. Or, if they do men should not label them as feminists. I doubt, in fact I am pretty certain that most men don’t label women as that just because a woman wants the man to pay for the date. No, we reserve that label for when after she says that she also says “But this does not mean I owe you anything” possibly followed by how she resents that men ca’nt handle how independent she is.

    And anyone who thinks this is the ranting of an MRA extremist and wants to give the rebuttal of ‘NAFALT”, I had the very same experience Paul had when he dated that winner who….lol….ended up not having enough money to pay for her half of the dinner bill.

    • Kratch

      LOL I loved that story.

  • Keyster

    The whole thing was a set up meant to disparage, demean and dismiss the Men’s Rights Movement, because it doesn’t fit their definition of what a “Good Man” is; that being a man who compliantly submits to feminist socio-economic “corrections” for all the supposed wrongs men have done to women in the past.

    The last straw for me was the post from our cherub little mangina David Futrelle. Where he was allowed to hold up his cherry picked little blurbs from MRA site commenters as examples of how offensive and crazy MRA’s are. “Over at AVfM someone said “women are bitches”, ya see guys, proof right there that they’re all a bunch of woman hating misogynist pigs that must be humiliated and stopped!”.

    Even his own fans are starting to call him out on this disingenuious “technique”.
    And he was once a real journalist, that wrote for real magazines, before they had to replace him with a woman to meet quota! That’s OK though. He can now put his guilt about being male to rest.

  • Nelrond

    As with everybody else who visited that site, I gave it a chance.

    There are many gripes including that annoying auto-refresh. I am new to the movement and I personally like seeing both sides to an argument (that is, if both sides are arguing the point. Not if one is lambasting the other for absolutely nothing).

    The most interesting piece I read was actually in the comments (on an MRM sympathizers article). It said this: “Where is the rest of this article?”

    Turns out, The “Good” Men project likes to edit the pieces they’ve received.

    I think it is important for people to have differing views on important issues. Open discussion can lead to many unanswered issues. But censorship on your opponents issues and stated facts is unwarranted and only leads to more bad blood.

    Anybody tell me why there can’t be a fair and open forum for discussing the issues affecting men?

    Oh wait, we don’t have issues.

    • Factory

      It’s a bait ‘n’ switch tactic that is so common as to be stereotypical, and one that I expected. Actually, I found myself pleasantly surprised they didn’t have ominous music playing and scare pictures for each of the articles. My article was sorta butchered, but then again it had a fairly decidedly anti-feminist slant to it.

      Ah, what the Hell, let’s see what the character limit is here.

      My article:

      It’s hard to decide, when approaching a subject such as this, exactly the best approach to take. Explaining the Mens Movement, in however cursory a manner, involves exploding so many of the cultural myths we live with day to day that it really does involve a bit more than a lone article, or even two. In a way, this plays a bit into my hands for a couple of reasons; I hate quoting statistics (and they’re boring anyway), and I’m not interested in telling you, the reader, what to think.

      What I hope to do is to show you a couple of fresh approaches to certain subjects in a manner that makes you want to do some investigating on your own. If you do that, I’m confident you and I will be ‘teammates’ sooner or later. But enough of that, what’s up with this ‘Mens Movement’, are we all just a bunch of whiny woman-haters with victim complexes, or is there more to it?

      My involvement with the mens movement began over a decade ago, back when Glenn Sacks still had his radio show, before Reddit and almost before Google (unless my drug-addled brain has yet again forgotten to keep time correctly). That should give you an idea of how long this particular fight for recognition has gone on. Almost 15 years, in this incarnation.

      Back in those days, there was a thing we call the ‘Lace Curtain’, which is still in effect but to a much lesser degree, which basically was the media’s unwillingness to take a male-sympathetic view of anything, even to the point of suppressing any male-favourable comments, letters to the editor, etc. Yes, back in those days we actually sent out email alerts whenever someone got a letter to the editor published in their local paper. Men simply getting a mention as somehow being worthy of concern in the media was greeted with celebration, it was so rare.

      We forget these things, and many of the newcomers think this movement is three or four years old, and thus think we make no progress…

      But progress at what, exactly? It’s obvious we exist, and that we’re angry and loud…but what are we on about? Sometimes it’s hard to get the signal through the noise, and the diffuse nature of the Mens Movement makes it even harder. I started a webzine called MenZ Magazine to help with that, and if you’ll bear with me, I aim to help right here, and right now.

      The Issues

      Here are some basic facts:

      Men have no reproductive rights throughout what we would call the Political West. What this means is that men have no right to choose if they are ready for parenthood post conception, even though women have that right (and staunchly defend it, in fact). While the morality of letting men abandon pregnant girlfriends is left in question, the base inequality of the current situation is not. We have a blatant legal double standard based solely on the sex of the person involved. Given our societal navel-gazing in regards to sexism elsewhere, this is a blatant hypocrisy. Either give men the same rights as women, or restrict women’s rights to equal those of men, we don’t care which. But to fail to do so is to admit sexism as official government policy.

      Men also have no parental rights unless conferred on him by the mother. A man’s name cannot go on a Birth Certificate unless the mother consents, or states that this man is the father. In addition, a man has no medical assurance the child is actually his, unless he jeapoardizes his relationship by asking for a paternity test (and in some cases, the mother can refuse him). In relation to all of this is the assignation of paternity common in Family Court (and society), either through lying to the father from the outset, or making him responsible because he dated a single mom for a while. Think men paying for children that aren’t theirs is rare? In California over 2/3rds of child paternity is assigned via “default judgement”, make of that what you will.

      While we’re on the Family Court tack, how about those Child Support tables…? They were based in part on hysteria generated by Lenore Weitzman, who declared after divorce women’s standard of living went down, and mens went up. Her study was never peer reviewed, and her data never examined (and admitted later to have been faulty), but that didn’t stop the government from employing, get this, a guy who owns a child support collection agency to determine what was ‘fair’. The Feds attached a commission to the State for every dollar collected through official channels and VOILA!, they have a huge ‘backdoor’ revenue stream (that’s right, Child Support is used as a revenue stream for each individual State). And they get to look like they’re ‘helping women’ while they destroy whole generations of men.

      To add insult to injury, this is all done under the regime of “No Fault” divorce, which basically means no reason needed, no punishment for wrongdoing. Even in cases where one spouse is decent and hardworking and upstanding, and the other is an alcoholic, cheating gambling addict who takes off with the kids, there can be no assignation of ‘blame’…for some reason. Which in and of itself is no big deal, until you factor in the misandric culture we live in, where accusations of wrongdoing are gendered in the media (when was the last time you heard of a male victim called a ‘man’ instead of ‘victim”worker’ or somesuch? How quick do they throw Gender out there when it’s a “gunman”?), the DV industry and their sexist propaganda that only women are victims, only men perpetrators, the ‘sensitivity training’ all levels of our legal system are indoctrinated with, etc.

      Speaking of the justice system, men have particular concerns there too. First and foremost is the massive spike in incarcerations in the US over the last 30 years or so (Fig 1). Nearly all of those are men, and nearly all of those men are poor, and usually black. While some might see tough on crime, I see a society locking their ‘undesireables’ out of sight. And while there is a tendency for black and white men to be treated differently, the treatment women receive vs. men for the same crime is substantially lighter, far more than racially motivated disparity in fact.

      A lot of those guys are even in jail because they were broke, and couldn’t pay their child support.

      Which brings me to the economy. And jobs. Men are falling WAY behind women in employment, but what seems to never quite reach the surface is that most of the areas in which women dominate are publicly funded, or heavily unionized. Which means Affirmative Action. And of course, Affirmative Action only ever goes one way…

      What this all really boils down to, is the loss of the male half of the ‘gender conversation’ that has been going on for millenia. Actually, the deliberate suppression of. Which brings me to…

      Why Do MRAs Hate Feminism So Much?

      In a nutshell, because nearly every word out of their mouths is a lie. Why do men enjoy such a hated reputation, where men are afraid to help small children for fear of an accusation? Why is the general assumption “if there’s smoke there’s fire”, even when a man is acquitted of rape (and for that matter, why is he not anonymous until conviction too?) never questioned, and indeed championed? Who is promoting the idea of a ‘rape culture’, and that one sex is responsible for the safety of the other? Who has consistently painted all things masculine as evil, toxic, or in need of improvement?

      MRAs reject the very notion that ‘men oppressed women’. It didn’t happen. Ever. Men worked with women, in the roles they were allowed, and men’s roles were no less restrictive than women’s. Indeed, most of the time the men’s roles were far MORE restrictive than women’s. Of course, Patriarchy Theory doesn’t address this simple fact except to blame it on, you guessed it, men.

      But more than that, feminists don’t even live up to their own rhetoric. And the reason for this? They don’t have to.

      Feminism bills itself as a revolution for women, taking on radical new freedoms and exploding the envelope that surrounded women’s lives, hemming them in like so much cattle. Feminists take credit for such things as women’s suffrage (in Canada, non-landed women and non-landed men got the vote on the same day in 1920, after approx 1 million men died in WW1 without having it) without showing any clear connection, and they do so with pride. But should a clearly Feminist organization support a misandric policy, even a national one, suddenly there are millions of different ‘kinds’ of feminism.

      This carpetbagger approach is tenable because Feminism is nothing radical, it isn’t even new thinking. It is simply more of the same Gynocentric thinking we have pursued as a society steadily for thousands of years. Feminism is little more than Government sponsored and enforced Chivalry. There’s nothing ‘equal’ in Feminism, and they have steadily attacked mens priveleges without giving up one iota of their own (and fiercely oppose those who seek parity…like MRAs for instance).

      Feminists have, from the very outset of the Mens Movement (in its current form at least) ridiculed, dismissed, viciously attacked, mischaracterized, and misrepresented the Mens Movement, pretty much in that order. As it stands today, Feminists are castigating us for not wanting to play nice, as if the last 60 years didn’t exist. As if we hadn’t noticed they haven’t changed one damned bit.

      While these people may be adept, like a woman with NPD abusing her husband, at ‘plausible deniability’, we do not live in a court of law, and men see what is happening.

      And men are angry. Very angry.

      What Men Are Doing To Cope.

      In their zeal to avoid talking about the elephant in the room, the multitude of articles written these days about men and boys don’t talk much about the issues I outlined above. Many of these articles still don’t even bother to ask men what they think. Instead, many turn to female ‘experts’. In an age where even articles discussing the state of men refuse to talk about the male viewpoint, or even ask men what they think, what exactly can a man do to get by?

      Well, that seems to depend on your goals and your realistic expectations. These are the major sub-groups:


      Men Going Thier Own Way, or MGTOWs, are one major subgroup of the mens movement. These men are, as the name suggests, essentially dropping out of society as we know it. A good portion of these men are the ones Kay Hymowitz and the like are complaining about a lot…the men playing vids, drinking beer and smoking weed, and not ‘manning up’ as expected.

      For the most part, these men are responding to the lack of reward in our current culture for those who do ‘man up’, coupled with the massive risk involved in playing the game by the rules in place. They have, quite literally, decided that not only women, but society itself is more trouble than it’s worth.

      This is the fastest growing segment of the MRM right now, by my reckoning, followed closely by PUAs.


      Mens Rights Activists (or Advocates) are sort of the generic term for those men concerned primarily with the political/legal aspect of the issues facing men, with a strong concern for the social forces enabling these injustices as a close second. The defining characteristic of an MRA has yet to be found, but it seems to be a concern over enough legal/political issues regarding men overlapping, as opposed to any kind of ideological leaning.

      There are devoutly religious MRAs, and ‘devoutly’ Atheist MRAs. There are black, white, asian, aboriginal, and Indian MRAs. There are straight MRAs, and gay MRAs. And there are male and female MRAs. MRAs have no particular stance on things like abortion, other than men should have the same rights women have. They are neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’, they are not libertarians or traditionalists. They are simply men and women concerned about the legal and social state of men today.

      In fact, MRAs don’t have a catchy name because they didn’t expect to have a movement on their own, they originally believed the Feminist movement would help. And yes, their faces are red about that foolish mistake (myself included).

      PUAs – Pick Up Artists.

      Contrary to popular belief, there is enormous benefit to knowing ‘Game’, whether it’s utilized or not. PUAs are quite simply the practical application of some very astute analysis of female sexual behaviour. These guys are the ones who have decided they will take the counterpart spot to feminism’s “slut culture”, or they want to anyway. And PUAs have the know-how, and the advice, that fathers used to give their sons, back when fathers were allowed in the family.

      It’s a well known fact that people like sex. Men and women both. In fact, as Game theory states, women are FAR more ruled by their libido than men are…men have simply forgotten how to push the right buttons. The effectiveness of this approach, as compared to (Single) Mom’s advice of ‘just be yourself’, can be easily seen nearly anywhere men and women interact.

      In fact, the biggest objection I have seen against Game Theory so far has been that it…um, works too well, and it’s just not fair. Honest to God. At the very least, Game theory provides some protection against the petty manipulations men are subjected to daily. See: Esther Vilar’s “The Manipulated Man”.

      While many women have complained about the presentation and the tone of the facts, sites like Roissy’s Chateau routinely have sheepish women admitting they are exactly as described. And while your mileage may vary, some advice is far better than none, espeically in an age saturated with messages that ’empower’ women’s base desires, denigrate (and demonize) male sexuality, and wreak havoc upon whichever playing field they’re on.

      When Will The Mens Movement Go Away?

      Likely never. This is perhaps the very first time in history that a sex has forced his/her gender role off his/her shoulders. Feminism certainly didn’t do so, in fact only manipulating already existing social biases to be more favourable to women, while leaving their gender role intact as a ‘fallback position’. Men are now literally saying ‘screw you’ to women as a sex, and society in general, and for the first time ever, are dismantling the Chivalric infrastructure. And turning their backs on a crumbling society.

      Men are hardwired to love and idolize women. It’s why we want to protect them and support them. They literally give our lives purpose, generally speaking. They are the center of our families, and they are the comfort at days end. They are the makers of the home, the calm in the storm. Some measure of softness in an often too-hard world.

      Well, rather, they WERE those things.

      Now women are our competitors at work, our opponents in politics (womens issues begat mens issues), our critics in relationships. Women are told to fear us, to hold us in contempt and to feel empowered when their success is greater than the men whose legs have been cut off to enable it. They are inbued with massive self-worth, and told their every accomplishment is worth celebration in this ‘male-dominated’ world (and all evidence to the contrary is ignored). And this leads them to believe all the men she meets, who she has been told her whole life have it even easier than her, are total losers. How else could they have failed to succeed, after all?

      Women feel entitled to take advantage of men these days. There is little social pressure on women who, say, capitalize on men’s loneliness by demanding free drinks as payment for her company, to stop this practice, since it’s seen as ‘normal’. To the men who may not have much money, who simply want to meet a nice woman and don’t know any better, this seems like cruelty. And to that man, it is.

      We live in a society that caters to female hypergamy. We have structured our legal and social systems to accomodate the female desire to be able to ‘upgrade’ at whim with no consequences (for her anyway), and it has devastated Marriage as an institution, and dating in general. We cater to the female desire for power, institute AA type programs, and educational initiatives, all to have them declare men inferior when it becomes apparent we’ve overdone it, by a lot, even though we can’t say it out loud. We live in a society that doesn’t care, at all, about men that are not ‘alpha’. You see it everywhere, the top slice of men doing as well as ever, with the bottom 80% falling off a cliff.

      The Mens Movement started, because no one else was talking about this stuff. The Mens Movement continues, because even after hearing about this stuff, many people are too complacent, or too convinced by opposing beliefs, to do anything about it. As long as men and boys are given the raw end of the deal (usually because society depends on the disposability of men to survive), the Mens Movement will be in existence in some form or other.

      I suppose that if this is a concern, one could always take solace in one simple fact:

      Even after 10 years, and attacking all these major problems and more, and being the LONE voice doing so for most of that time, there is yet to be established a single publicly funded mens rights advocacy agency anywhere. So at least the mens movement won’t likely be surviving on your tax dollar, but will continue to thrive on the volunteer efforts of everyone involved.

      Unlike Feminism.

      Dan Moore
      Editor: MenZ Magazine

  • Roland3337

    “I think the very premise of the site is bull-shit with its Orwellian name.”

    “…this woman went on and on about the solution to MEN’S problems is “more feminism!”…”

    These two statements from the comments reflect what I’ve been thinking about in terms of this supposed GMP: It is nothing more than the Men’s Studies academe 2.0. And most of us know that the field of “Men’s Studies” is doublespeak for “Womyn’s Studies.”

    There is absolutely no difference. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they first appeared, but no more.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      doubleplusgood comerade!

      • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta


  • Gary

    Not to mention Cole Gamble’s support for circumcision in

    If men’s rights doesn’t include the right to their own genitals and their own decision about what to do with them, then we need to start all over again from scratch.

    • hestia

      The recommendation for a masturbation schedule also ties in with your point:

      • Snark

        This might surprise a lot of you, but I don’t actually think everything in that article is that bad.

        Actually, some of it was pretty interesting, though I’d double-check on some of the facts presented.

        The only problem is the slant. Putting a pro-male slant on the same information (and not a slant that suggests parents need to create restrictive masturbation schedules for their children, and that grown women know anything about teenage boys’ sexuality) would be entirely possible.

        O/T: Hestia, I didn’t check my email inbox for a long time. Do you still check yours? LOL!

        • hestia

          The slant was what made me cringe. Novaseeker and several other men in the ‘sphere have raised interesting and compelling points about the potential damage of porn (over)usage in the past that were came across very differently than this article did.

          Yes I do check my email and will be sending you a reply later today hopefully. My ‘real’ email is packed with all sorts of panicked messages about the potential government shutdown and the military paycheck that will not be coming on April 1 if all the ‘what ifs’ make that scenario happen. It seems I’m thought of as the go-to person for disaster prep shopping and frugal recipes. 😉

          • Snark

            Take your time, just wanted to make sure you got the email. It looks like you closed your blog so I wasn’t sure if you still checked it.

          • Falsely Accused Soldier


            OT: A government shutdown doesn’t mean the military won’t be receiving a paycheck.

            This comes from several people I know who were serving during the 1994 government shutdown under Bill Clinton. One who worked at the Pentagon joked about walking past empty government offices on her way to work. The president also has broad authority on what stays open or shut.

            Hope this takes your mind off of it.

          • hestia

            The Army Times published an article stating that military pay would be impacted this time around, hence the panic among many we know. Here’s the article:

            The source is a dubious memo and many ‘ifs’ would have to occur before no pay arrives but try telling that to the people who are emailing me in panic. I would have more success debating over on GMP *snickers*

      • Gary

        The schedule was for reducing the frequency of masturbation. I think I see where you’re going with this. Obviously, if 100 of the penis is cut off in male genital mutilation (has happened, there are even some deaths every year) then the boy/man isn’t going to discover how good it feels to masturbate.

        So, if 100% of the sexually active nerves of the foreskin are cut off will he enjoy it as much? 90%? How much is the prescribed amount to reduce masturbation?

        A whole LOT more people need to know just what the foreskin is

        • hestia

          The decline in pleasure that results from the procedure itself was one thing I had in mind but also the inappropriate amount of control of male sexuality that seems to be advocated on GMP. With the cultural history of circumcision in mind, including the fact that circumcision was seen as a way to curb masturbation and hence control/damage male sexuality, an apologetic piece about making this choice for a baby on a site about “good men” is alarming.

          To have the circ article and then the “masturbation schedule” piece both featured on GMP raises concerns about what the website is promoting as “good men” sexuality. There were also a few other pieces that raised my eyebrows but I cannot recall the titles right now.

          • Snark

            Inappropriate is the right word for it.

            It is entirely inappropriate for them to try to control their sons’ own experimentation with their own bodies.

            It is as if they see their children not as separate human beings worthy of dignity as individuals, but as extensions of themselves, or pets to be trained.

          • hestia

            Perfectly said, Snark!

            It’s also odd that a defense of the circ choice would be considered the territory of “good men” as opposed to a cautionary tale of discussing important parenting decisions before you make the decision to have children with a particular person. No circumcision, homeschooling, and breastfeeding were among the parenting choices I was most passionate about and ones I would have been unwilling to compromise on. So I made sure my husband was on-board before we married just as he did with life choices and parenting ideas that were important to him.

            The entire issue highlighted in Cole’s article could have been prevented had he and his wife discussed parenting before saying “I do”. Why not discourage others from making the same foolish mistake?

          • MasculistMan

            Yet when the children are still inside the womb they are regarded as “parasites” and independent of the mother.

  • Daniel Martínez

    I enjoyed this article. Very good writing.

  • Keyster

    It’s a feminist propoganda campaign, disguised as “pro-men”, meant to indocrinate young men into the feminist arena of thought; that “thy holy woman” is sacrosanct and above any subjective criticism, and that the problem is MEN, if only we could convince them through education, to bow down and comply.

    The goal is to twist and manipulate the opinions, stories and data to be more appealing to unsuspecting younger people.

    “No really, we’re pro men! Because “Good Men” accept feminism and subserviance to women in all forms.” It’s Feminism 3.0…brainwashing the current generation.

    • thehermit

      Yes it is propaganda as Goebbels described it.

      “Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.”

      They’re lying themselves pro-men, but it’s a joke. In reality, they could not be more ignorant at heart.

  • Eoghan

    Its a faux men movement I think.

    I asked Zeta Male if they specifically asked him for a poll, he said that he submitted an article and they came back and told him that they wanted to know what the top ten issues were.

    So I think that they want to learn how to create a fake mens movement, one for men that defer to women, that defers to feminism.

    I believe that Ms. Magazine were involved in the appropriation of the black civil rights movement too.

    I’d like to hear some other opinions on how the mens movement should respond to this.

  • Lisa Hickey

    Thank you for the post Lady Gyoo.

    As publisher of The Good Men Project Magazine, I stand behind my writers and editors. You speak of “indirect slurs” — is that really better than the direct name calling that is going on right here? “Misandrist bigots” is one of the kinder things we’ve been called by people who say they are a part of the MRM.

    I do understand your points. We were framing that particular piece in the context of what is the current sentiment is there. We got many many readers — readers who might otherwise have never read about the issues, or learned about the movement in such depth — to consider the MRM as a whole, to understand the goals, to take the parts they agreed with, and hopefully do something about the issues that are both most important and most solvable. We are actively trying to help with some of the very issues that the Men’s Rights Movement wants to solve. We are doing it in a different way than you are, but it is our belief that allowing multiple points of view around difficult topics is a valid approach.

    I do apologize to those who thought the MRM was being set up as a scapegoat. We wanted to create a platform for their issues to be discussed — but not *only* those issues. If the goal is to shut down the voices of the other side, that’s not going to happen.

    I do also want to say that I appreciated all the people from the Men’s Rights Movement who came to The Good Men Project site and and commented in intelligent and thoughtful manner. I do think a lot of eyes were opened.

    Thank you.

    • Evil Penis

      “We were framing that particular piece in the context of what is the current sentiment is there”

      I’m confused, call me stupid if you wish but I don’t think this sentence makes sense. What was the context and frame you were trying to achieve, if not that the MRM and every single one of us here are weirdos, and that a feminist slant is a better approach?

      • Keyster

        It’s classic feminist double-speak.
        It’s trying to form a statement into intellectually sounding cadence, but with no substance or even clarity. They do this to the point of irreverence without even realizing it; and it passes for brilliance among lesser minds.

    • Snark

      “I do apologize to those who thought the MRM was being set up as a scapegoat.”

      Realised * not thought.

      The trap is sprung, missy. You don’t need to keep pretending now.

      Still, we’ll know to be more careful who we trust in the future.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      The name calling going on here also goes on in TGMP forum. I have seen a few guys from here go to that forum and not make any derogatory remarks and the regulars of the forum make plenty. Not to me, but I only posted there once, and only once.

    • Aharon

      “You speak of “indirect slurs” — is that really better than the direct name calling that is going on right here?”
      — That makes no sense. Read what you wrote. BTW, your authors were being called out in the article. You are whining about us posters making comments.

      “We were framing that particular piece in the context of what is the current sentiment is there.”
      — George Orwell would be proud.

      “I do apologize to those who thought the MRM was being set up as a scapegoat. We wanted to create a platform for their issues to be discussed…”
      — Whose issues to discuss? The radical feminists who hate males?

      “I do think a lot of eyes were opened.”
      — Yes, many eyes were opened. Some of them are looking at the GMP for what it really is about.

    • Gyoo

      Lisa – Thanks for your response. I was disappointed that you didn’t seem to address the main points of this little piece. I didn’t hear a word about why the editor who introduced the men’s rights advocates used such derogatory descriptions including “outraged locusts” and the worst of the “lunatic fringe.” Rather than address the issue and explain or apologize you instead attempted to deflect by claiming that the names being called on this site are somehow comparable or worse then the editors intro. The implication seems to be that since those on this site call names that this excuses the editor’s behaviour. That is ludicrous. The posters here do not run a web site and they have not invited people to write articles. They are not introducing a group of people and are NOT in a position of power as your editor surely is. I hope that you can avoid the deflection and offer comment about his introduction and his use of such nasty name calling.

      Trying to passively excuse your editor’s behavior by pointing to someone else’s is simply bizarre. I am guessing that you know full well that what he did was wrong and hurtful and perhaps your silence is simply to protect him. That would be a step up from simply being unaware.

      In fact the issue here could be framed in terms of bullying: the misuse of power to demean and humiliate someone of lesser power. You are reminding me of the students on the playground who see someone being bullied and what do they do? They turn away and don’t do or say anything. Maybe you can find a different path. Maybe you can tell the editor that what he did was unacceptable and that he needs to publicly apologize. Hey, a good start would be for you to apologize to this group for his behavior.

    • Denis

      My eyes were opened to how little you and GMP care about men and how little you are actually doing to honestly address the issues and help men.

      It’s complete intellectual dishonesty. Why don’t you make it clearer that you are a feminist website, there is no denying it.

      • Poester99

        Sites like this are a “Plan B”.

        Despite the current gynocratic/feminist zeitgeist in the culture at large, the word “feminist” itself has become a bad word in a lot of circles.

        It’s more effective to obfuscate the source while pushing a strong feminist/female supremacist message anyways. It’s a neat trick and one that can be used against them as well.

        The MRM has *indeed* graduated up from annoying gnat to painful hornet.

    • fidelbogen

      “You speak of “indirect slurs” — is that really better than the direct name calling that is going on right here? “

      Pardon me, are you not aware of who ‘hit first’???

      You know very well who did.

      So the shit going on right here is only what you DESERVE.

      Eat it up, and like it!

    • Nergal

      Hello,MRA here. Just wanted to say you people are disingenuous in the extreme.

      You cherry-pick quotes out of context from a couple of guys who are well-known for being extreme and whose stances are routinely disagreed with by us, and a few quotes that could be feminist plants for all we know (Hell, maybe you made the comments yourself, we have no way of knowing) and use that to poison the well against what are very sensible pleas for the same rights and status women have (thanks to male lawmakers and some males in the media,and a general male sentiment of goodwill toward women).

      That is disingenuous and morally corrupt. Most of us wanted to approach you guys in good faith and try to cooperate or at least find some common ground. We extended a hand to you and you slapped it away and spit in our faces. Just like feminists have done time and time again. Then you portray US as being the hostile and confrontational ones when we become angry about the complete lack of respect for our concerns.

      We are getting really,really tired of this little charade.

  • elvis

    Christina hoff summers poses the question in her book “Who stole feminism”?? I will be bold to suggest it was hijacked by the new “Gender-Raunch” type feminism.

    • Eoghan

      She is talking about what she calls gender feminism, which is mainstream feminism.

  • Eoghan

    Here is a fishy comment from the comments section….

    “I am a young man who has been searching, hard and long, for a path like the kind I’m seeing here on this website. Something that’s not the misogyny I saw at The Spearhead, and something that’s not the misandry I see in everyday life, even in the small things like the red incorrect-spelling line underneath the word misandry. As if the concept is so incorrect, so wrong, so completely unthinkable, that it doesn’t even exist.”

    “As for me, this is my first time here at The Good Men Project, and even though it sounds stupid to say, I feel like I’ve finally found a place where being a man doesn’t have to be a choice between a rock, and a hard place. I only hope the rest of the world can learn this too”.

    While I agree that the women bashing on spearhead is going to alienate an lot of potential members and support, this guys whole comment reads funny, staged.

    Its the first one up h ttp://

    • Paul Elam

      Indeed. More on that to come.

      • Eoghan

        Awesome Paul, I look forward to hearing your take on things.

        • Evil Penis

          Can’t wait :)

    • Carlos

      Didn’t see that comment but you’re right, it looks totally contrived to me. Reads like an author an Amazon reviewing their own book.

      • Eoghan

        Yeah exactly, and the sharpest tool they have is trying to stereotype us with the minority of extremists, and even thats a fallacious point.

    • Aharon


      It does read like seed planting. It also reads like a girl wrote it.

      • Eoghan

        Yeah, very cynical, and par for the course over there it seems Aharon.

  • Lisa Hickey

    For the record, nowhere on our site does it say (as suggested by Carlos, and others in comments elsewhere) that “The Good Men Project is brought to you by Ms. Magazine.” They interviewed us. As did many other media outlets, men’s, mainstream and otherwise.

    Here’s a thought — why doesn’t the Men’s Rights Movement — or a Voice for Men, if that is a focal point — interview us? Talk to the author of that post, or any lead writer/editor of the site. Ask us the hard, challenging questions about what we are setting out to do and why. Talk directly to the author of the post that Lady Gyoo references and ask why he worded his intro the way he did? Ask us to spell out what we are doing to try to help change things, and what we believe to be the most important issues that the Men’s Rights Movement is facing.

    We would certainly be open to that.

    • Paul Elam


      Thank you for posting that. Please forgive me as I take every word you say with a grain of salt.

      I am going to write a much more detailed review of recent events next week after finishing some work for our radio program, but I will address this post long enough to say that your idea that anyone related to this site would interview you or your writers is totally offensive.

      It was the was the Good Men Project Magazine who purported to introduce the men’s movement to it’s audience. And rather than doing so by interviewing anyone in the MRM, you sent a senior editor to do a hit piece.

      And in that piece he does what, critique our literature or ideas? No, he took one sound bite from a radio show and spent the rest of his time criticizing none other than commenters on your blog. 300 articles on this site, thousands more on The Spearhead, Men’s News Daily and a plethora of books to look at and you defined us by a handful of angry comments from anonymous people on your site?

      And you think it is in our court to interview you?.

      Does the arrogance in your position even register with you at all?

      • Lisa Hickey

        I was looking for a way to continue the discussion. On your turf, with your questions. But if that’s not what you want to do, understood.

        I will read your review of the events, thanks.

        • Paul Elam

          You just read an article and a comment from me that outlined several of the problems that many people had with your so called introduction to the men’s movement. You said you stood behind it, of course without refuting a single item in the article or my comment. The only thing you did was, just like Henry Balanger, take issue with a comment to the thread.

          You guys must love Futrelle.

          Either way, this is not a way to continue a discussion. It is only a continuation of the charade.

          • Aharon


            Feminists, in their many diverse public disguises, do not tolerate dissension or questioning that challenges their propaganda.

            I know history, and I lost ancestors in the Concentration Camps. I know the threat of Fascism. There are many good reasons why people recognize feminists and Nazis as being of the same threat.

        • Keyster

          Because every anonymous person with an internet connection that comments on The DailyKos, Townhall, The Huffington Post, A Voice for Men, The Spearhead et al…
          …obviously speaks for the few people who control the content of the sites, that truly are “Activists” and not just interlopers of varying degrees who say idiotic things.

          This is Furtrelle’s forte Lisa, you should have known that much before inviting him to contribute an opposing view. One comment by one person does not define a movement. But if that’s all your writers wanted to do, to distort and skew the movement with others, they succeeded.

          Regardless of differing viewpoints, which we can all agree we’ll have, it’s not fair ball.

          • Carlos

            Yeah, I have to admit that seeing Putrelle get a forum to speak at GMP was yet another significant strike against them for me. He’s a rent seeking mangina of the highest order. Absolutely no intellectual honesty whatsoever and he knows it. He’s an entertainer catering to particular demographic. He knows, and panders to, his audience and has no integrity whatsoever.

      • Factory

        A couple people have asked if my article could be run in it’s original form. It might prove an interesting contrast, there were a few edits done for ‘confirmation’ type reasons, but there were also a lot of edits done to change the tone of the article.

        So Paul, interested in running my article here (I can send you an updated version from the one you have)?

        • Paul Elam

          Send away Dan. Happy to run it here. BTW, they did the same thing with my pieces. Heavy hand on the editing.

          • thehermit

            “BTW, they did the same thing with my pieces. Heavy hand on the editing.”

            Without your permission?

    • reficul

      I don’t intend to interview you but there are a few qustions that boggle my mind.

      For one I am extremely curious how did you rationalize and justified to yourself that you can be a CEO of Good Men Media – what skills and knowledge do you have about men that make you dare to manage the project of defining what a “good man” is.

      If you think my comment is inapropriate ad hominem bear in mind I strongly control myself right now not to show my pure disgust with the rationalization of your selfish interests and your ovely inflated ego.

      And another question would you support financially Good Women Media – and support Dick Masterson for the role of CEO?

      • Snark

        On my old blog there was a very popular post dissecting the type of woman who thinks she can tell men ‘how to be men’.

        It’s a whole different ball game to those older socons who say ‘listen up, sonny, lemme tell you what it takes to be a real man.’ It’s pretty funny to hear that coming from a woman, though.

        As one commenter at the time pointed out, it’s like a dog trying to teach a duck how to fly. I thought it was a brilliant analogy then and I still do now.

        • Aharon

          “It’s a whole different ball game to those older socons who say ‘listen up, sonny, lemme tell you what it takes to be a real man.’ It’s pretty funny to hear that coming from a woman, though.”

          Yeah, it always turned me off to especially hear some female who I had no trust or respect for telling me what is right and wrong behavior and thinking. Same goes for manginas.

          When I was about 10, one of my uncles quietly told me never to marry. It was probably the best advice that I ever received in life.

    • Snark


      Your presence here is not appropriate.

    • Aharon

      “Ask us to spell out what we are doing to try to help change things, and what we believe to be the most important issues that the Men’s Rights Movement is facing.”

      The GMP could easily be re-named the good-boy project as sanctified by Ms.-information industry. Those articles on MRAs at the GMP were full of holes, misinformation, and biased agendas. For the most part, the people buying your propaganda are feminists and manginas.

      Feminist shaming tactics are starting to wear thin with men. Are mangina publications the next step to try and continue the charade?

      Fortunately, there is the Internet. Until it becomes controlled and silenced, the Internet is becoming the modern day Gutenberg printing press.

      The ideology pushed forth by GMP flies in the face of the experiences of men and boys in western society. The experiences of males in western societies is reflected upon in the articles published here at AVfM, at The Spearhead, False-Rape Society, Fathers and Families, and many other such sites.

      Men are now MGTOW, ghosting from women, government, and society, and we are now talking with and supporting each other. Each day more men decide not to be disposable fools being providers and protectors.

      Feminism has taught men to seek our freedom from you such as we have never had before. Women are out-dated and costly. Who needs one?

      • Snark

        GMP exists because feminists and their ilk are deeply concerned about the numbers of men dropping out of traditional commitments. As you say, ghosting.

        They are just using honey, rather than vinegar, to try to bait us back.

        But if you were a fly, would you prefer to be trapped in honey? Or vinegar? Or how about neither?

        GMP functions according to the same principles as that awful Hymonitz woman.

        Where have all the good men gone? the eternal question! Prompts a woman to set up a ‘project’ to find or create them.

        Because, you know, men as they are now are BROKEN, they are BAD, and must be made GOOD – where, by ‘good’, what we mean is ‘dedicated to serving women’, and by ‘bad’, we mean ‘valuing themselves as autonomous human beings’.

        Fuck the Good Men Project along with Feministing, The Thinking Housewife and Hank Pellissier. Different heads of the same beast.

        • Aharon


          Well-said. Part of their challenge is that news/information sources, along with everything else is splintering apart and the elites who want to control the national dialogue can no longer do so as they did 30 years ago.

    • Alphabeta Supe


      It doesn’t matter whether your site doesn’t indicate an association with TGMP. Everyone knows it exists. Your attempt at refutation is disingenuous.

      As for interviewing you, while that would be interesting to some, your magazine is not as relevant to an intelligent audience as you think it is. Judging by the comments by supporters of your publication, your readership is more or less made up of the docile herd that believes whatever the loudest voice du jour says to them. Your articles are basically written by muppets dressed up as cowpokes. The people can read their views and opinions on milk cartons.

      It’s obvious you’re fishing for a free plug on Paul’s show. It’s obvious because feminism is being crushed under the weight of its own lies and TGMP is joined with feminism at the hip. Paul might give you a few minutes if you call in during the designated timeslot for feminists, but TGMP should do the right thing and donate funds for the privilege. $500 might cover it.

  • Aharon

    Nice article. Thanks. I’m suspicious that a White House program for boys and men will simply be politically twisted for feminist propaganda.

    I refrained from bashing and attacking the GMP over their stories about MRA only because Paul requested it of us.

    • Carlos

      My understanding is that it’s a proposed White House program that has yet to be endorsed. I don’t doubt for a moment that feminist bigots would try to taint any such effort with their “expertise” on gender issues but, if you look at the people behind the effort, starting w/ none other than Warren Farrel, I think you’ll agree that they’ll have a hard time pushing their agenda with such a passionate and savvy group of people.

      To build on my earlier statement about the very name of GMP putting me off up front, it bears stating that there is a shade of misandry in the name itself — a bigotry of low expectations mixed with the implication of men needing fixing. The “Good Men Project?” As opposed to what? Normal men? Are normal men not good? Smacks of something like a “Generous Jew Project,” or the “Sober Mexican Project.” Do such projects (project implying a problem being solved, worked on or addressed) not imply that many Mexicans are drunks and Jews are cheap? Calling something the “Wet Water Project” would be sort of silly because water is wet, by very definition. I feel like the GMP is being used in a way that is analogous to the “Honest Politician Project.” In such a project the intent, and implication, is clear. Politicians are not honest and they should be. I read the same from GMP. Men are not good and they should be. A roundabout exhortation to “be a real man.”

      • Bombay

        Or the “Don’t Beat Your Wife Project” LOL

      • Evil Penis

        I completely agree, why do we need a ‘project’ to make men good?

        Misandry is not only there by implication but by definition, you can’t make something good that already is. All men are evil, that’s the very clear femclown message, always has been.

      • Aharon

        Hi Carlos,

        You articulated well something that I’ve been pondering about the GMP. The name itself does imply that men are bad as males and need their project to change. Their message is left of center values and feminism.

        My nickname for them is the ‘good boy project’.

      • fidelbogen

        GMP is on a par with “sensitive male”.

  • Captain DaPoet

    Lady Gyoo…

    There are about as many good men as there are good women: VERY FEW INDEED!

    Nor am I inclined to allow either another male or a female to determine for me what A GOOD MAN is. As I reserve the absolute right to define the concept of a GOOD MAN or GOOD WOMAN for myself.

    • Evil Penis


      And everyone else reserves the absolute right to say how many people they define as good.

      If you aren’t inclined to listen to opinions on what is a good man or woman, then why would anybody else be inclined to listen to you telling them how many there are?

      I think there are many, many good men out there; and I talk to them every single day. Shame they are all classed as evil isn’t it?

      • Captain DaPoet

        Evil Penis…

        Every male is a good man is his own eyes but there are only a few males who are actually good men.

        • Evil Penis

          Says who, you?

          What gives you the authority to declare that? How many of them do you know?

          Your hypocrisy astounds me really, read your post back.

          • Captain DaPoet

            The authority to determine what is a good man or women lies with each and every one of us – yes it really is that simple.

            I work with males who consider themselves good and on the outside they appear to be good men.

            However, would a good man take advantage of his coworker by bullying him and falsely accusing him of being gay all the while calling it “male camaraderie” just because he isn’t into clouding his mind with cheap beer? Nor into wasting his valuable free time watching other males express their inner gay man by playing {with their balls}sports?

            I think not!

          • Snark

            This sounds like a personal issue, Cap’n.

          • Eoghan

            Work place bullying?

            Thats a personality disorder. Bullys bully because they have personality disorders and work place bullies come in equal numbers of males and females.

            So your argument is plant, I mean moot.

          • Eoghan

            Above post to Captain DePoets, not Snark!

          • Evil Penis

            This off topic circus is becoming stranger by the second…

            What is your point Captain?

          • Snark

            Cap’n, if you really are being harassed/bullied by someone at work then you should talk to your supervisor or manager. There’s no shame in it.

            But come on, judging all men by one particular cretin? That’s what feminists do.

        • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

          You just contradicted yourself bigtime fella.

          • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

            Captain I mean

          • Evil Penis

            I know 😉

          • Captain DaPoet

            Hardly what I wrote is a universal constant just as those with the highest self esteem are the most incompetent and tend to find themselves sitting in a jail cell. That’s right those incarcerated in prison {CRIMINALS} score the highest on self esteem tests.

          • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

            If you are making an absolute of that, I caution you not to cut yourself with Occam’s Razor.

        • Aharon

          You need to re-read your previous post and this one.

        • Tasha

          God, you’re condescending and transparent

          • Tasha

            urgh there’s so many replies it’s hard to see that my above comment is for Captain Depoet, not Aharon….

          • Eoghan

            Thats just a feminist from the good feminist project paying us a visit, trying to divide.

          • Tasha

            Ahhhh…an ambassador from the fem factory…it’s all suddenly so clear now

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      You have just defined my MGTOW philosophy.

      And better than I have.

      • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

        Know what would have drawn me to that site in a much more positive way?

        The Better Humans Project

        • reficul

          Spot on!

  • Peter Charnley

    “There are many gripes including that annoying auto-refresh.”

    Can anyone explain the practical and/or technical purpose of this feature. It is like being treated as a kid on a fairground ride when the siren goes off indicating ‘pumpkin time’.

    Quite annoying when it happens in the middle of reading anything of substance.

    • Keyster

      And don’t forget the “explode-a-font” once you comment.
      I’d particpate and engage them but their site is too frustrating to use.

    • Carlos

      It’s a very badly implemented way of artificially increasing their site traffic, which is tied to ad revenue. It gives the impression of real page hits after every refresh. One of the problems with it, from an ad revenue standpoint, is they are still not unique hits.

      The least they could do is save the users comments when doing the refresh so that they do not lose them after the refresh.

      It’s a stupid idea, implemented poorly, to try to make money.

  • Stu

    Well I went over and had a look at the GMP site after the first topic appeared on here. Had a read, and came back here and posted that it should be called the Good Mangina Project.

    The only reason I’d suggest staying in touch with what they are up to is because it’s good to know what your enemies are doing. They are feminists. Feminists telling manginas what to do to please them, and be in the lottery for a piece of pussy, maybe, long shot. We should consider them a pack of feminist women, herding a pack of pathetic manginas into training camps. They should get nothing but aggression from us

    • Aharon

      The GMP is indeed the enemy along with their feminist puppet masters.

    • Carlos

      The huge irony though is that men aren’t generally interested in being a mangina and women aren’t generally interested in dating one.

      Although I, now days, thoroughly reject defining or viewing myself in terms of what women are attracted to it’s well worth noting that most women don’t want a mangina anyway.

      This is an aspect of creating “Good Manginas” that the GMP has yet to look at. Women don’t want manginas they want “real men” (though I’m not trying to define what that is there’s some consensus that it’s not a male feminist or woman w/ a penis.)

      Young women in particular are interested in the bad boys.

      It used to be that being a mangina was rare enough that if you were the rare mangina you might find a women to date you because you were an exotic specimen. As feminists and single mothers have created a generation of mangina’s they are now a dime a dozen (and usually creepy to women.)

  • Falsely Accused Soldier

    I don’t know why we even try arguing with these people on obscure parts of the internet.

    Which is why I don’t post on the spearhead anymore(I read the articles) it is an echo chamber.

    What is worse is trying to debate someone on the good men project forum which is like arguing with a wall.

  • Stu

    Feminists talk about “good men” in the same way a dog trainer would talk about a good dog. A good dog is one that has none of the natural tendancies of a dog, has been trained to obey it’s master. The only agression it displays is in protection of it’s master, it won’t even protect itself. And in spite of all this perfected training, they are still seen as……a dog.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      Now THAT was good!!! If I could give you more than one thumbs up I would!

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      In fact you have just described , well-nigh perfectly what white-knights think is the key to female attention (the kind they hope for) and how blunderously wrong they are.

  • elvis

    The truth will multiply; American law enforcement will be told their adventures into ” protocol perversion, manufactured statistics, and semantics games” is against the 14th amendment “equal protection clause” of the US constitution.

  • Adi

    They call us angry. They haven’t seen anything. I know of an easy, non-violent way that we could do a good deal of harm to their efforts. It wouldn’t cost any money and very little time and effort. Still, I’d better not share it but I’m looking forward to the day when I notice that someone else has obviously figured it out and, unlike me, implemented it.
    Some offensive comments are the least of their problems if this nonsense continues.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      I have no interest in harming them-only empowering myself and others if only by example.

    • Eoghan

      They want to set up division, but they are feminism, so they can’t possibly divide us.

      And I think that any good ideas should be shared, Adi.

      • Carlos

        They want to co-opt the movement and manipulate the message. Feminists have pushed so hard that the inequity’s faced by men and boys are so blatantly obvious that denying them is like that Iraqi minister who claimed that Saddam was winning the war as bombs fell all over Baghdad (Baghdad Bob I think he was called.)

        Now that they can’t continue to deny these problems exist they want us to believe that they have always been fighting for these issues and give a damn about them.

        I’m not buying it. An anti-feminist stance is a pre-requisite to being taken seriously on men’s rights. You can’t be taken seriously when claiming to support men’s rights while, simultaneously being an apologist for the damage caused by the feminist hate machine.

  • Keyster

    Lisa Hickey is the President and CEO of “The Good Men Project”.
    It’s her very own for-profit business.
    She’s an expert on what makes a man “good”.

    Her website however is not very good and what she knows about men she’s experienced with smarmy academic/artist types. But the liberal mass media will fawn over her as the story of a “strong, brave and talented woman helping men better understand themselves”. That’s her angle. That’s the spin. All it takes is a phone call and she gets exposure and a bullhorn to spread feminist induced nonsense. “Woman Champions Men’s Cause” Scintillating!

    • Aharon

      That was good!

      • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

        Bet your ass it was

  • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta


  • Stu


    Comon, spit it out. We want to know

  • Bizzman662

    The “Good Mangina Project” is indeed the enemy.

    Go read the comments section of ANY article there.

    Factory and Paul are fighting the war for us over there.

    Get your writing skills in check,

    The more of us that go there and deliver intelligent, cohesive and factual arguments……..the more Feminist bitches are needed to counter us.

    Never forget

    We are in a FUCKING war and those rabid feminist dogs can’t handle any meat…….they just drink the milk that daddy government and pussy ass manginas feed them from the teet of “entitlement”

    Give em meat and they don’t know how to cook it in the kitchen.

  • fmz

    Good Idiot Man Project is a blown out wash out.

    Bunch of GIMPs.

    A gaggle femmy mangina trojans who dont know it.

    Deluded farkers still lying to themselves and any fool still listening.

    They can apologise to themselves.

    They’re trying way too hard to sell a cogent structured agenda stitched together with rhetorical propaganda. YAWN. Not useful to any one with a pair and a backbone.

    Turn them on themselves.

    Use them as an example of all that is farked and to point away from that shiat, toward that which is, ahem, good.

    Actually, forget about all that good/bad crapolla. That’s their loosing game. Instead, rubbish and ridicule it. This, and only this, they understand and respond too. That is the way of femmys and manginas. What the WEAK understand.

    Destroy their propaganda. Turn it back on itself. Get them chasing their tails, biting their bums and eating their infected selves.

    Help them to destroy themselves.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      “Help them to destroy themselves.”


  • Red0660

    Do you really think they will have some sort of Federal council for men and boys??? The male does not matter and everyone knows it. We are just not as important as females and everyone knows this..Not our lives, not safety or wellbeing, not our health, education, rights in the family, rights in general etc etc etc. Males are an underclass.

    Men have no rights what so ever compared to women. Men and boys have no advocacy. The MRM and MRAs are simply pockets of resistance…will it grow into something better…maybe…I hope so. But much of it has to do with what women have done to us all and the family. I will believe men, boys, husbands and fathers matter when people begin to act like it. No one cares and all boys know it.

  • mideonphish

    The ‘Good Men Project’ has gone from a mediocre website that used to have
    some good points to make on the topics of sociology and gender politics to a
    p*** poor website full of bulls**tters, chivalrists, manginas and feminazi prospects.

    I wont be wasting my time visiting it again, besides if Paul has any articles or debates worth reading I dare say he’ll put the transcripts right here on his
    own site anyway.

  • MasculistMan


    Have you ever written your elected officials? Have you ever written email to editors at news agencies? Have you ever stood up to misandrist marketting practices?

    I have.

  • Jacobtk

    They ask George Wallace and a KKK member to offer their ideas about Blacks protesting for their civil rights.

    Does the host want a fair introduction and an in-depth look?

    While I do not agree with the KKK comparison (I just took a feminist to task for doing the same thing), I do think that Tom Matlack did not give the men’s rights movement a fair introduction or an in-depth look. It seems more like the series of articles were an attempt to showcase how “nutty” men’s rights activists are. Granted, some of the comments made by the activists are hostile, sexist, and cruel. Some of the comments made by the activist authors do not help engender any love for the men’s movement. It just seems that was and remains an undo focus on the most hostile voices and comments rather than focusing on the validity of the men’s movement’s arguments or on their more moderate voices.

    I still find it surprising that men like Warren Farrell and Glenn Sacks did not have articles. Perhaps they declined the offer. Perhaps the offer was never made. Sacks took time to refute some of the claims David Futrelle made against him, so I think the situation may be that no one bothered to ask Sacks or Farrell to comment.

    The absence of the most visible leaders in the men’s movement only strengthens my feeling that the “MRA week” was just a thinly veiled attack.

    I find it shameful that men’s rights activists were treated in that way. Regardless of my opinion of them, I do not think they should be treated in such an obviously disrespectful fashion. The odd thing is that I was not the only person to notice it. Several of the people who wrote articles for that week came to the same conclusion I did.

    In a comment on a feminist blog Matlack stated, “Honestly we have been under attack by the MRA for some time now […] and rather than shy away we decided to go right at the problem and try to do what we set out as our mission: spark a rational conversation about what it means to be a good father, son, husband, worker and man for the benefit of men and women alike, not to mention our kids.”

    If that was the mission, they failed terribly at it.

  • Pingback: Good Men Project: Ripping Off Readers and Advertisers « Truthjustice's Blog()