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.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: