Tiny Little Trolls
A Boston Globe article about the Good Men Project founder Tom Matlack and his colleagues led to some tiny little anony-trolls making a bunch of nasty remarks about them. (None of them, it seems, have taken even five seconds to look at Matlack's site.) Here are a few examples:
allrightythen wrote:
The Good Men Project is the wrong name.
The Sensitive Metrosexual Project is more like it.
How about, The Sensitve Whimpy Guy Project.
Don't try and redefine our gender, we're quite happy with it as it was.
Rydal wrote:
When I need advice on masculinity from two metrosexuals who don't know enough to tuck in their shirts they'll be the first to know. I wouldn't hold my breath.I get so tired of hearing this "men need to express their feelings" crap. 90% of it is an excuse for whining. My father grew up in the depression, went to WWII and was pretty much the model of the regular guy. We've never had a problem expressing thoughts, feelings or love as he approaches the end of his life. It doesn't have to be a drama coached by some woman's vision of what is the way we should express ourselves.
Didn't this crap die with Robert Bly?
MACitz2008 wrote:
Why do these wimps need their own magazine?Just send them subscriptions to Good Housekeeping, Woman's Day and Family Circle magazines.....along with Cosmopolitan!
Matlack responded on his site. An excerpt:
The comments started out stupid, but innocuous: "Sex and sports will always be more interesting than 'when do I start calling myself a man?' essays. Oh, and by the way...if you wrote that piece, the answer is: not yet."Another commenter wrote: "A story about a normal man playing in a gay men's softball league? Puleeze!"
Okay--standard homophobic, idiotic comment.
But then they began to piss me off. "I think the editor's name in the picture says it all: Benoit Denizet-Lewis," wrote another. "This is the de-masculinization of the American man. 20 Yeas [sic] ago his name would have been Ben Lewis. I would entitle [sic] the magazine, Men Who Act and Think Like Women. Men are supposed to ignore and repress their feelings...be strong, tough it out, brush it off, and go have a beer. We express emotion through sports. What's going to happen when all these kids with hyphenated names start marrying?"
What small-minded Neanderthals would come up with that? Really--is it some kind of joke? (For the record, twenty years ago, Benoit's name was Benoit Denizet-Lewis.)
We publish everything from far right- to far left-wing men's stories about what it means to be a man in modern America--and that is the response?
I hate registering for newspaper sites, but I was compelled to register on the Globe's to post a response to all the tiny trolls. Here's what I wrote:
I'm a syndicated columnist who met Tom Matlack when we were on the same panel at LA Times Festival of Books. And actually, my book happens to be rather topical in this particular comments forum, as it's titled "I SEE RUDE PEOPLE."Tom Matlack is a humble guy and a really good man who's trying to do some good for boys and men. At LA Times Festival of Books, he laid bare before a big audience how he'd cheated on his wife and ended up in a church parking lot and nearly lost everything that mattered to him. That's a real man -- a guy who stands up before an audience, not just to spill all for spilling's sake, but because he wants to talk about the realities of being a man and how to be a better man.
Those of you attacking him here, when most of you probably haven't the slightest notion of what he's trying to do, what is it that motivates you? Had a bad day? Thought you'd use a virtual punching bag because it takes less effort than walking down and socking the one in the basement? People you attack on the Internet are real people with real feelings.
And most of you, those of you who are so brazen here...surely you wouldn't dream of walking up to Matlack -- or anybody -- in the grocery store and voicing your comments to him. Nor do you make your nasty little jabs in your own real name. (Note that I comment in my own real name -- it keeps me from saying something on the Internet I wouldn't say to somebody's face.)
You want something manly to rail against, rail against the way men are victims of paternity fraud and get a raw deal in custody battles all too often. Then again, no, don't just rail. Do something about it -- do what Tom Matlack is doing...taking an issue he cares about and getting a conversation going, and getting people to take action to be better men.
-Amy Alkon, nationally syndicated advice columnist; blogger at AdviceGoddess.com; author, "I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society" (McGraw-Hill, 2010)
In the attacks on me, there was one afternoon that one anonoweenie sat at her computer leaving nasty remarks along the lines of "Why doesn't that awful Amy Alkon do something worthwhile like mentoring a kid?"
That comment was posted right as I was speaking to a class of 30 or so inner-city high school kids as part of a volunteer speaker program I created called "WIT: What It Takes," to demystify "making it." (And by "making it," I don't mean becoming a movie star or a model or basketball player, but becoming something realistic -- something like me: a middle-class person who, through hard work, has a job she likes and a modest but really nice life.)
Usually, anon + internet = jerks. If you're taking flak you might just be over the target. Personally I'm skeptical on that site after having read that huffpo piece on men and porn, mostly on political grounds or taking that Guyland book seriously. I really don't need more "how to be a good man" type stuff from a liberal leaning site. Thats bad enough from conservative type sites.
Sio at August 14, 2010 12:34 AM
Amy thanks again for your kind words and for having my back.
To Sio I'd ask you to take another look, we are hardly Liberal leaning (my column next Monday is about violence and isn't necessarily against it). On Guyland, I found that book pretty cynical on the nature of men and boys. I think we all are better than that, no matter what shape, size, or party.
Tom Matlack at August 14, 2010 4:16 AM
One thing I've noticed among many dialogues relating to men and masculinity is that it all too commonly focuses on how this affects women. I recently watched a movie from a few years back called 'Tough Guise' as part of a gender course, and it really jumped out at me.
I think perhaps Matlack/GMP is at least less guilty of this than a lot of other, similar projects/orgs/writers are, and that means that he's actually able to reach a male audience. Generally, I think that the focus on women and how men impact them is a big turn-off for guys who otherwise might be open to the message. It's important not to alienate the audience you're trying to reach by focusing solely or even primarily on how they impact people outside of their group!
mdh at August 14, 2010 4:28 AM
The Good Men Project magazine is a meeting place for all good men - and women. It's broad spectrum of audience and authorship is what appeals to me as a contributing writer (www.goodmenproject.com "Believing in Boys" column). Women's magazines have always provided me with answers to questions I couldn't find the voice to ask - GMP does that for me on the topic of men, a gender of humans I've loved all my life. With each read, I learn something new.
suzannero at August 14, 2010 4:54 AM
MDH is right. Most of the commentary and analysis in this area starts from the assumption that men are intrinsically flawed and should aspire to be women. It also promotes the view that the sins of any one man redound to all men, and so all men should be perpetually contrite. It's a very self abasing movement. That's likely what the BG commenters are reacting to - TGMP is covered in relation to several other, more uxorious, efforts.
Pauly at August 14, 2010 5:55 AM
men are intrinsically flawed
We're all intrinsically flawed because we're human. The latest Albert Ellis, who founded cognitive behavioral therapy, talked about that all the time.
And you don't have to agree with everything on the site, but there's a level of civilized disagreement possible that just wasn't present on the Globe's site.
Tom asked me about porn, for example, for a piece he was posting to discuss porn usage by men:
http://goodmenproject.com/2010/07/01/getting-off/
Here's what I told him:
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2010 6:33 AM
Here's another post on the porn piece:
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2010 6:35 AM
This thread reminds me of the 1994 book "American Manhood: Transformations In Masculinity From The Revolution To The Modern Era" by E. Anthony Rotundo. In it, IIRC, he said that in the 19th century, upper-class men and some middle-class men, who didn't have to make a living with their physical strength, did all sorts of things (ballroom dancing, poetry, painting, writing emotional letters to male friends) and were not accused of being gay, mainly because back then, gay men weren't supposed to exist! (Or, at least, many adults had never even heard of homosexuality.) That would explain, in a way, the appeal of men like Fred Astaire and Leslie Howard as late as the 1930s. (My well-educated, baby-boomer mother could never understand the appeal of either man - they were just feminine to her. She did, however, like Gene Kelly.)
So, ironically, as gay men of all stripes become more free to be visible, straight men tend to balk more and more at anything "feminine."
I suspect this is ONE reason so many boys aren't doing well in school. That is, back in the 1950s, maybe, boys didn't mind being surrounded by smart girls in class and having to compete with them, academically, since they sensed/observed that as they got older, girls would either start playing dumb to attract boys and/or not pursue any education after college - if that. Nowadays, however, boys know they are NOT going to get to rule the roost of academia unless want to become physicists, surgeons, engineers, etc. So, many of them think: "Why should I compete with girls who actually play to win, when I might lose?"
Katha Pollitt, BTW, had a good article on that a while back:
www dot thenation dot com/article/girls-against-boys
It only has one Web Letter response, but it's a good one. To see more than 130 comments about the same article, though, Google on "Pollitt takes a swipe at the war on boys" - it's from Salon.
lenona at August 14, 2010 8:27 AM
We're all intrinsically flawed because we're human.
What I meant is that the prevailing assumption is that men are intrinsically flawed because they are male, not because they are mortal.
Pauly at August 14, 2010 11:06 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/tiny-little-tro.html#comment-1742715">comment from PaulyI'm an advice columnist. I make my living on the flawed, male and female, and neither sex has cornered the market on emotional health and rational and ethical behavior. The cool thing about Matlack, in my experience, is that he's really open to discussion of various issues. If somebody wanted to write a piece about how they disagree with his approach, I'd bet he'd post it.
In fact, one of the things I liked so much about him was a similarity I saw in us: an openness to debate and a desire to investigate. Many people decide what they think and then just read things that confirm their beliefs. If you read my site often, you might recall that when I post on scientific research or thinking, I'll write the researcher to see if I erred in any way. And then, if they say I did, I'll post their disagreement. I did that recently with an exchange I had with David Buss, who explained a more nuanced way of looking at sexually self-reported data than I had.
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2010 11:14 AM
When I was taking accounting classes, I had to prepared an essay, and I chose "Comparable Worth". I learned about the times when women were "allowed" into the workplaces that were formally all about the guys: salesclerks, secretaries, receptionists. It just amazes me about how perceptions change in what are considered proper male and female roles.
Speaking of that: I decided to look up the first female reporter. Got onto HistoryBuff.com (one more of the millions of sites I didn't know about) and read about Anne Royall. After reading the piece, I must now go and learn more about her. She was taken to court as being "a common scold", but was spared the ducking stool and fined ten dollars.
Pricklypear at August 14, 2010 12:27 PM
Reading the comments (e.g.,"Men are supposed to ignore and repress their feelings...be strong, tough it out, brush it off, and go have a beer.") , one of the things that struck me was the false dichotomy between being a "real" man and being able to express feelings.
I don't know about those guys' take, but I think under most definitions of "real" man, I qualify: I can shoot, fish, and short block an engine. I can discuss the relative merits of the 3-4 defense and its relevance to today's NFL. I hold the door open for ladies.
I don't spend a lot of time revealing my deepest thoughts and feelings to everyone, but I can discuss what's really going on with my wife and family and close friends. I don't think this makes me some kind of wuss; I think this makes me a sane and reasonably emotionally functional human being.
What makes a man is his character. Does he handle difficulties with courage and decency and honesty, or does he seek the easy way out? Can he handle a minor affront without losing his temper, or is everything a battle? Is he strong enough to fight when it's called for, and calm and smart enough to know when it's not? Is his trust solid, once earned? Does he surround himself with other people who are strong and honest, or does he seek sycophants?
The sort of "man" espoused in those comments is the most brittle and two-dimensional version of the word. It grabs at some suface elements, and thinks it has the whole picture. Real men have depth, and aren't cowed by the fact that an honestly lived life means being a feeling person as well as an acting person.
Christopher at August 14, 2010 3:11 PM
A man incapable of stoicism is not a man. Few things disgust me more than weepy males.
There are times to express emotions, but they are not plentiful.
Robert at August 15, 2010 12:01 PM
"That is, back in the 1950s, maybe, boys didn't mind being surrounded by smart girls in class and having to compete with them, academically, since they sensed/observed that as they got older, girls would either start playing dumb to attract boys and/or not pursue any education after college - if that."
Well, since I was one of those boys, I'll tell you you're wrong. I didn't sense it as a competition at all, since I was just trying to do my best and learn things that interested me. It must have been an OK attitude, since I ended up second in my class, not that I really cared. I never felt I was competing against anyone, especially not all females. My diploma diminishes no one.
I dont see the point in obsessing about gender. When it really mattered, namely concerning Vietnam and the draft, mine was the wrong one. Life is unfair. I got over it, you can too.
MarkD at August 16, 2010 10:18 AM
Any so-called "men's" site that is endorsed by Ms. Magazine is automatically disqualified from consideration as anything other than a sad joke.
BobH at August 18, 2010 6:07 AM
"That is, back in the 1950s, maybe, boys didn't mind being surrounded by smart girls in class and having to compete with them, academically, since they sensed/observed that as they got older, girls would either start playing dumb to attract boys and/or not pursue any education after college - if that."
Well, since I was one of those boys, I'll tell you you're wrong. I didn't sense it as a competition at all, since I was just trying to do my best and learn things that interested me. It must have been an OK attitude, since I ended up second in my class, not that I really cared. I never felt I was competing against anyone, especially not all females. My diploma diminishes no one.
______________________
Yes, well, that doesn't explain why more and more boys are starting to grouse that "reading is for girls." This was the case even with Jon Scieszka's teen son. (Scieszka is a well-known writer and editor of "Guys Write for Guys Read" as well as the founder of the "Guys Read" website.) Jon's theory, at least with regard to his own son, is that too often, boys nowadays are made to read books in school that appeal mostly to girls and were WRITTEN by women, but as Katha Pollitt pointed out in the article I linked to, that isn't necessarily the case. So what would YOU say is the reason for boys' turning away from college and/or reading?
lenona at August 18, 2010 3:29 PM
Leave a comment