Did Tom Matlack of the Good Men Project – not to be confused with Ben Matlock, fictional defense lawyer beloved by the elderly – swallow one of those mysterious “red pills” I keep hearing about on Men’s Rights blogs? Whatever he swallowed, it’s apparently causing him to hallucinate.
How else to explain his recent post on the GMP site titled “Being a Dude Is a Good Thing.” Now, as a dude who spends a good deal of time every day being a dude, I’ve got nothing against anyone being a dude, provided that’s what they want to be. It’s just that the piece itself is full of some rather strange generalizations that don’t actually seem to be, you know, true, at least not in what’s commonly known as “the real world.”
Rather than try to rebut his argument, because he doesn’t seem to have much of one, let’s just look at some of his loopier pronouncements:
Why do men get blamed for everything?
Uh, because they don’t? Sure, men get blamed for things, but guess what? Women get blamed for things all the time, too, from witchcraft, to divorce, to getting themselves raped, battered or killed. They’ve been blamed for earthquakes, for “inciting” male lust, for killing chivalry and “killing off real men,” for “taking roles intended by God only for men.” Heck, some inventive sorts have even figured out how to blame women for men who are assholes. And this guy has decided that “Black Women are to blame for the disrespect Black Men show towards Black Women.” For endless additional examples, scroll back through the posts and comments here, visit any of the blogs on my “boob roll,” or simply continue living on planet earth.
Back to Matlack, whose generalizations get more surreal by the sentence:
In the locker room, in the bathroom, on the walk out of the board room, in my conversations with men of all kinds, that’s what I hear more than anything. The resignation that to be a man is to be unacceptable at some level to the woman in your life.
Really? Who on earth are you hanging out with? And what women are they hanging out with? Are men other than Tom Matlack and his possibly apocryphal conversational partners actually having conversations like this on a regular basis? If the “woman in your life” basically hates men, what is she doing with you, and what are you doing with her?
One close friend jokes, “When speaking to my wife I always make sure to look at the ground in deference. And I make sure not to make any sudden movements.”
Um, what?
I’ve watched him. He loves his wife.
He’s a very competent human being. But with her he’s decided the only way to survive is to submit. The female view is the right view. The male view just gets you into trouble.
You see what I meant before about the hallucinations, right?
But Matlack suggests there is hope for the poor demure, never-before-heard-from men of the world. Apparently they are starting to open their mouths at last.
It seems that the blame game in the mainstream, whether through the minimization of male life in pop culture or on television or through the continued obsession with men behaving badly, has finally struck a chord with the average guy.
Let’s just pause a moment to reflect on this whole “minimization of male life in pop culture or on television.” Mr. Matlack, do you actually watch movies or television, or visit libraries or anything like that? Most movies revolve around men as the main characters, with women in many cases serving as little more than a love interest or simply as scenery. Have you ever heard of the Bechdel test? Read up on it, run the test on some of your favorite films, and then get back to us on the “minimization of male life in pop culture.”
Now back to Matlack’s manifesto:
We are no longer willing to be blamed for being men. We are no longer willing to avert our gazes and stay silent about our feelings. We are raising our voices and telling our stories in our own male vocabulary.
Yeah, because men have been so utterly silent about their feelings, their opinons, and pretty much everything, up until now.
To women, I assume the response is, “well, it’s about time.” But just remember when we talk it’s not going to sound like a women in a man’s body. It’s gonna be all dude. And you are just going to have to deal with that.
Ladies, prepare yourselves for a lot more Dudesplaining in the near future. Dudes will be ignored no longer! Dudes!!! DUUUUUDESSS!!!!!!
EDITED TO ADD: Matlack’s gotten some responses on Twitter to his dudely roar; he’s posted a bunch of them here. Guest appearances by Amanda Marcotte and (seriously) Roseanne Barr.
It’s kind of nice, having an fair-minded discussion about Hugo’s work. Feminists fawn over him and MRAs reserve their most acidic venom for him. Neither viewpoint is very interesting.
I agree, from an objective standpoint, that he has a lot of interesting things to say, and is not stupid. (Typing that was like pulling teeth). But for some reason he just sets me off. It’s uncanny.
He’s just a fucking GOD DAMN tool, who is incredibly lucky in his personality, his personal charm, and ability to attract women, and he thinks that his is the Universal Man’s experience.
I suppose with that worldview, I’d think men were ungrateful dickweeds as well.
MRAL, back away sloooowly from this thread. Go. NOW.
MRAL, supporting Hellkell here: you’re doing good, and a bunch of us want to keep talking to you, but you’re slipping here!
Okay, that came off as kind of harsh. Tone on the Internet is hard. He doesn’t really bother me that much.
” Feminists fawn over him”
Not really, man. Scope the comments here:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/17/sex-drugs-theology-men-feminism-interview-with-hugo-schwyzer/#comments
Okay, but Feministe is a bit hardcore. Not radfem-level, but pushing it sometimes. Schwyzer is firmly in the moderate feminist camp, with Valenti, the Alas a blog guy, Marcotte (arguable), etc.
And frankly I don’t understand the big issue with his sexual past. Yeah, it was maybe not totally ethical, but I really don’t think it was all that big of a deal either. If you’ve got a 25 year old prof having a 23 year old student… it’s not commendable because of power differentials, but oh well. I don’t like his writing NOW.
His writing now is what stopped me reading his stuff. Others here have articulated a lot of the reasons why.
“Feministe is a bit hardcore”
Hahahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks dude, seriously, I totally needed a laugh.
Good stuff. Keep it up.
@hellkell, I’m going to take your question at face value: I’m a young feminist who frequently reads but irregularly comments on many feminist blogs. I’ve been around, for several years actually, but I’m not surprised you’ve never seen me before. Last I checked this was an open forum, so here I am. And I’m attempting to participate in a respectful way.
@zhinxy, I’m not trying to dictate the conversation or make the rules on someone else’s blog, I am genuinely trying to understand why a post about Matlack became about Hugo. I actually have some problems with some of Hugo’s work, but this seems to be all about personal dislike of him. Like, “He talks about himself too much!” So? I don’t see how that matters. I did notice the other wanderings and actually intend to use them to supplement my Amazon wishlist.
I originally wanted to talk about Matlack’s post, but when I saw the Hugofest felt compelled to say something since I’ve actually met him. Though I suppose that makes me just as guilty of thread-jacking. Since apparently I must be a “regular” to be treated like a legitimate contributor to the no-we’re-not-attacking-Hugo conversation, I’ll bow out and leave the regulars to your regular conversation.
“If you’ve got a 25 year old prof having a 23 year old student… it’s not commendable because of power differentials, but oh well. I don’t like his writing NOW.”
Me neither, but it’s just one more reason his whole Best Male Feminist Evar! thing is douchey.
Because this is Manboobz xDD Stick around a little longer and we’ll probably have brandon start a derail about how marriage is stupid and feminism and the MRM are totally two sides of the same coin, lol.
Hugo resigned from the Good Men Project http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/12/21/why-i-resigned-from-the-good-men-project/
Hugo’s resignation is very sad to me. I thought that the Good Men Project had a lot of potential for men to discuss gender issues without misogyny. Matlack’s essay and his responses to feminist criticism made me worry the GMP was going to become another woman bashing site. Now that Schwyzer is leaving, I think that’s even more likely. Thank goodness Ozy still has No Seriously What about teh Menz?
Ill just leave this here for our delicate milk machine technician
Of course, speaking on manly men dressing all masculine, my fathers side wore skirts, knee socks and carried purses. King James I though we were so girly he executed our clan chief and drove us out of the country.
@Holly
It seems to be universal.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!!!!!
*gasp*
Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!!!!!!
He resigned over that one article? Should get that sand out of his vagina.
Oh shit, am I “gaslighting” now? Maybe I’m “defusing women’s anger”.
He’s just a fucking cockhead, who wants men to tiptoe around women and triple monitor everything they say for “privilege” or whatever. It’s frustrating because you can’t point to one thing, or one article… but his work as a whole, is riddled with ten thousand little double standards. They add up.
Ruthie – “Since apparently I must be a “regular” to be treated like a legitimate contributor to the no-we’re-not-attacking-Hugo conversation, I’ll bow out and leave the regulars to your regular conversation.”
Oh, for fucks sakes.
I actually do think Matlack made sort of an ass of himself on Twitter. Not because I necessarily think he was in the wrong (I liked that article), but the remarks about MRAs, and some other snide things he said, were uncalled for.
But the thing is, in the end, that’s not the issue. To Hugo, even if he won’t explicitly say it, the problem with the exchange was that Matlack was a man arguing with women, about gender. Can’t have that! What a douche.
I should say, arguing without being cringing and apologetic about it all. He was upfront, NO, I DISAGREE. And I’m not sure if I actually agree with him in turn, but I’m just saying…. that’s the real problem here. For Hugo.
@MRAL
I haven’t read any of Schwyzer’s stuff, but it could be (from what I’ve read here) that the problem was that a man *that wasn’t Hugo* was arguing about women, about gender
No, it’s not bad to argue with women. The problem was how Matlack did it. He accused women of being crazy, which is a common insult to throw at women to tell them their feelings aren’t valid or important. In the Twitter feed, Marcotte and other feminists tried to explain that how harmful it is to stereotype all women as domineering nags. He refused to consider the criticism, though, and instead got defensive. Schwyzer said the whole fiasco made him realize TGMP was no longer a good fit for him. I respect how he decided to disassociate himself from the website now that it’s becoming more about misogyny than helping men.
“When a man and a woman are arguing about feminism – and the women involved happen to be feminists and the man happens to be an affluent white dude – the chances that he’s the one from whom the truth is more obscured is very high indeed.”
This is from his recent bitchy resigning post. It’s like, what the fuck does that even mean? Is he saying anything at all, except for the fact that Tom Matlack is an affluent white dude and he disagreed with Tom Matlack. I swear to Christ, I’ve never seen anyone so good and blowing hot air.
Someone should remind Prof Schwyzer that the Good Men Project is by and for MEN. It’s feminist-friendly, and that’s a good thing, because it keeps it out of the MRA toilet. But it is not there to be an “ally” for women. And when it comes to men’s gender roles, yes, I think men have as much or greater insight than women. Is that really so controversial? For Prof Schwyzer, it’s like pulling god damn teeth.
MRAL, quit now while you’re ahead. Seriously, go out and play. You’ve been doing really well, but you need to back the fuck up.