What the Fuck is Wrong with Jack Donovan?

Jack Donovan, a regular contributor to The Spearhead, often waxes nostalgic on the glory and power of classic male archetypes, preferably those with swords and a penchant for blood. He’s a no nonsense kind of guy; a latter day Hercules that clearly sees any weakness in men as repugnant, or rather what he interprets of weakness. Oh, and he’s especially disgusted with gays.

Simply put, Jack doesn’t like faggots, as he calls them. No, not at all. They seem to offend every fiber in his uber-manly being.  It is an especially unusual position, in my opinion, considering that Jack is homosexual.

I would love link you to some of the more prime examples of Jack’s sonny-let-me-tell-you-how-to-be-a-real-man diatribes, but it appears that several of his works that were formerly in The Spearhead archives are no longer available.  But you can go to TS now and peruse the pieces that remain there; almost all of them mucho macho masculinity obsessive. It appears that defining manhood and inflicting it on the world is at the top of Jack’s agenda.

His latest round of smartly penned critique of the less than Donovanian is targeted at the Foundation for Male Studies. He starts on the color scheme of their website, which he describes as giving the site “the feel of a queer youth outreach program.”

“Clearly,” he adds, “these guys need to study males a little harder,” with the subtext of this of course being that Jack is just the rough and tumble hombre to show them  all the light.  Ahh, the colors of manhood. Gee, I hope AVfM is in compliance.

Obviously Donovan can spot a lack of manly manliness from all the way across the world wide web, and this time the foul and faggotized face of the Male Studies Foundation hath offended him so that he has ridden in on his trusty stallion to proclaim the lot of them a bunch of sissies, obsessed with things like education.

His most recent target du jour is Guy Garcia, the recently announced moderator for the Second Annual Conference on Male Studies. He attacks Garcia mainly by pointing us to his own recent review of Garcia’s book, The Decline of Men.  And then, without anything I could describe as substance, attempts to paint Guy Garcia as Michael Kimmel’s twin brother, creating a new legion of academicians looking only for dollars and the opportunity to extend the victim label to anyone left in the culture who doesn’t already have it.

In other words, Garcia and the other men and women at the Male Studies Foundation are a bunch of whiners.

Indeed, not very manly at all.

But it should be a familiar allegation.  You can see the same thing from manginas, white knights and feminists scattered across the comment sections at A Voice for Men as well as The Spearhead.

For my money that puts JD in some less than credible company, but I maybe I’m just a whiner, too.

It is not that I think The Male Studies Foundation is above criticism.  I was seriously disappointed that after the first conference, when they got mugged in the gynocentric mainstream media Jack Donovan style. They failed, and failed miserably, to seize the opportunity (and publicity) by mounting an organized and vocal defense.

Whether that was naïveté, a lack of resolve or just some misguided strategy, I don’t know.  But it was a terrible mistake that I don’t think they can make again, and survive.

Whether Guy Garcia is an appropriate choice to moderate the next conference, I don’t know. I have not read his book, and to be frank, have never heard of the man- excuse me, girly whiner.

What I do know, and it is a point that seems to eluded Donovan in every word of his commentary, is that The Male Studies Foundation caused conniption fits throughout feminist academe and in a good portion of the similarly minded media. Their main efforts, it seems, has been dodging bullets from both of these entities. And there is every reason to think that the same will happen again come round two.

And this is a bad thing?

Oh, forgive me, it isn’t being done with a machismo black color scheme or other aspect of manliness satisfactory to Jack Donovan. So I suppose we should all join the feminists in attacking The Foundation.

There is only one real question left in my mind regarding this matter.

What the fuck is wrong with Jack Donovan?

And actually, the question is rhetorical, because I already have a pretty good idea what the answer is. It’s an answer he broadcasts every time he hits a keystroke.

Jack Donovan is gay, and it has genuinely fucked him up.

Rather I should say he has reacted in one of the most dysfunctional ways imaginable as a homosexual male living in a culture that unfortunately often does not regard him as a man.  He has become obsessed with proving that he is. And you can see it dripping from nearly every line he writes in nearly every one of his articles.

I recall once in an exchange with Jack him taking the position that a man is better off killing himself than to allow himself to be hit by hard economic times and end up in a position that he needed the help of others.

I also remember his less than erudite characterization of a young male ice skater as a “faggot,” for not choosing a more manly pursuit in life.

It is the same old shame game that has been employed by alpha males (and apparently those obsessed with imagining they are) for time immemorial.  By shaming men into fitting one model or another of manhood, and either rewarding or punishing based on compliance, we make men into useful appliances. And in that they are frequently used to one end or another by the alpha thugs that feminists have painted all men to be.

I have long been of the opinion that you should never trust anyone who puts and adjective in front of man, manhood or masculinity. Because every time you hear that, what you are really hearing is control, and never by people that should be entrusted with power over inanimate objects, much less human beings.  Graveyards are full of men who failed to understand this.

And they were led there by men like Jack Donovan.

I have no real advice to impart here. This is one of those things that you get, or you don’t, and nothing I can say will change anyone’s mind. But I do have one more thought for Mr. Donovan, though I am sure it is won’t be of much use there, either.

Lighten up, Jack. You’re gay. Just accept it. You don’t have to be heterosexual, or an over compensating asshole, to be a man.

Recommended Content

198 thoughts on “What the Fuck is Wrong with Jack Donovan?”

  1. Although I havent any idea who Jack Donovan is, I can say with certainty that your sizing up of his behavior and the likely reasons regarding it, are, as usual, right on the money. Well done. Love it!

  2. I used to have a big problem with effeminate guys. I worked so hard at figuring out how to walk and talk like a man, why didn’t they? It took “reparative” therapy in college, and putting up with guys in a group setting, who chatted and squealed like teenage girls, to change my mind.

    Eventually the Gabors won me over with their genuine concern for my thoughts and feelings. Now I see the big advantage with effeminate men is that they’re easy to approach for friendship, and most of them are very nice.

    So if there are any effeminate men’s rights activists out there, go ahead and use pink as the background color on your blog. My distast for effeminacy was my fear of uniting my manliness with something less than manly, and I am ashamed for it. What a waste of time. We’re all guys.

    As far as figure skating not being manly, does anybody else remember Boitano in ’88?

  3. Whether Guy Garcia is an appropriate choice to moderate the next conference, I don’t know. I have not read his book, and to be frank, have never heard of the man- excuse me, girly whiner.

    I’ve read his book. He isn’t.

    To be accurate, I read the first three chapters and then skipped to the end to see if the guy actually had an opinion on the subject. He didn’t.

    The book reads like nothing so much as a high school research paper on a subject the student doesn’t care about. Just an endless jumble of tidbits from a pile of 3X5 index cards. Everything in those first chapters I had read on the Internet first. He only has a concluding chapter because it’s expected. Just like I did back in high school, he makes some vague, imposing sounding statements at the end because the teacher requires you to pretend you have a thesis.

    I came away with the impression that this was a freelance writer who thought it was a topic he could sell to a publisher. He threw something together, collected his advance and went on his merry way.

    I’m dismayed that he’s been selected as the moderator.

    1. I don’t have any reason to doubt your assessment. I have read your posts and know where you stand.

      I think there is something more important here, especially given that the worst you had to say was that his book was sloppy. And it read a good bit into your disappointment that he was selected, namely that you thought it stained an otherwise good cause.

      Are we going to put a pass-fail judgement on the entire male studies effort based on a harsh critique of every individual who may be associated with the mission?

      I remember Chip Caprero being at the first conference; a dyed in the wool feminist if there ever was one. By the end of the conference, Caprero had physically shrunk back in his chair wearing a self administered gag.

      And I have not seen anything to date that indicates Garcia is in the same camp as Kimmel. Till otherwise shown, I view that sort of idea as unfounded speculation.

      As long as feminists are shrieking about male studies, I won’t be joining any firing squads.

      1. I have read your posts and know where you stand.

        Damn. I try to write in such a way that people will remember the ideas but forget who said it.

        And I have not seen anything to date that indicates Garcia is in the same camp as Kimmel. Till otherwise shown, I view that sort of idea as unfounded speculation.

        My disappointment with his book was that he didn’t even hint at what camp he might be in. He quoted plenty of other people’s opinions but never expressed his own. I dunno. Maybe that will make for a good moderator. I hope so.

      2. KARMA MRA MGTOW

        I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements

        are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out

        the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

        At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of MRA’S every one of them. That is the will of MRA’S and the men.

        Men and boys, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

        Even though large tracts of Europe and the world and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Femi-Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Femi-Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

        We shall go on to the end, we shall everywhere
        we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
        we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the

        cost may be,
        we shall fight on the beaches,
        we shall fight on the landing grounds,
        we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
        we shall fight in the hills;
        we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were
        subjugated and starving, then our Male Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the MRA Fleet, would carry on
        the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and
        the liberation of the old.
        [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/churchill.jpg[/img]

        1. THIS IS HOW WE NEED TO THINK:

          “we shall fight on the beaches,
          we shall fight on the landing grounds,
          we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
          we shall fight in the hills;
          we shall never surrender”

          BUT TODAY, THIS IS HOW WE ARE THINKING:

          “The Eighth Air Force wants to bomb Germany during the day, lol. What a bunch of losers. They are three years late to the war, and they want to tell us British what it means to have courage. Well, let them die in great numbers to the guns of the Luftwaffe, and they will learn the difference between courage and stupidity. Bombing missions should be carried out under the cover of darkness. Maybe they think that facing ME 109’s in broad daylight makes the penis grow bigger?”

          So, who thinks the Allies would have won the 2nd world war if they operated this way?

    2. I read the book too, which is why I reviewed it, and this is basically what I said about it. He’s a professional media consultant who is trying to build his resume. I read the *whole book* and Paul would be in violation of his first rule of “how to be a real man.” Garcia says that it is unmanly to blame women for any troubles that men have. The only thing he really offers men is a way to accept their new position as “equal” servants to women. Having also read Kimmel, they’re pretty much on the same page — Guy is just, well, less crafty and more focused on new-agey stuff. He wrote a half-assed book to cash in on the “end of men” trend.

      My review engaged the content, and it was substantive, because I did read the material.

      Feminists will freak out about a character on television. Getting them to freak out doesn’t mean you’ve accomplished anything. My post, in fact, also gave them the benefit of the doubt for having good intentions.

      All of my essays and reviews, as far as I’m aware (and I just double checked), are still available on The Spearhead and elsewhere.

      If Paul wants to attribute everything I write about to his long distance diagnosis based on what little he knows about my personal life, he is certainly free to do so. I stand by what I wrote.

      1. I don’t think I would qualify for breaking that first rule, Jack. I don’t blame women for my troubles. In fact, I have relatively few troubles that I could blame on anyone.

        And I write repeatedly here, and stand by it as well, that we have a lot more problems in this culture from men than we do from women. Women are more or less powerless to hurt us without male muscle backing them. And women are simple to manage by ignoring them, which I lot of MGTOW’s are figuring out.

        On the other hand, when the beta thugs come a knocking on peoples doors, they all have badges and guns, but mostly no tits.

        http://avoiceformen.com/2011/01/13/heroes-and-whores/

        And to the real points here that you continue to fail to understand, Jack. Whether you like it or not, a college education goes a long way for some people to put bread on their table. I agree that arts degrees, even as someone who has one, are not worth much, but strangely I find that my personal beliefs and assessment of value don’t apply to the whole world. So for many men, it is either college or a life of much simpler means.

        Trash them all you want, they are no less relevant than you, and likely more.

        The other thing is that Male Studies is not a character on TV pissing off feminists. It is a bona fide threat to their hegemony in academe. Now, gee, Jack, when you see all these “studies” emerging that the government uses to pass legislation like VAWA, where do you think they come from? That’s right, Jack. Academe.

        Now if those women’s program budgets were slashed and there also, at the same time, was an emergent body of research refuting all their findings….Do you get my drift? I know, but one can hope.

        Perhaps I am mistaken about the archives. If so, an honest mistake. I will check again.

        To your last point, Jack. It is only human self deception that makes people think they are not readable through their work, words and actions. You can easily tell volumes about people on far less than you reveal in your articles and comments, if you know what you are doing.

        What I gave was not a diagnosis, but an assessment. And I think that all you say completely supports it as being accurate, so I stand by what I wrote as well.

        1. So you aren’t embarrassed at all?

          Fascinating. I would be.

          It is only human self deception that makes people think they don’t see what they want to see when it validates their existing biases.

          You see what you want to see because it explains something you don’t understand.

          It must be impossible for you to imagine that I was a happy, partnered, employed and well-liked out of the closet homo who believed the very same kinds of things about traditional masculinity that you do — but that at some point I changed my mind, not as a result of bullying, but as a result of rational self analysis. I could write the same things you write, and as a homosexual man, I would have a million people ready to pat me on the back and tell me how “evolved” I am. I did not take that path, because I realized I would be lying to myself and everyone else. I write about what I write about because I see something excellent in men that is being replaced by a lot of adolescent nothingness.

          You project a lot onto me that I don’t even write, to make me the screwed up villain you need me to be. And it is pretty clear from the commenters here that you have a bunch of people who will take whatever you say at face value and feed you with just enough approval to get you through. Your claim that you don’t care about positive feedback was undermined by the fact that you then immediately pointed to your web traffic to validate your authority.

          For you I have to be the bully archetype who is telling you that you aren’t man enough, and you need to make a big deal about the fact that I’m a homo to make yourself feel better about it.

          I can be your bully, Paul. I’m OK with that.

          Best of luck in your endeavors.

          1. It is only human self deception that makes people think they don’t see what they want to see when it validates their existing biases.
            You see what you want to see because it explains something you don’t understand.

            As you may well know, Jack, the same applies to self perception. Even more so.

            We may have some areas of agreement about what is happening to men, but despite your attempt at a smokescreen here, it would be silly of me to overlook the very things I quoted you on in the article.

            I don’t see you as my bully, Jack. It is simply because I can’t be bullied. But as I read you repeated attempt to shame men for not being what you think they should be, I see that you have formed yourself into the would be bully for anyone that will tolerate it.

            Perhaps you don’t see that in yourself. But as you said, people tend to see what they want to see when they can’t come to terms with what is really there.

          2. KARMA MRA MGTOW

            “I don’t see you as my bully, Jack. It is simply because I can’t be bullied”

            BINGO!

            This is what fundamentally separates MRA’S from the rest.

            Shame and social approval is for pussies.

            Game set match Paul.

          3. KARMA MRA MGTOW

            “Perhaps you don’t see that in yourself. But as you said, people tend to see what they want to see when they can’t come to terms with what is really there.”

            Some people call that religion.

            Oh that is so wrong.

          4. Jack, I am an academic. I work in the drug discovery business. When people in my business get something right, millions of lives can change for the better.

            This is how academic endeavours SHOULD operate.

            I don’t know why you hate academics as much as you do. If the explanation is, in part, because of the sad state of Feminist “academia”, I urge you to consider the following:

            Feminist pseudo-scientific thinking: consensus => truth
            Correct academic thinking: evidence => fact

            Feminists are the exception, not the rule. Most academics do very professional work gathering evidence, inferring a hypothesis, and testing their inferrence.

            Refuting the vile Feminist nonsense in every sphere, including the academic sphere, is an effective way to fight for men.

            I regret Paul’s personal attacks on your character, but I understand his anger. Men have waited three decades for academic legitimization. You chose to publicly attack the Male Studies Institute at a very vulnerable moment, when its continued existence is threatened.

            Your unfortunate mistake could cost our movement as much, perhaps even more, than the aggregate benefit that your lifetime work within the MRM.

          5. Jack, I admire you a great deal and in some ways, I do see your point of view, but I’ll have to side with Paul on this one. Yet, my reason for adding my two cents worth is to let the two you know that both are great giants and contribute much to this pioneering movement called masculism ( if I may call it that) and should be aware of how many of us look up to you both. Paul has given you the opportunity to give your side of the issue, and you have done so, all the same it should not result to who has the bigger schlong (this goes for you too, Paul) . Please put your differences aside and agree that you both have far more in common than this controversial dissimilarity. Don’t let this offset the movement, it would be a such a damn shame.

  4. What a cheap shot, Paul Elam.

    Male studies is a fucking joke, and we MEN have a right to question it.

    I respect Jack much more than you, who I have found very difficult to identify with.

    Perhaps it is that you are yet another “transitioning boomer,” who hasn’t yet learned that the entire world doesn’t love your generation’s views of Utopia.

    Seriously, Paul,

    Are you still pushing for utopia with the rest of the grandpas?

    Good god, this is a pathetic post.

    I hate the notion of Male Studies so viciously, I just cannot express it.

    Shove it up your aging, equalist ass.

    And stop insulting MEN by thinking they will buy this crap.

    1. Oh my, THE DUKE has arrived. How timely.

      And I love the way you write men in all caps. Does that give you the needed bravado to continue? Or is it a matter of trying to convince yourself the word applies to you in some positive way?

      A whole world of feminist, white knight and mangina enemies out there, and here you are, bless your pointed little head, managing to pick the first group of people in recent history to actually threaten them as your personal pet peeve.

      In fact, you “hate the notion of male studies so viciously” that you just can’t express it. First, I wouldn’t worry. Your skills at expression aren’t going to be threatened by oral paralysis at all. They would likely be enhanced. So don’t fret. No, not in the least.

      And just to let you know, where I am luckiest in life is that I have managed to cultivate the absolute certainty internally that I don’t give a damn whether anyone buys what I have to say or not.

      Just the same, the numbers of men that patronize this site regularly seem to blow your theory out of the water.

      And respect Jack all you want to. Though if I were Jack, and looked at the school yard drivel you have posted here, I would not be pinning medals on myself.

          1. Well, apparently Jack has upped the ante, and posted a ping back to this viciousness from Paul.

            I hope this debate happens at the Spearhead, where Paul has limited moderating powers.

            Bring it, Paul.

            I will argue against this ridiculous Male Studies.

            You aren’t the be all and end all of the MRM, you arrogant asshole.

          2. I can’t believe Angry Harry is such a dope to support you – but I will certainly point it out to him, for if it weren’t for him, I would not read your crap.

          3. This is the one and only warning you will get. You will be allowed to vent against me here till you get it out of your system, or sober up, whichever comes first.

            You say one more word about Harry and I will spam your stupid ass right out the door.

          4. Paul, don’t get caught up with this shit, move on as I’ve written to jack. I’d hate to see this split the movement apart. You too have so much to offer and you have. Don’t let a good thing slip please. Both of you have so much to offer and think of how far we can grow if united. Agree to disagree.

    2. KARMA MRA MGTOW

      ‘And stop insulting MEN by thinking they will buy this crap.’

      Rob stop insulting MEN by thinking you speak for all man-kind.

    3. Rob,

      If you don’t want to fight for men on the academic battlefield, THEN DON’T.

      Fight where you want to fight.

      The “male studies” that you hate so much is a weapon aimed at the heart of Feminism. Feminists use academic pseudo-science to justify virtually every dehumanization and subjugation campaign that they conjure.

  5. “Not dressing manly enough”, “not liking manly colors enough”, “not liking the right people enough” are claims and arguments I never understood.

    For example Zinnia Jones on YouTube, he’s a gay atheist and dresses feminine, has long hair and wears make up and earrings that would be classified as feminine.

    In a country where you can be beaten into a hospital and worse for holding hands with another man (they turned out to be brothers, making the ‘gay-bashers’ not only despicable but idiots to boot) dressing like and wearing makeup like a woman takes cajones the size of mount everest.

    And if you define manly by courage, he’s one of the manliest men to have walked the planet.

    Chuck Norris, the mythological one at least, would hang his head realizing he doesn’t measure up.

  6. Way to go Giselle, you’re the emodiement of enlightened society, aren’t you?

    Why would you even make a comment illustrating yourself as an unread, unthinking moron?

    You should have your vote rescinded, as you’re a self declared idiot.

  7. Actually, Paul,

    I have thought to myself many times now, that Male Studies could be so damagint that I almost ought to position myself to be a fulltime critic of it.

    I mean seriously. This idea is so fucking absurd, it make me angry you represent yourself as an MRA.

    You’ve lost my vote. Fuck, this post makes me furious with you.

    1. I can tell by the rapid, pressured and perseverating nature of your posts here that you are really, really, really, angry, angry, angry! LOL! Sorry I can’t take you seriously enough to return the favor.

      If someone told you I was seeking your vote, they lied to you.

      1. You’re a jackass, Paul, especially since we know eachother elsewhere on the web where you wouldn’t be such a stupid cunt as you are behaving here.

        This isn’t blowing off fembots, this is just you being a cunt.

      2. KARMA MRA MGTOW

        Bingo!

        If MRA’S give if a shit about the opinion of others we are stuffed.

        But then I am a professional shit stirrer so I enjoy it.

        1. That is not being a shit stirrer, IMO. It’s being a smart activist. We don’t have anything out here really except a handful of like minded individuals and a whole slew of enemies.

          And as we can plainly see here, even within our own circles we are prone to some pretty severe conflict. It is one of the many reasons I have denied and rejected, repeatedly, any notion of leadership.

          And that is good for me because I am going to say what I think regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. Fembots, manginas, white knights, alpha pukes and yes, MRA’s when it comes down to it.

          I am just one guy with an opinion. It is all I have ever claimed to be or wanted to be, so threats that I “won’t get the vote” always leave me scratching my head a little, and then laughing.

  8. If this man Garcia truly lacks a defined position maybe just maybe he’s uncomfortable enough to be looking for one.

    As far as Jack Donovan……….Uber dick Uber thick!!! Don’t know the guy, haven’t read his stuff.

    I do think however that masculinity, that internally residential location where you finally become comfortable with it and interface with it’s natural expression can be magnetic to all species including it’s own. Against all the demands made of it, all the criticism and condemnation, it is still and always called to a single task both by it’s landlord and it’s tenants. Make me safe.

    1. Jack to be honest…..I hadn’t read your article and so I did. I am not familiar with your other stuff, but I will be.

      Personal opinion, we need the academe to skirmish with themselves, it won’t happen from blogs. Blogs are much like therapy. Blogs create customers for the academe IMO. It would however benefit men if we can arrive at a closer balance of social privilege between genders and that balance being discussed in MSM which it currently isn’t. Male Studies will not change the world or end the gender war or heal anything. But it may raise awareness that issues exist. They will not give me a socially enriched masculinity, but they won’t take anymore from me. I have very little use for the structure of the “inner party” and the privilege it feeds on. But again my position will not change it’s continuity. I have the patience to watch it unfold and measure it’s credibility. It’s extremely slow for my satisfaction, but my satisfaction isn’t a governing effect. What I take from your article and the comments following is don’t expect much of anything and that it may slide off the table that many bloggers are sitting at. I’m not familiar with Garcia, but I will be. He may well be another flat faceless token for the slut machine. I’m curious to find out.

      Glad you didn’t take the comment personal, I found it amusing and still do. It seems a defining position on perspective and politics. I always get a kick out of pissing contests.

    1. You’re either drunk or lying or both. I checked the admin and there is nothing pending from you. And as I have let the rest of your mini rants stand, it defies reason that I would stop you now.

  9. The Rainbow has been ruined
    it has been hi jacked by the gays
    and is now used as a symbol for homosexuality
    so why cause confusion by using it for “Male Studies”?
    sorry, the whole thing does look a bit gay
    and it did kinda put me off
    You know what they say about first impressions…

    1. Yeah…that’s the point.

      If you want to say to average straight men “hey, I’m on your side,” you don’t use a rainbow, or design your site in lavender — both internationally associated with gay pride parades. The feminist “Men’s Studies” programs spend as much or more time talking about gay men (read a list of titles from Kimmel’s journal) as they do straight men. They are queer skewed. If Male Studies is going to be substantively different, making a different impression is crucial.

      This isn’t brain surgery, and if these Male Studies people can’t figure out something I’d expect a junior public relations hack to figure out, how can we trust them to look like experts on the male condition? And if people like Paul Elam have to defame anyone who criticizes their project, aren’t they bound to devolve quickly into another clueless academic echo chamber?

      The whole Men’s Studies/Male Studies debate reminds me of Kimmel’s book “The Politics of Manhood.” It is his attack on the mythopoetic men’s movement, which is so close to men’s studies the entire book is a bitter back and forth about nothin between Bly supporters and Kimmel types.

      My summary of “The Politics of Manhood”:

      Mythopoetic men: May we please have some sort of separate identity in the context of your peaceful goddess worshipping liberal society?

      Feminists: NO! If you are going to have an identity WE get to define it!

      1. Oh for Christs sake Donovan, grow the fuck up and get real, why dontcha.

        This gibberish over web design, which didn’t even have the participation of the male studies players (yes, I know this for sure) is just nonsense.

        I thought at first that you were just pointing it out for the sake of filler in that rather empty critique. But you are serious? You really think the presence of a rainbow, which still connotes to most people the emergence of better times after a storm, is somehow a reflection that these people are subverted?

        This is your argument against them?

        Dude, you just went from misguided to stupid.

        1. Kevin I. Slaughter

          So, you don’t understand how important a visual aspect to a website, magazine, book, etc.?

          “a rainbow, which still connotes to most people the emergence of better times after a storm”

          Rainbows represents “gay” now. Maybe you specifically or your generation in general doesn’t see it that way, but the popular culture knows it.

          Lilac is for women. Go to the grocery store. Look at the products designed with that color. Women’s products.

          1. [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/thread.PNG[/img]

            B.R. Please help me. I am worried. I used this image in my video celebrating my first 1000 YouTube subscribers.

            Does it mean I might be gay?

            Please respond quickly, I am shopping for music today and I want some Led Zeppelin but I am wondering now if I should get Barbara?

          2. First of all, it’s Barbra, not Barbara. Secondly, since you obviously didn’t even know that, you’d make a lousy homo. Stick with what you know.

            And ditch the faggy rainbow. Sheesh.

          3. This is why the MRM isn’t gaining much traction; There are huge issues that need addressing and we’re arguing about whether rainbows are gay or not.

      2. All this talk about web design is very fascinating. Jack, I feel that you may have been looking for ways to criticize the Foundation, and its site’s colors were the easiest for you to grab. But I want you to know that before the design and color scheme were even presented to the founder, much thought and research were undertaken – with careful regard to color, balance, image and brand.

        Much evidence supports the fact that the overwhelming majority of males are no less sensitive, caring, understanding and empathetic compared to women, yet in a lot of our culture’s media, males are portrayed with the “Spike-TV” loud, boisterous, insensitive banter of disharmony. Consequently, it is refreshing to see a site that welcomes a visitor to a calmer, environment that includes colors portraying the full spectrum of male potential.

        Opinion surveys of many men and women revealed that the design is credible, refreshing, simple to navigate and memorable (notice how you haven’t forgot the site’s design, have you?).

        Rainbows and color gradients communicate the calm, predictable weather after the storm, a wide spectrum of possibilities and a bright future – all in line with the mission of the Foundation for Male Studies.

        1. Hey I like Spike TV and I am neither loud nor boisterous.
          I did tear up watching Brian’s song and Old Yeller.
          Now I may cop to some insensitive banter once in awhile but hey I can’t be a serious humorless asshole all the time.

        2. I have to confess something.

          When I ‘liked’ male studies on my actual facebook account(with my real name) I have to say the color scheme made me feel a lot more comfortable doing it. It made it more difficult to immediately dismiss it as retrogressive, since it read as inclusive with gay rights.

          I actually like the promotion of a calmer, thoughtful, compassionate masculinity. And I don’t think a man who is more intellectual, quiet or diplomatic in his approach is any less of a man.

          Full disclosure though. I’m a woman.

        3. Will there also be healing candles and scented oils?

          This is why Male Studies will end up being as much of a joke as the Mythopoetic Men’s movement.

      3. For Chrissake Donovan, why don’t you get this?

        “This isn’t brain surgery, and if these Male Studies people can’t figure out something I’d expect a junior public relations hack to figure out, how can we trust them to look like experts on the male condition?”

        No, NO, NO, NOOOOOO!

        The Male Studies institute will be busy for 30 years just debunking Feminist crap.

        They don’t have to become experts in anything other than standard scientific methodology. They can read Feminist pseudo-science, and point out the inconsistencies, circular arguments, and data cherry-picking that are the mainstays of the Feminist formula for funding based on selling a make-believe “depraved predator” construct of masculinity.

        If the Male Studies institute was as worthless as you think, WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE FEMINISTS ARE PEEING IN THEIR PANTIES OVER THIS?

      4. !!SPARTA!!:</b
        The Rainbow has been ruined
        it has been hi jacked by the gays

        And prior to that it was used by straight male organizations worldwide? Straight men everywhere are upset because they can’t have their rainbow back?

        I was expecting to actually see a rainbow, or the dreaded rainbow flag. What I saw was a pleasing graphic that bends light in spectrum fashion. It has appeal to the eyes. It’s soft, diffused light, centering in on a young man who is smiling as he walks, not some lonely figure. There’s nothing in the graphic to denote gay, left-of-center, political thinking. It’s a simple color wash.

        Even if my view is a minority one, so what? If it has the look of a gay youth outreach website, well then maybe we’ll win a few more of our more vulnerable gay brothers from the other side. Straight men (and the gay men who love them) who can’t handle the light from a spectrum will just have to toughen up.

    2. Because no one owns the symbolism, Sparta. It also makes people think of pots of gold, and Jesse Jacksons rainbow coalition. In fact, I didn’t even know gays were using it.

      I guess that means I just chose to look past web design and into their mission.

      I had to do the same thing with your screen name here to have any tolerance for you at all.

      1. “In fact, I didn’t even know gays were using it.”

        Seriously?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

        How can you possibly comment about the nuances of my mental state as a homosexual when you don’t even know enough about homosexuality to know that gays have been marching all around the world with rainbow flags since the 1970s? I’ve never met a straight guy who doesn’t make that connection immediately. Schoolchildren know that.

        That’s what I mean.

        We’re talking about people who are seriously out of touch here.

        1. Don’t confuse homosexuality with politics, Jack, I didn’t know that gay activists used the rainbow because I quit reading anything by them like 25 years ago.

          That doesn’t mean I don’t know and interact with homosexuals. And as human beings, I am not out of touch with them.

          And now that I have addressed your umpteenth smokescreen, why don’t you take one more stab at making sense of how your critique of web design is really important to the analysis of male studies.

          1. Kevin I. Slaughter

            If you have a gay-looking website that says “Men’s Studies”, people who are unfamiliar with the content will assume it’s for gay men.
            Maybe this won’t be a problem with academics, but it certainly would be a poor tactic for trying to interest most men.

          2. Any man that draws the conclusions you insinuate by looking at that graphic can very well bug off somewhere else. I see nothing in the opening graphics of that webpage that hasn’t been found in countless textbooks.

          3. Kevin I. Slaughter

            I’m a graphic designer, and a publisher. I’m pretty well informed about design, and it’s important to me, and science will tell you that it’s important to everyone, whether they know it or not.

            BR provided no “facts” at all, and then you take a childish personal swipe at me.

            Do a google search for “lilac” and click on “clip art”… decide what gender the bulk of the objects are more closely associated with.

          4. The fact Paul referenced was that I have seen graphics quite similar many times in textbooks. The rest of what I have said in other posts concerning the design of the webpage in question, however, is merely my opinion.

            My opinion is that we are looking at a spectrum of color, and the lilac and pink colors on other parts of the page are balanced out by greens and blues, so that all the colors of the spectrum are seen. I don’t see a rainbow anywhere, nor do I see an overabundance of feminine colors. This is merely my opinion, however.

  10. Lol Fuck you Paul, you even act like you don’t know me, your arrogance is astounding.

    This is joke of a site, and so are you Paul. I can’t believe you are pulling this crapola.

    Pleeeeeease Ban me for you illustrious site, asshole.

    It;s the only way you have any power at all!

    1. Wait, Rob Fedrz idolizes zed…

      zed praises Paul Elam as the new Spartacus….

      So Rob Fedrz should worship Paul Elam..

      But if Paul is now hated by Rob, I don’t see how Rob Fedrz can be friends with zed anymore either.

      Or was it zed who banned Rob Fedrz from The Spearhead?

    2. Why would I ban someone digging their own grave? It is much better to let fools speak that to silence them and hide their foolishness.

      And I don’t know you. Well, Apparently I do, but I don’t make the connection. Is there some reason I should remember you?

          1. Paul, I insist that you change your official title from Chief Knuckle Dragger to Chief Chicken Ass.

  11. So the other day
    I had a dream this would happen
    like deja vu or something
    some guy on the spearhead would say something about queers
    and paul would be like “wtf?? I love gays, they’re great
    and the guy from the spearhead (Sry, Jack, I never knew you existed until like 20 minutes ago)
    but anyways
    the spearhead guy would be like “Fuck you, asshole”
    If things go as my dream went
    some guy dressed up in a cucumber mascot suit should run in the middle of it all
    chasing a feminist dressed as a cavewoman
    with a giant spatula

    Oh, and Rob, sry for some odd reason, you wasn’t in the dream at all
    maybe it’s not 100% accurate

  12. I’ve read Jack’s article and all of the comments posted there. I was excited at the prospect of a Male Studies Foundation. If anything, I can thank Jack for opening my mind to the possibility that I could be disappointed by the direction that this Foundation might take.

    My simple mind filters information in to three categories; truth, lies and everything in between awaiting corroboration. I’m content to wait and look for corroborating evidence to filter the Male Studies Foundation to the truth or lie category. If I “wait and see”, I don’t think that will cause me any harm.

    As always, time will tell…….

    1. I agree with this. I fail to see why Jack’s article would open anyone’s mind, but to each his own.

      The danger in this project, IMO, is not that the men involved don’t know what they are doing, they most certainly do. The problem is in keeping the movement from being co-opted when and if it grows.

      The sad truth is that there is very few people that understand misandry, and many many more who actually practice it.

      But tying to shoot these people’s credibility down before they even get started, with critique of their web design no less, is a poor path to take.

      1. When MRM will grow a little bit larger, it will be easy for its enemies to break it into a thousand sects. Men- even the MRAs- will never be a homogen group.

        1. I mean i find this article a little bit harsh. Call me naive, but i think there is a possibility for adults, to start a debate about male studies, without insulting each other.

        2. You are not naive. Paul made a mistake, probably because he was angry. An academic cover is a crucial missing piece to transforming MRMs from a bunch of angry men into a bunch of influential men. I am angry also. But this civil war is not the way to go, and the personal attacks are the cause of it.

          The sad thing is very few people even remember what started all of this. An MRM activist decided to publicly condemn the first and only academic arm of the MRM anywhere in the world. It was a stupid thing for Jack Donovan to do, and this article is a stupid way for Paul Elam to react to it.

  13. Yea, I’m the same as Wayne, always looking for the pros/cons and truth/lies I’m enthusiastic about Male Studies, but Jack did kinda bring up a few things to think about…Are they seriously letting Feminists and Manginas in there?
    I wouldn’t want anyone who would openly call themself a feminist or any self hating, apologist Vaginamen on the board calling the shots.

    1. If I see that seriously begin to happen, I will make haste to write them off. But until I see it, and as long as my enemies (fembots, manginas) are attacking them, they get my vote.

  14. Dammit !!!!

    I have a lot of respect and time for Paul Elam, Jack Donovan, Fedrz, Zed, and Angry Harry. I read everything that they write.

    For God’s sake this MRA scene turns once again into a , to paraphrase Zed, circular firing squad.

    These personal attacks ( Like Paul did to Jack ) are really not helping our cause. Do I agree with everything published by players in the MRM? No, of course not. But they are publishing something, and on my team.

    We will never get anywhere.

    1. * We need to be able to distinguish between an attack on our ideas and an attack on our persons. Attacking ideas through gentlemanly debate is constructive. Attacks on another person, especially those who are on our side, through epithets and invectives is a waste of time and energy.

      * We need to understand that mens issues and men’s studies are an evolutionary/revolutionary process. Because it is a process, and not a goal, it is subject to revision. I am in support of the process — some things are going to work, some things are not; some things are going to be co-opted, others we will co-opt ourselves. But it will evolve, and we should all have a say in how these things grow and change, without fear and without having to resort to horizontal violence.

      * Go to the source of the problem, discretely. For example, if the colors and theme of the men’s studies site doesn’t suit you, ask them to change it! Or better yet, come up with a way that they can offer customized themes for everyone and provide it to them as a resource, but don’t become attached to your particular outcome. The point is to do something to move the process forward and to constructively make things better and encourage as many men as possible to become involved. Attacking an ally will make the fence sitters less likely to be enrolled in what we’re doing and less likely to offer help (financial, material, and referential).

      *Address the real issue. Are the Men’s Studies Conferences a good thing? Are they accomplishing their stated goals? What would you do differently, if anything? To his credit, Paul did state the following:
      “…It is not that I think The Male Studies Foundation is above criticism. I was seriously disappointed that after the first conference, when they got mugged in the gynocentric mainstream media Jack Donovan style. They failed, and failed miserably, to seize the opportunity (and publicity) by mounting an organized and vocal defense.

      Whether that was naïveté, a lack of resolve or just some misguided strategy, I don’t know. But it was a terrible mistake that I don’t think they can make again, and survive….” My question for Paul is, have you said this to the Conference organizers, speakers, and to the extent that you are able, the attendees? A better question is, how can we at A Voice For Men and other related blogs ensure that the next conference is not co-opted by the “gynocentric mainstream media?” It would be so much better to attack the real issue, the real problems, and not each other.

      * It’s important to recognize the the founding fathers in the United States were at times at each other’s throats, too. Ben Franklin was right, though, when he said “We should all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately.”

      * My own thoughts on conflict and strife, especially of the kind found here — As a great man, Jamie Zawinski jwz.org, once said: “You come in to this world naked, screaming and covered in blood, but if you live your life right, it doesn’t have to stop there.”

      I wish all of you the best in your separate and collective efforts.

  15. The problem with male studies reflects the problem with the paradigm that informs Paul’s profession. It only presents one part of the argument, and poorly at that. And more importantly, it has us throwing out valuable opportunities. Neither male nor female behavior arises magically from a vacuum. Men and women, boys and girls, all take their cues from both sexes, young and old, siblings, parents, relations, friends and acquaintances, in an on-going process known as “Life”. By focusing only on “male studies” we miss vital clues and we deny ourselves powerful arguments. Let me provide an example…

    On January 5th, 2011 – 19:02 Paul Elam wrote:

    Women do indeed raise the majority of children, but they are not the sole influences on their development by any stretch. So while I am sure that the legions of dysfunctional mothers in modern culture are creating dysfunction, often violent children, we need to rely on the incidence of violence before that family breakdown.

    That still trends well toward men.

    This approach denies us a vital opportunity… the opportunity to realize that women as primary nurturers are as much cause as they are effect. Women do not only “respond” to male violence. They cause it, too. How? By teaching their charges the things that matter. Children first learn from their mothers that violence matters. Not only how their mothers administer violence by way of child abuse and neglect, but also how mothers respond to violence… with deference and respect… to their abusers. Pankaj’s response directly following Paul’s (in the above link) made the same point that I am making now, but Paul just ignored it like it didn’t matter. Now that’s ok, we all have other priorities and don’t always have the time to respond to everything. But this Male Studies issue reflects exactly the same problem, and Paul now finds himself in the position of having to address it head on.

    Women’s violence is not merely incidental to male violence. Women’s violence is not an after-thought, it is not a trivial by-product of male violence. In many ways, male violence is the enactment of the toxic mind-stuff in women’s heads. Women often indulge in vicarious violence – violence acted out by another, without risk to themselves – all sorts of violence, whether it be murder or even rape. Vicarious violence, violence in fantasy, inspires women to fall in love with violent prisoners. Violence experienced vicariously in the men that they choose enables women to experience the exciting rape that other women can only fantasize about, and without the terrible consequences. They get a freebie.

    This Male Studies perspective sells men short. We don’t need Male Studies in isolation from Human Studies. It’s just the same old gender supremacism/victimism repackaged with the roles switched.

    Why was it called “Male Studies”, anyway? It began to lose me from day 1, as much as I tried to resist my negative impulses. If it was called something like Human Studies or Reality Studies – anything to identify the human condition as a whole, anything to suggest that we are stepping beyond a tired, spent paradigm – it might have held my attention for longer, and I might have been more receptive to it and even contributed to it. But male studies? It’s just the same, old same-old.

    1. It is called “Male studies” to differentiate it from “Man’s studies”, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Feminist anti-male hate movement.

  16. With all the respect you know I have for you Paul, I pray that this entire post be removed from public view. It is beneath men of stature in the MRM. Seeing two titans of the MRM blogosphere clash in public like this demeans us all and seduces the enemy. Please spare a thought for the troubled men who view these pages as an oasis in the parched emotional landscape of their daily lives.

    JD’s article about Gay Garcia deserves rebuttal, but over there at TS where it can be understood in context. It will be safer there than here.

    Nergal’s comment over at the recent AVfM article Answering a Schoolgirls Questions is a timely reminder of the standard we need to apply here:

    Whatever the methods we employ, our solidarity and brotherhood will be the thing that wins the day for us.

    I hope that we can eventually develop an entire MRA sub-culture based on the principles of fraternity, respecting other men as equals, and gentlemanly honor.

    Paul, I thank you in advance for your consideration. I also humbly request protection from your wrath on the basis that what I’ve suggested makes good sense. Empathy, wisdom and mercy, brother.

    1. LOL! My hostilities are palpable, but conscious and directed. I have no qualms with you or your opinions. Please see my response below and thank you for speaking your mind.

  17. I didn’t get much from Jack’s artricle. I would expect more analysis and quotations linking Garcia to Kimmel.

    I don’t give a shit about the color scheme of their website or if gays are involved. I only care that they do professional research from a male perspective and expose the ideologues for who they are.

    Jack’s analysis was incomplete and superficial.

  18. The Man On The Street

    WHAT THE FUCK!?

    This is why the MRM never seems to get anywhere… Asshats abound. Paul, stop giving this asshat the time of day. The friendship between AvfM and TS will assuredly falter due to it.

    We need unity, not wedges.

    TMOTS

  19. Kevin I. Slaughter

    “It is the same old shame game that has been employed by alpha males (and apparently those obsessed with imagining they are) for time immemorial.”

    So, in calling Jack out on “shaming”, you decide to to shame him? What’s the lesson here?

  20. I’m with Alphabeta Supe here.

    Let’s forget about this public spat, and it would be great if this whole thread could be removed.

  21. To all that have posted in this thread and others:

    As you might have surmised, it is not typically my fashion to explain too laboriously the reasoning behind my writings. But as I look at some of the names here, many of which I highly respect, who seem confused about why I would make such a post, I see there exists the need for an exception.

    I hope this suffices and we can move on, but I am open for further review.

    As I reflect on my writings here generally, and on the collective wisdom of many of the MRA’s who have commented here since the beginning, a particular theme emerges that I think bears pointing to.

    We have developed a roundly accepted position here, and developed it together, that generally places us at odds, not only with feminists and their muscle in the form of manginas and white knights, but against the social fabric of congenital male disposability and assumed utility. I am by no means the only writer here that has accepted and promoted those ideas, and by no means the only person that that has lauded the work of others to that effect.

    And we have also accepted an open form of approval for taking on anyone whose works and deeds have placed them in the camp of those that support those anti-male institutions of thought, or would undermine progress toward their amelioration.

    I submit to you in all earnestness that this post was no different than many others in that respect, and that the only unusual aspect of it is that I happened to address someone with some general acceptance in the ever widening realm of MRA literature.

    I note with some assurance that when I have written articles confronting the misandry in organizations like NOMAS, and indeed treated it’s members, i.e. Kimmel and Kilmartin, with unrestricted scorn, there has been no real measure of dissent or concern.

    As it should be, IMO. But I do leave these comments open (as you can well see here) to those who disagree, even when it is vitriolic and personal.

    Also as it should be.

    To me, that leaves the real question here to be very simple. Is Jack Donovan undermining the collective ideals of the preponderance of people who support the mission of the MRM, and, separately, this website.

    The answer is a resounding yes. And I can prove it easily enough.

    To begin with, most all of us at one time or another have lamented the totally unaddressed epidemic of male suicide.

    Jack Donovan’s position? A man is better off to kill himself than to get into debt and end up dependant on others for help.

    Those were Jack’s sentiments explicitly in an exchange I had with him at The Spearhead.

    Now I ask you, in an economy that predicts 18 million unemployed and unemployable 25 to 44 year old men in the coming years in the US alone, what sort of mentality is that? Indeed, I am compelled to ask you what sort of reaction you have to this were just a single man predicted to fall on hard times?

    And I ask must also ask, with due respect, is this the kind of mentality you envision being integral to the attitudinal and social changes you are working hard to promote?

    I can tell anyone, with no uncertainty at all, that I find this kind of thinking loathsome and to the detriment of all men.

    Next we have the matter of defining manhood for men who want to define it for themselves. This goes so far past matters of human sexuality as to obliterate any meaning we could ever give such a thing.

    A review of the comments here, now approaching 10,000 in number, will produce many examples of men standing up to say “No one but myself will define my manhood or my masculinity,” in so many words. In fact, were I to point to any single kind of mentality that unified most of the men who post to this site, that would be it.

    But what of Jack Donovan on this subject?

    I have linked you to his archives. If you have not done so, please take a look for yourself. Even the titles alone are telling. He produces, one after another, nothing less than articles in which he anoints himself the sole arbiter of masculinity and manhood. He tells us what a real man is, and as I have already pointed to, that definition comes complete with instructions to self destruct if we don’t measure up…to him.

    I submit a respectful repeat of the questions already asked. Is this your movement? I am the first to admit that I cannot answer that for you, but I know my answer, and it is a vehement NO.

    And so now we have him emerging to take on male studies. While the actions of the Male Studies Foundation have hardly approached perfect, they have quite clearly caused the first real threat to misandry in academe that we have ever witnessed. They have stepped forward taking fire from all directions, against enormous odds, subjecting themselves to public ridicule and vilification, and at considerable personal expense, and forged ahead with an idea that is long overdue.

    I was happy, almost gloating that the NY Times gave me and AVfM a mention and a link in one of their articles. Need I remind anyone that the entire, lengthy article was about the Male Studies Foundation?

    Jack’s take on it? Their website colors are gay, and their new moderator is no different than Michael Kimmel.

    No different than Michael Kimmel? Do these men who have risked so much not at least deserve that this kind of statement be given more than Donovan’s flimsy and superficial rationalizations for support?

    Is anyone who happens to write for The Spearhead, or here for that matter, above being held to the same scrutiny that we would use for Jessica Valenti?

    Again, my answer is a resounding NO.

    I have the utmost respect for Bill Price and I am beyond words to describe my appreciation for what he has accomplished. I also respect his editorial decisions, even if they would not be appropriate for AVfM. He and I have some good similarities, but some distinctly different viewpoints as well. And while I am and will be a regular reader of TS, I don’t hold anyone to different standards based on their presence there or their popularity within the ranks of MRM readers.

    My guess is that Bill respects that more than he disagrees with it. And I also feel quite sure that he knows this piece about Jack is not pointing a single finger at The Spearhead, Bill Price or anyone else who writes there.

    My personal mission is to confront misandry with the indignation that I would confront racism. No more, no less. And I cannot maintain personal integrity if I issue a pass from that simply because of the place that misandry rears its ugly head.

    I have long lamented the tendency in MRM forums to fall back on the “If we say that we are just like them,” card. Usually when I see that it is used to avoid the reality of what type of vermin we are actually dealing with in favor of polite conversation and the appearance of civility where it has no place.

    But this is different, gentlemen. If we start looking the other way at misandry, and at real or potential harm to men and boys, to satisfy some unwritten rules of an insiders club, then we actually do become like them.

    The forces of misandry in this culture have hinged their very existence on like minded people looking the other way as evil is furthered.

    If I take a bloody nose from some, even from some whom I admire and respect, for refusing to take that path, I will simply wipe off the blood and keep writing, and making videos, and in the near future, speaking live.

    The day I have to compromise that is the day I pack up and call it quits.

    So no, this post will not come down. Nor will any comment that has been placed here.

    I don’t expect to have much to do with Jack in the future, but the door is open to it should the real need arise. (Un)Fortunately, there is a whole misandric zeitgeist out there to deal with and no shortage of matters that need attention. I am going to do my best to move on to others now.

    1. @Paul
      i feel like Jack’s reaction to what is Male studies or what it should be, is premature. Let’s wait and see, give them some time first. But you also overreacted him.
      At least we are adults, we can decide if Donovan’s point is right or wrong. He’s just a person, he can have an opinion, as anybody else. To attack him through his sexual orientation is a little bit… cheap (IMO).
      Yes he’s a gay, but that’s not the point here i think. With other words, who cares if he is? I disagree with him, but not because he’s a homosexual. Also i do it with respect, ‘cos i think we are standing on the same side.

      “Lighten up, Jack. You’re gay. Just accept it. You don’t have to be heterosexual, or an over compensating asshole, to be a man.”

      Sorry to say, but this is the same song like “you can’t get laid”, only the tune is different.

      1. I disagree. I never attacked Jack based his sexuality. And I don’t at all equate what I said as a “can’t get laid” shame maneuver.

        I respectfully suggest that you read the piece again.

        1. Ok i will reread it (now with a dictionary 🙂 ), and promise if i find that misunderstood something, i will apologise.

  22. My understanding of Paul Elam’s position: Men and boys are being flushed down the toilet by society. In response, men and boys should fight for their survival on every battlefield where the Feminist enemy shows its face. Specifically, men and boys should fight for control of the academic sphere and the institutional/political sphere, because these are the two strongest weapons used by the Feminist war on men.

    My understanding of Jack Donovan’s position: Men and boys are being flushed down the toilet by society. In response, men and boys should rely on strategies that are consistent with self-reliance and independence. Relying on any branch of government for support (including academia) legitimises our opponents because our ultimate enemy is government itself.

    This is an argument over STRATEGY, nothing more.

    What I most hate about this is, I spent most of my life as a mangina, and now I have to play that role again.

    @ Jack Donovan: you should never have publicly attacked the Institute for Male Studies. If you do not want to fight on the academic battlefield, then don’t. But if one of our MRM brothers feels most comfortable arguing our collective case in the academic context, why should he endure your voice alongside the Feminist chorus of man-hating invective?

    @ Paul Elam: God, I hate having to say this. I think your personal attacks against Jack are misguided. Save the heavy artillery for use against our collective enemy. The Feminist man-haters are having the time of their lives watching this civil war. If Jack is broken goods, damaged by some aspect of societal rejection of him as a male, then that is his cross to bear. How many of the men on this board can honestly say that they are completely whole, unwounded by three decades of near constant dehumanization orchestrated by a professional and utterly ruthless enemy?

    It would be disappointing enough if the MRM were thrown into turmoil over a substantive issue. But to get to this point over a minor strategic issue?

    We need to understand that our enemy, our COLLECTIVE enemy, is thoroughly disciplined, is backed by every major government in the world, enjoys three decades of accumulated resources, and operates COMPLETELY WITHOUT PITY OR REMORSE.

    Do you really want to loose this war?

    1. We need to understand that our enemy, our COLLECTIVE enemy, is thoroughly disciplined, is backed by every major government in the world, enjoys three decades of accumulated resources, and operates COMPLETELY WITHOUT PITY OR REMORSE.

      Agreed. But that is only half the picture, IMO.

      We also need to understand that “The Enemy” is often not easily or conveniently defined, and is sometimes in the mirror.

      In the earlier days of the online movement, in the low tech forums of places like Rod Van Mechelin’s Backlash, there were no words for things like mangina or white knight, no recognition of chivalry as a problem, and discourse was dominated by men still trying to cut through even the most fundamental misconceptions.

      I know that I am not near the same person now as I was then.

      We will be and should be constantly evolving in mentality and beliefs. What may appear one day as solid and practical may later be revealed as toxic and destructive. Chivalry is a perfect example.

      I very much respect your thoughtful ideas in this forum and those I have read from you at TS. I invite you to read the lengthy post I made this morning here and offer your direct criticisms. I will be happy to respond to them as honestly as I know how.

  23. I’ve enjoyed Jack Donovan’s work (including his book) but am also troubled by some of the views that seem to says that there is just one way to be a Real Man. The comment about suicide being a better alternative to financial trouble is abhorrent and one that would be interesting to hear Mr. Donovan defend.

    My father was once laid off back when we lived in Detroit and our family accepted hand-me-down clothing and some other practical help from those in our church while living on my mom’s income, savings and unemployment and trying to pay for COBRA coverage during the month my father was between jobs. Would a man like my father really be less of a man because he humbled himself to accept help that was graciously offered during a time of need? Much of this help came from people my own family had helped out in the past and/or did in the future. This give and take is part of being a member of a healthy community.

    Mr. Donovan is far from alone and nowhere near the worst offender when it comes to this Real Man-ness. There is a lot of this on TS and a few men who my husband and I have taken to referring to as the “couch commandos” as they are deeply wedded to the male disposablilty/tough guy/military man idea of masculinity yet have never lived the reality themselves. They are simply trying to ride on the rucksacks of those who have all while not risking winding up in Arlington at twentysomething or in the Wounded Warrior wing of an Army hospital. The provider/protector view is also alive and well over there. None of this would be wrong in itself–an individual can choose to be as traditional as they want to be–but when One Correct Path is being cast as the road to Real Masculinity there is a real problem.

    The in-fighting on this thread and that is also spilling over onto TS is extremely unfortunate as important points & reflection are being lost in the scuffle.

    1. Hestia,

      Jack is more than welcome here to answer your questions, but I will share with you the response he gave me when I asked him to defend his idea that a man should kill himself over financial struggles.

      He said, and the quote is approximate as this was some time ago, ‘he should not have let this happen to himself.’

      Let me also take the opportunity to say that in my opinion, this is not infighting. In my opinion, Mr. Donovan’s presence at TS only gives the illusion that we are in the same camp. We are not. This site has been populated with readers from the beginning that stand in opposition, indeed hostilely so, to the whole inflicted “real man” mentality.

      I submit that if Mr. Donovan were just another blogger on his own that 95% of the comments here would be cheering me on.

      1. He said, and the quote is approximate as this was some time ago, ‘he should not have let this happen to himself.’
        Words fail me right now…

        Point taken about the in-fighting. 😉 Your site and the discussions that happen here are of a very different flavor than TS. Both sites are enjoyable but they each offers something unique.

      2. I am entirely unfamiliar with Jack’s work but, assuming your description of it is accurate (something I’m inclined to believe given your often displayed insight and reasoning) I stand behind your assessment of it — though I will, of course, reserve final judgement until I have read it myself.

        Even if I disagreed with you though, I’d be cheering you on for calling it as you see it and not giving a damn if it’s viewed as politically correct according to anyone else’s definition of what the MRM’s politics should be. Let the feminists wring their hands about “publicly airing their dirty laundry,” or displaying dissent. In my opinion, ideological policing is for religions, cults, cliques and political parties. Given the wretched state of affairs, I’m not above such down and dirty tactics if I thought it would actually help the men and boys in need, but I don’t think it will.

        By the same logic though, I respect Jack for calling male studies out for the problems he sees in it (even though I DO disagree.) Not knowing the history or the context well enough I reserve final judgement on the tact you’ve taken in wording your piece, but my initial impression is that it was tad harsh, though not unfairly so and written in a style that I appreciate. If it’s a spade call it a spade ,and don’t waste anyone’s time dancing around the issue by calling it “manual geomorphological modification implement” and hoping your point is still communicated after paying homage to people’s feelings.

        Jack, for his part, took your criticisms very graciously …can’t say the same about Rob.

    2. “…troubled by some of the views that seem to says that there is just one way to be a Real Man…”

      Who cares what Jack thinks makes a man into a “real” man?

      If Jack Donovan is willing to pick up a weapon and fire in the general direction of the twisted Feminist evil that threatens all men, that makes him a warrior fighting in the same army as I fight.

      This is a war.

      I could spend all day counting off the TACTICAL advantages enjoyed by the twisted Feminist enemy. Thirty years of advanced preparation, the support of every major government, a massive disciplined army, control of the media, vast political and institutional support, total control of all academic disciplines that deal with human behaviour, cowed submission of academic disciplines that deal with natural phenomenon, etc.

      It does not matter at all. The anti-male Feminist war will fail because of one STRATEGIC consideration: It is men, not women, that have 50,000 years of experience in the business of war.

      It is men, not women, who know how to set aside their differences and unite when faced with a common enemy.

      It is men, not women, who are willing to sacrifice everything for their comrades in arms.

      It is men, not women, who recognize the exact moment at which the concept of “the greater good” trumps the minor differences between them.

      Men have been fighting and dying in defence of our tribes, our nations, and our peoples since before these words were invented.

      Feminists had a good run, making men into playthings serving at their pleasure. But when Feminists decided to declare war on all men, they fucked up.

      Because war is, and always has been, the business of men.

      1. “If Jack Donovan is willing to pick up a weapon and fire in the general direction of the twisted Feminist evil that threatens all men, that makes him a warrior fighting in the same army as I fight.”

        -Donovan is firing in the direction of Male Studies and not feminism.

      2. I see Denis beat me to it, but there is a question that needs to be asked.

        If Jack Donovan is willing to pick up a weapon and fire in the general direction of the twisted Feminist evil that threatens all men, that makes him a warrior fighting in the same army as I fight.

        Are you asserting that the Male Studies Foundation has not done exactly this?

        I would argue most emphatically that they have not only picked up a weapon and fired, but have in fact loaded a 105mm Howitzer and lobbed a big fat one right into the heart of our enemies camp.

        The only question remains, at least in my opinion, who you think has the most effect in disrupting feminist establishment, The Male Studies Foundation, who just garnered a multi-page spread in the NT Times (for round two openers, btw) or Jack Donovan writing hit articles on the very same group at the Spearhead.

        Sorry, I am just using your logic here. But if we are going to side with people just based alone on their potential to harm the enemy, then FMS is, till proven otherwise, the hands down winner.

      3. It is men, not women, who know how to set aside their differences and unite when faced with a common enemy.

        For a brief moment in 1914, men from both trenches in Flanders understood who the “common enemy” was; then other men (and plenty of their women back home) quickly put an end to that. For a non-violent example of how incorrect the above assertion is, look no further than the various views being expressed in this single thread.

        Because war is, and always has been, the business of men.

        I just got done with an article pointing out the absolute falsehood of such thinking. Men and women support and contribute to war with other tribes, nations, ideologies, religions, and peoples on a regular basis, throughout human history. If you’re just talking about the violent or tactical considerations of war, well, what difference does that make? Is that something I should be proud of as a man?

        War is, and always has been, the business of death. It is first and foremost the business of killing men. The war being fought against misandry and power-hungry feminism cannot tolerate untruths, one of which is the idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” A gay man attacking a male studies website by calling it something that has “the look and feel of a queer youth outreach program” and urging the designers to “study males a little harder” has just dismissed a small group of men from the fight as “queers,” who are, of course, quite unmanly.

        Whether to dismiss people like Donovan is not my concern, and never will be. No one who writes something like that can consider himself my friend, however. Nor is someone like that “on my side.”

        1. Semantics …

          “Men and women support and contribute to war with other tribes, nations, ideologies, religions, and peoples on a regular basis, throughout human history.”

          I am not talking about the choice, but the execution. It is men who wage war, and it always has been. Sometimes misguided, sometimes aggressors, sometimes defenders, etc. None of this matters. The ability to self organize and sacrifice for the greater good is the defining characteristic of men.

          Sure, women have contributed equally to the chest-thumping that often leads to unnecessary war. But it is men who do the dying, because it is men who know how to sacrifice, when called for.

          1. Okay, I can see that. But it seems to me that feminists have done a pretty good job of organizing and sacrificing for their version of the greater good, so I don’t see how it’s a trait exclusive to men. Again, if you’re just talking about physically fighting war, then that makes sense. But to say women don’t know how to band together or make sacrifices is, I believe, incorrect.

          2. Women band together quickly and easily into loose associations, every member of which is basically still looking after her own best interests.

            Men take much longer to overcome the much stronger divisive forces that separate us, but when we do finally associate, men know how to relinquish their own individual best interests for the good of the many.

            No woman will ever allow any “collective” to trump her godess given right to relentlessly pursue her own best interests.

            The Feminist fortress will fall apart like a house of cards, with every woman competing to be the first one out of the door, when they realize they are facing a determined and disciplined opponent.

      4. That is because Jack Donovan does not yet understand that this is a war.
        Jack Donovan fired on his own side.

        The absurd thing is Jack Donovan has spent half his life examining what it means to be “a man”. Jack Donovan can find his answer in history. There is one thing, and ONLY one thing, that has always been THE defining characteristic of men:

        Men unite before a common enemy in wartime. Men do not shoot at their comrades in arms.

        I am not suggesting that Jack Donovan is not a “real” man — he has a Y chromosome, and so he is a “real” man, regardless of what personal choices he makes.

        I am suggesting that Jack Donovan does not know that we are at war.

        So, I say again: Jack, stop shooting at your own side, because we are at war. What differentiates men from women is recognition of the exact moment when the emergence of a common enemy trumps all issues that divide men, common defence against the common enemy, and sacrifice for comrades in arms.

          1. Agree to disagree and all that, but cannibalizing potential allies isn’t the direction I’d hoped to see from AvfM. Not that I’m saying “OMG I’M NEVER GONNA COME HERE AGAIN” or crap like that.

            Still waiting on the radio show.

          2. Agree to disagree I can live with. Not looking for sympathy here, but it is not exactly easy cranking out one article after another for years that have to be designed to express outrage and/or piss someone off, without eventually pissing off almost everyone.

            I invite anyone who thinks otherwise to try. I have heard the objections here and though I disagree with them won’t just mentally trash them as though they never existed.

            This is one of many conflicts that we have no idea what the final result will look like. After all, look at how The Spearhead got started.

            Hope you enjoy the show.

      5. “If Jack Donovan is willing to pick up a weapon and fire in the general direction of the twisted Feminist evil that threatens all men, that makes him a warrior fighting in the same army as I fight.”

        Yea people of the MRM seem to forget sometimes that- apart from our gender- we have not much things in common. We are as different as it is possible.
        But here we go again, men were always like that, competing each other, until a real threat appeared- that forged them together in coalition. Gentlemen, the real threat is here, and it’s more visible every day. It’s time. Save your strength.

        I hope this little fist fight will not make Paul and Jack enemies.

  24. I have no particular opinion on Jack’s article, but I will pass comment on the comments I have seen here and there expressing disgust at Male Studies, and more generally at the idea that the Men’s Rights Movement should involve itself in academia.

    First of all, the Male Studies Foundation seems to be the real deal – not feminist lackeys skewed towards Queer/Gender Studies as Men’s Studies is. Looking at the issues so far identified by the Male Studies Foundation, which are intended for inclusion in the syllabus, we find a lot of crossover with the very issues that the MRM concerns itself with.

    Second, the reason why feminists had a conniption over the Male Studies Foundation (and not just a ten-minute fit culminating in an angry blog post as they do when pissed off at a TV character) is because there is real potential here for blocking or even reversing feminist influence. Those who are aware of the Gramscian ‘long march through culture’ should appreciate more than anyone that fighting them on each terrain is probably going to be the most effective strategy – our own ‘long march through culture,’ you could say. There are powerful forces in academia, exerting influence over government at the very highest levels. Some folks are happy to admit this when attacking feminism, but have difficulty admitting that counter-feminists, similarly placed, would possess similar power and influence.

    Third, I find troubling this notion that academics can only make things worse, because academics always support enlarging government. But this isn’t even slightly true. Anyone who has actually moved in academic circles will know that there is no consensus here. There are plenty of libertarian academics, some very famous, who explicitly support the cutting back (or even abolition) of public funding to institutions of higher education. This notion that all academics think the same way or have the same agenda is one I have encountered in real life, but only from those who never attended university and appear to be jealous of those who did. To anybody familiar with the reality of academic debate – it is pervasive, on every issue – the opinion seems rather an ‘eccentric’ one to take.

    1. The mainstay of academics has always been the scientific method:

      evidence => fact

      Collect and examine evidence, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis.

      Academics should have no professional opinion on issues of “truth”. Truth has as much to do with moral issues as it does with evidentiary issues.

      Of course, academics are also people, and like all people we have a right to an opinion on moral issues, but our opinions should not normally carry any more weight than any one else’s.

      The corruption of academia by Feminists was to introduce a “pseudo-scientific” method:

      consensus => truth

      The idea is that someone with a PhD occupies a higher moral plane than someone without. This is utter nonsense, as any of the academics who still work in the natural sciences can attest.

      The Male Studies Institute could spend 30 years just debunking bogus Feminist pseudo-science and returning a modicum of methodological rigour to the humanities.

  25. Interesting how Fedz attacks Paul as a boomer attempting to create a generation divide, while Donovan promotes paleo-masculinity which he clearly defines as something “ancient,” or “old”, “a collective and personal sense of manhood that is grounded in history and derived from forebears, kin, and culture.”

    Donovan is a dying breed, but Paul is tapping into issues that are relevant to young men.

  26. Having slogged through this list, I will say nothing about Jack, whom I have read and know and like and with whom I sometimes clearly disagree, or about Paul, whom I never heard of until reading this piece today. That’s a dead end.

    But here is the intellectual and attitudinal heart of the matter, as far as I can see.

    Paul writes

    A review of the comments here, now approaching 10,000 in number, will produce many examples of men standing up to say “No one but myself will define my manhood or my masculinity,” in so many words. In fact, were I to point to any single kind of mentality that unified most of the men who post to this site, that would be it.

    So: Can manhood be defined and described, OR is it anything that someone who claims it wants it to be?

    There is clearly more than one way to be a man…but it seems to me that there are many many ways for males not to be men (regardless of their self-regard or assertion.)

    The issue at the heart of this, apart from personalities, seems to be a fundamental disagreement about whether there are such things as standards of manhood and masculinity, standards apart from the individual’s.

    Jack’s vision is clear and exclusive. Not all who play will win and get prizes. Paul’s –and this site’s, I guess– is that you get to decide it for yourself.

    A classical vs an individualistic stance.

    1. Having taken the time to look a little closer at the elements of this subject, Jacks article, the comments, his web site, a couple more of his articles, if a vote was cast I would have Jack’s piece removed for the twaddle it represents and this is why.

      Since it was so important to critique the color palette of the Males Studies Foundation web site. Anyone who chooses to look closer at what is presented may be profoundly struck as I was. At the edges left and right of the banner are strong defined colors of green turquoise blue and purple in that order top to bottom. With what appears to be a lens broadly obscuring the view to a haze. It is a strong symbolic statement of position in my opinion. That clarity resides only at the edges is a brilliant touch that well represents a masculine tone. The additional highlight of purple that when obscured produces lavender is also a brilliant touch of subliminal insight given the fact that lavender is the representation of nobility and spirituality and is achieved by the mixing of blue (male) and red (blood). Given the nature of the visual although unqualified I consider it absolutely brilliant with profound depth. The site appearance and presentation resounds with a depth of masculine tone that is only available if you look…………..Jack. It smacks of an inclusiveness that is not enjoyed when surfing the blogs of men. As to the contentions of your article, keep chasing your wild man.

      1. Having spent some time in art school, I know that one can write something to make anything seem like anything. You can put shit in a can and call it a profound statement about the human condition. (It’s been done, and they have it at the Guggenheim.)

        To most people it is still shit in a can, and they won’t bother to listen to your idiosyncratic defense.

  27. I have never committed a single act of violence against a gay man. No gay man has ever committed a single act of violence against me.

    However – in college – I had to go through “gay sensitivity training” – how we “straight” were supposed to act when hit on by a gay man. No such training for people when hit on by straights though…

    I went to a vacuum store – to buy a new vacuum – the man immediately took a tone with me and asked me to leave – I DID NOT SAY A SINGLE WORD TO HIM – his demeanor indicated that he was gay.

    That said – do I have a problem with gays? Yes, many of them seem to have the same “victim” mentality of the feminists. Such mentality is spread at universities – just like feminism. This victim mentality has installed hatred of men in women – I believe it has installed hatred of straights in many gays.

    Homophobic is a valid word.
    Heterophobic is NOT a valid word.

    Do I have a problem with the “gay institution”? Yes – it is ultimately more political correctness and victim mentality.

    Do I have a problem with what grown adults do sexually?
    NOPE.

    If it were pre-world war II, and Germany was offering a course called, “Jew Studies” in replacement of “Zion Studies” – and I were Jewish – there is no way in HELL I would ever think of taking such a course.

    That is my stance on male-studies. This is pre world-war II – hatred of men instead of Jews is everywhere – we simply aren’t being gassed by the millions yet.

    I believe that no matter how well intended it is – it will become over-run with the same fruitcakes that now run men’s studies.

    Go ahead and thumb this down.

    This is just another flame war – I am disgusted with it.

    Paul – did you try talking to Jack Donovan before attacking him? To get him to reconsider his position on some things?

    If so, can you post the E-mail Dialog?

    Wouldn’t that have been a better example of “what the **** is wrong with him” – the e-mail dialog?

    1. How is heterophobia not a valid word? Your statement that:

      “Homophobic is a valid word.
      Heterophobic is NOT a valid word.”

      Smacks of something I just read on change.org in relation to the new Super Bowl hoax:

      “Misandry is not real, misogyny is”

      All due respect (I normally agree with you) but you should take a look at “Heterophobia” by Daphne Patai.

        1. Brilliant. You’ve just reinforced my point since I’ve yet to see a spell-checker recognize misandry.

          Again, take a look at “Heterophobia” by Patai. My copy is autographed by her “To Warren, a kindred spirit.” I like to think I somehow got Warren Farrel’s copy of of Amazon’s Marketplace.

          1. I agree Carlos.

            I think that was my original point eh?

            Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

            Or you are misunderstanding me?

            I am well aware that spell checker fails to recognize “misandry”.

            It also fails to recognize “heterophobic”

            I must have missed the point you were trying to make.

          2. Yes, after my last post I noted you had actually, yourself, given a good definition of heterophobia in your initial one (“instilled hatred of straights,”) and concluded I must have misunderstood you in thinking you were saying it didn’t exist.

    2. Good for you. I’m a gay man because I like men, in every way. But the knee jerk victimism you describe, which is very very real, makes me feel positively homophobic.

  28. Oh – and ice skaters being feminine?

    Skating, dancing – requires a boat load of muscle tone and coordination – similar to martial arts.

    Sure – some may be gay – but weak – nonsense.

  29. Who do we readers dare to trust? have read both AVfM and The Spearhead. The enthusiasm for “Male Studies” was dampened by a commentary on
    The Spearhead. Both sites have articulate and well informed writers, but some who divide also. Year ago when I spoke on phone to an Afro American reporter he expressed the view that feminist were more sympathetic to their plight. Yet, on The Spearhead a commentator whom I earlier had admired, resorted to a racially insensitive view.
    I don’t know if Paul Elam vs. Jack Donovan exchange is a”flame war” to create interest. But I trust Paul, I’m vaguely familiar with Jack. But AntZ but it well. Quote,

    AntZ
    January 20th, 2011 – 15:59
    My understanding of Paul Elam’s position: Men and boys are being flushed down the toilet by society. In response, men and boys should fight for their survival on every battlefield where the Feminist enemy shows its face. Specifically, men and boys should fight for control of the academic sphere and the institutional/political sphere, because these are the two strongest weapons used by the Feminist war on men.”

    1. Think for yourself. Trust but verify. Disagree respectfully (or be a prick, if you want to burn all your bridges).

  30. @All
    boy, you guys must be wound up pretty tight to go near (metaphorically) postal over such a minor disagreement.

    I’m sure some will want to position me in the middle, but to regain perspective, visualize a circular firing squad.

      1. Jack is on our side.

        He just does not know it yet 🙂

        His disapproval of academics and others who do not fit his view of masculinity is perfectly manageable. Since Jack loves Winston Churchill, I have a quote for him:

        “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

        If Churchill can work with Stalin, Jack can at least learn to ignore the Male Studies Institute.

  31. I think there is a misconception that everyone is on the same side and fighting for the same thing.

    There is also a misconception that since we have the same enemy that we are automatically allies.

    It’s not true, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

    I dont’ care how much they hate feminists, I would NEVER consider Donovan or Fedrz to be an ally.

  32. @Poester 99
    Assuming you have not interest in the outcome, the hackneyed cliché about “circular firing squat with you in the middle laughing your arse off” means that the squad is firing OUTWARDS,

    Poester99
    January 20th, 2011 – 18:31
    @All
    boy, you guys must be wound up pretty tight to go near (metaphorically) postal over such a minor disagreement.

    I’m sure some will want to position me in the middle, but to regain perspective, visualize a circular firing squad.

    Epic or Lame: 1 1

    But for those who have put blood, sweat and tears it matters if someone is a “Trojan Horse”

    1. Me in the middle, dead, actually. The cliche is perfectly appropriate when you’re trying to build up a very small activist group. People who are passionate for the cause can be frequently passionate in ways that can be destructive. Need to puree the right things, and herd the cats, oh sorry, armies of one, toward the right targets.

      And as for deleting the threads, I hope you’re not even considering it, I think it’s educational.

  33. Maybe AVfM and the Spearhead should delete their threads. It damages the MRM community!!! Everyone has an opinion and it’s good to have different opinions. However we cannot afford to publicly attack each other. If I would be a feminist and read the rants over here (and at The Spearhead) I would laugh my ass off. Delete the threads and unify our forces! What my opinion on The Foundation for Male Studies concerns: give them some credit and see what they are going to bring on the table in the near future. If it sucks, we can still flame them on the forums, but then we can flame them ‘together’ instead of flaming ourselves! Please delete the threads and UNIFY!

    1. “UNIFY!”

      Spoken like a collectivist. If Paul doesn’t call out misandry where he sees it, against what are we unified?

      1. As I said: everyone has an opinion and so has Jack Donovan. It was unwise of Jack to rant against The Foundation for Male Studies, but attacking members of our own community ‘in public’ is in my opinion not very wise either. You never will win a war when you’re bombing your own soldiers because they have a different opinion. Therefore you have to go to war as one collective. Never attack each other in public. In my opinion both men made the same mistake and that’s a shame.

        1. Donovan made his misandric comments in public, and was called out in public. That’s how it should be. We don’t agree on this point at all, I’m afraid.

          1. It’s not a fault ‘an sich’ to criticise another man’s opinion in public but when things get personal that’s when it starts to hurt the community. We have to maintain a certain standard of professionalism in our comments and we should not start a rant against each other. We can’t afford to get emotional. If everyone would start to shout at each other then our community would be put to an end immediately.
            But as I said: I agree to the fact that it was unwise of Donovan to attack The Foundation for Male Studies.

  34. I don’t expect this comment to settle anything, but before we do any more of this long, drawn-out quarreling, why don’t we get back to basics?

    Click on the “Mission and Values” button and read, if you haven’t before. What do you see listed there as the main reasons for the existence of this site? You’ll find references to standing up for the truth, standing against the coercive lies currently being broadcast to the whole world, an acknowledgement of the necessity for the two sexes to work together, and one reference after another after another after another about the need to stand against misandry.

    Now that we have our foundation in place, follow the link in Paul’s article to Jack Donovan’s writing. If you click on the article entitled “Male Studies Taps Guy Garcia for Conference,” you will read the following:

    To begin with, the presentation was completely tone deaf down to their combination of a rainbow graphic with a photo of a good looking but vaguely lonesome young guy. Along with the lavender color palette gives the Male Studies web site the look and feel of a queer youth outreach program. Clearly, these guys need to study males a little harder.

    Now think back to first principles. This website exists, as pointed out above, to fight misandry. Now let’s just assume that Donovan really is a member of our “army.” A man who makes a misandric statement like the one above is equivalent to a troop who loses it in the barracks and pulls out his gun, threatening his comrades. What do you do?

    “That’s okay. Let’s not fight, or the real enemy will laugh at us.”

    No, I don’t think so. That statement above is not only incorrect in my view of the webpage in question, it is, to a portion of those who call themselves “men,” a statement of hatred. It is also a proclamation of what comprises “manly” color schemes and “masculine” graphic design. If it looks like a “queer” did it, it’s not manly. It is a narrowing down of the defnition of manliness to that which is intolerable. It is totally counterproductive. This troop is aiming his gun at the other guys in the barracks.

    Paul had the sense to yank the gun out of his hand.

    I am not against feminism because it starts with an F. I am against the initiation of coercion, systems of coercion, and all other death-oriented activity. Feminism’s track record is one of mass death. The death of manhood in all its manifestations. It is misandry, which is why this site exists, to fight that hatred.

    I was guilty once of a misandric post, and Paul yanked the gun out of my hand. I am eternally grateful. Donovan, if he ever wakes up and stops insulting his fellow homos, should also be grateful.

    My vote now and always is for this post to stay right where it is.

    1. “I was guilty once of a misandric post, and Paul yanked the gun out of my hand …”

      One of my earliest posts was pretty stupid also. Some Feminazi troll spilled her moralizing drivel onto Paul’s pages, and I was stupid enough to ask Paul to be “nicer” to her, because at the time I thought the MRM was too weak to accomplish anything without at least partial support from the Feminist 800 pound gorilla. Paul never said a word, the Feminazi turned on me like the rabid dog that she was, and I learned my lesson the hard way.

      Maybe I am making the same mistake again. However, I think that Jack Donovan is a potential ally, and Paul should have been “nicer” in his choice of words.

      Time will tell.

      1. I wasn’t asking Paul to be nicer to anybody. I was deliberately shaming others into doing what I thought was best. Much worse than what you claim to have done. I don’t think it’s wrong or bad to ask for more niceness. Perhaps choice of words can always be improved, but for the most part (or maybe for all of it), I agree with the purpose and style of Paul’s post. We can learn, however, from those who see it differently.

      2. I won’t rule out the possibility that you could be absolutely right. And you are right, time will tell.

        What I can tell you for sure is that I wake up every day with the intention of my values dictating my actions. I don’t always, frequently actually, live up to my own standards, but I do try.

        And when am able to see that I have failed, I do stand up and admit it.

        So far, this thread and the one at TS have convinced me that the article was the right thing to do. Have I rethought several ways that I could have approached it better, perhaps with less harshness?

        Yes I have.

        But in the end, I think B.R.’s analogy was the most succinct yet. There was someone firing at brothers in my camp, for all the wrong reasons, and to no possible good end. These are men that I know well how hard they have word and what they have done to try to help you and I fight the tide of misandry, and I know more than a little about the price they have paid for it.

        So I went for the gun hard and fast and I don’t regret it.

        I have had few moments in life that I don’t look back on the same way I do my writing. “Wow, I could have said it this way or that way.” I can literally agonize myself with that at times.

        But there comes a time when you have dotted every i and crossed every t you can at the moment and you have to let it fly, and then stand behind it unless introspection forces you to rescind.

      3. I would suggest that Jack is already well-informed and decisive in his viewpoints:

        “Jack Donovan moonlights as an advocate for the resurgence of patriarchal, paleo-masculine values among the Men of the West.”

        http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/bio/

        I just don’t think he cares about men’s rights. He is the “patriarchy” that gives credence to feminist’s existence, but he doesn’t represent the majority of men, average men or men’s rights. He just doesn’t care that men are dying, he wants power.

        1. “I would suggest that Jack is already well-informed and decisive in his viewpoints”

          About this, you are correct.

          http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/02/04/the-grievance-table/

          (Sadly there were some type issues when WF Price updated his software)

          I think the concept of “Men’s Rights” is a philosophically absurd concept that begins and ends with an attempt to jump on the Civil Rights gravy train. The problem being that those who hold the ladle would very much like to keep it.

          If there has been any confusion, and I don’t think Paul is confused about this, Paul and I are not on the same side. However, we are not always on the opposite side. He was the one who tipped me off (via The Spearhead) to the fact that RW Connell had a sex change, and for that golden nugget alone I will be eternally greatful.

          He’s watching the news, and he gets some useful information out there.

          1. “I think the concept of “Men’s Rights” is a philosophically absurd concept that begins and ends with an attempt to jump on the Civil Rights gravy train”

            That’s the game in academia, journalism and government. MRA’s are the last

            I don’t give a shit about patriarchy because historial patriarchy has been far more oppressive of men than women. Women have always had special rights and “chivalry is the lapdog of feminism”

            Are there any academics that you agree with? Warren Farrell?

            I care about the men who commit suicide because society devalues them. Which side are you on?

          2. I have to give Jack something else. At least he comes out straight with his thoughts.

            I can’t imagine someone down voting you for asking him a simple and honest question.

          3. I think this is a dead horse at this point, but to answer your question, the Victorian ideal of chivalry was romanticized after the fact. Chivalry doesn’t mean “deference to women.” It means knighthood. It’s an armed man on a horse. Read Geoffroi de Charny’s Book of Chivalry. He puts honor above performing deeds for women. He was a real knight who died protecting his king. Not a woman. Someday I will manage to write an essay about how the tradition of chivalry gets a bad name in the men’s movement because they are referring to a late and romanticized (and degraded) spin on chivalry.

            Are they any academics whose wisdom I accept uncritically? Absolutely not. But I would have nothing to read or refer to if it were not for academics. They have a place, but the last thing the world needs now is *more* academic gender studies. I just really do not think these people are capable of understanding men outside of their protected zones.

            I’ve enjoyed the work of Harvey Mansfield, James Bowman, and even Lionel Tiger, as I mentioned in my article on Male Studies.

          4. Deference aside, a knight would always trample on men to impress and protect women.

            I don’t understand why The Spearhead posts your articles or why anyone claiming to be MRA would give you the time of day.

            Old men thinking just like you have been the greatest obstacle for men’s rights.

          5. The Spearhead is not an MRA site, it’s bigger than that.

            WF Price has said as much repeatedly, though the “we must immediately agree on everything and present a united front” and “how could you publish something we disagree with?” discussions are perennial.

            MRAs are a small branch of any number of people interested in the topic of manhood. Manhood is an extremely important topic, though any given person’s understanding of both “human nature” and “what is best in life” will influence his or her approach to it.

            It’s philosophical and political.

            The world the left wants, for instance, cannot allow a particular kind of manhood to exist, because it is a known threat to an all-powerful state. Our elites want a managed society of passive consumers. Men who can’t form a hierarchy because they make their own standards and definitions according to whim are not a threat to anyone.

          6. Well, Jack, whatever my opinions of you have been, I have no problems saying that you also strike me as thick skinned and principled enough to deal with adversity with some not unexpected good humor.

            It’s clear we are on way different sides of the fence a lot more often than we share the same views, and where we are different it is quite drastic.

            But you do have a character that I can’t attribute to many of my adversaries.

        2. My point exactly Denis. I know I posted some “final words” on this, but it is amazing what a trip to the grocery store and a big can o’ monster ale will do for you. 🙂

          First, I note that by the time I got back home your comment had been down voted once. Since there was no response to your valid point, I think it points to the distinct possibility that this is not really a philosophical difference as much as it is an expression of angry Donovan fans (who probably understand the implications of his ideology far less than he does).

          Here’s the deal. Anyone can go through this site and find any number of articles I have written where I have taken things to a personal level with ideologues that promote misandry. I likened Kilmartin to a histrionic liar afraid of frozen vaginas. I more or less called Kimmel a self loathing arrogant prick in as many ways as my creative writing skills would allow. I went after the vice presidents childhood relationship with his abusive sister and inferred he now pathologically protecteing abusers with VAWA. I even went after Connell for cutting his balls off.

          All those scathing, highly personal attacks on misandrists and barely a peep of dissent from MRA’s.

          But oh, go after Jack Donovan’s misandry and quite a chorus erupted.

          I have one word for the lot of them.

          Fuck-off-and-die. And I don’t care who you are.

          This site has been patently anti-patriarchal, anti-white knight and anti-mangina since its inception, along with anti feminist.

          I have done absolutely nothing different in this piece than people have been supporting me for as long as I have been here. The only difference is that I went after someone whose hatred for and desire to promote the utilitarian use of men was on the “inside.”

          Well, he wasn’t inside with me, and in my opinion he quite clearly proves his destructive and archaic mentality, indifference to the struggles of men, and quite hostilely so.

          Jack Donovan is no more a friend to the MRM than Joe Biden. And he is actually more dangerous on a reduced scale. At least Biden is not fooling anyone.

          As such a person, he no more warrants protection from scathing commentary than anyone else I know of. If there are people that don’t understand that – fine, so be it. This website is not for the feint of intellect, or for those who fail to understand that Jacks breed of inflicted manhood and feminism have proven by history to be synonymous.

          If it costs me some site traffic, I will deal with it because that is the right way to look at it, and because Jack and his ilk are this cultures past, on the way out on a slab, and this site deals with the next generation of men to come qw well as the ones living in the present.

          Whatever I lose here now is just a culling. We are growing here and it will continue.

          1. I have one word for the lot of them.
            Fuck-off-and-die. And I don’t care who you are

            Hey man that’s not one word!

            As far as Konnell……It’s now spelled with a K
            He cut off his “C” and there’s no phonetic alternative.

  35. I just posted this at The Spearhead. It sums up all I have remaining to say on this matter for the time being. Also, I have responded to Jimmy K’s request at TS that both sites remove the “offending” articles in the affirmative. I have no idea of Mr.’s Price of Donovan agree, and read nothing of importance about either of them should they refuse. But if the attack piece on Male Studies is removed, so will this article.

    Cheers

    @Zed

    Two items. One, a circular firing squad requires that all the marksmen are on the same team. Since I am in a different camp entirely than Jack Donovan, and the likes of Ferdz, there is nothing circular about it.

    Two, to all the people who have notions that feminists have always been this unified sisterhood, think again cause it just ain’t so. They have had organizational infighting and political back stabbing throughout recent history. Think Betty Friedan and the more radical elements that muscled her out of the movement.

    AMSA and NOMAS used to be just one organization and ended up as two because they got in a huge pissing match about who was the “real feminists” in their respective camps.

    Now comes the third wave pro porn, pro prostitution arm of their movement that is aiming to undo a lot of the second waves agenda.

    And keep in mind also there were likely countless other spats and blowups that we never heard of because we didn’t have an internet that could broadcast all of them.

    Infighting and philosophical splits are not only common to social movements, they are necessary for the development of their identity and for their progress.

    And they can’t help but reflect the actual ideals of their own members. Just like the huge difference between Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X in the early years, we are destined by human nature to have differing methods of approach. And sometimes those will be in conflict with each other.

    That doesn’t mean failure, it means growth, and we now have enough intellectual real estate to afford the split. We are even building enough momentum to form camps that don’t like each other very much and I submit that this is exactly what is happening here.

    There is a growing number of men who believe that traditional masculinity, complete with its mandated obligation to women, has been too long maligned and they want a to resurrect its status as an honored institution. I think that is unlikely, but regardless of what I think those numbers of men will likely continue to grow.

    There is also a significantly growing number of men who have decided to buck biology and socialization and say “fuck real manhood” and go their own way in that respect.

    Doesn’t matter if anyone likes it, it is happening and is not going to stop, even if some great men throw in the towel.

    The men’s movement is documented on the internet, not created. We open minds, but the doors have to be opened by men on their own, according to their choices and desires.

    And that fact that we will rub each other the wrong way from time to time should not be cause for alarm.

    Ten to one that this movement, on all fronts, will be larger and more developed next year at this time regardless of how many pissing matches occur. Ten to one that AVfM and The Spearhead have much broader readership and support next year at this time, regardless of the same.

    It’s a freight train now, and not even we can stop it.

    I have put in quite a bit of work supporting male studies since I was the first one in the MRM they called when they were ready to make themselves known. I believed in them then, and I do now. And I will regard anyone shitting on them as an enemy to the cause my camp supports, unless the prove not to warrant that support.

    I have never much agreed with Jack, but I never went after him till he pissed in my yard. I’ll do it again if I feel the need.

    I don’t support marriage any more. I think it should be avoided at all costs, as well as fathering chidren. But I don’t shit on Stephen Baskerville or Glenn Sacks. Neither are hurting the cause I support and are likely helping it a great deal. So there is no payoff in spouting my opinions on those efforts for anyone. It’s lose/lose.

    That is why Jack fucked up by going after male studies, pure and simple.

    It was a bad target with flimsy, largely concocted reasoning that could not result in anything but the chaos that it did.

    But as I said, the silver lining is that lines are being drawn in all the right places for all the right reasons, and the net result in the future will be two stronger groups of men more clearly identified by their values and objectives.

  36. This is off topic, but Paul, I hope you get a chance to see the film, Blue Valentine. Roissy gave the best review, but both Sailer’s and Ebert’s reviews were also good.

    This is as about as good a film as we’ll ever see in our lifetimes about the problem of trenchant male loneliness.

  37. Most of us, including Paul, probably want to see the end of this debate. But further comments have not been disabled, so I take that as an invite to post some final “final words” of my own?

    All I wanted to add was…

    My criticism is less about Male Studies than the banner they have chosen. “Male Studies” appears to be an attempt to “balance the books”, in regard to which only the voices of feminists have been heard.

    But what is Male Studies intending to balance the books with? Lies? Because that’s all we’ve heard from feminists. Feminists have not provided us with any truths about either women or men. So why are the folks from Male Studies trying to achieve balance with books of lies? Why are they trying to achieve parity with liars?

    Or is Male Studies trying to balance the books with truths? If so, then why present only half of the truth? Feminists have not provided us with any truths at all to balance with. So why present truths in favour of men only? That’s not balance. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to also address that vast, yawning cavernous gap that feminists have resolutely failed to address? Truths about women?

    If Male Studies wants to present truths, then why limit these truths to men? Wouldn’t it be more productive to seek the truths that apply to both men and women?

    In the interests of balancing the books with truths that apply to both men and women, feminism should be trashed entirely. It’s methodology should be ignored. Feminism has set the terms of the gender debate, and we do ourselves a disservice by trying to respond to these flawed terms. There is nothing to learn from feminism except how not to be. A real academic discipline, such as Male Studies is purporting to be, should make its contributions under a banner that embraces men and women. It should not exclude truths about women in the interests of truths about men, because then it presents an incomplete, impoverished part of the picture. That’s the reason that I have issues with the name “Male Studies”.

    Just sayin’

    1. Not all of academic feminism has been lies, but pretty much all of it has been polemically one-sided in such a way that the truth it conveys is a fraud. For me at least, Male Studies is, amongst other things, designed to tell the other side of the story. It is not possible for Male Studies to commit the flagrant fraud that feminism committed because the inescapable reality is that feminism exists and their story has been told. The two movements do not have the same initial starting points. Where feminism was a blatantly one-sided fraud, male studies seeks to provide balance by correcting the new feminist dictated status quo.

    2. Good fair questions, and I think I can answer them.

      You have to keep in mind that FMS is not an MRA outfit. The whole purpose is the honest scholarly investigation of the human male,, across the full spectrum of life, from cradle to grave. It does not intend or pretend to address the lives of women in any way, because they are not male.

      It isn’t that feminists are threatened by male studies because it intends to promote lies, but because empiricism and valid research is feminism’s worst enemy. That is why you can look across the board at most university departments, including some of the hard sciences, have all been infested with feminist ideologues and feminist policies.

      FMS is truly not driven by a political agenda. In fact, they are attempting as much as possible to be strictly apolitical. Whether that last part is even possible remains to be seen.

      I understand the tendency to automatically see the world “male” in juxtaposition to “female,” but I am convinced from talking to many involved in this effort that this is precisely their intent.

      And I think it is very telling that the opposition to their efforts have tried, too successfully I might add, to paint them as regressive and biased against women.

      So the thing that is so hard for many get about this is that all BS aside what these people want to do is study human males in order to better understand and offer solutions to problems in their lives.

      The fact that it will bring real harm to the liars that inhabit academia is just a plus that they cannot help but achieve by their very existence.

  38. The fact that the Male Studies Conference endorsed the idiot Guy Garcia is, simply put, a huge red flag, one that seriously puts their true intentions into question, and Mr. Donovan was right to point that out.

    1. Then perhaps you can educate us where Donovan didn’t. Please inform all, in detail why Garcia would compromise a mission that has already been established and demonstrated publicly.

      BTW, did you attend the online conference last year? Is there anything that demonstrates you know what you are talking about? Or is this just uniformed parroting?

      1. “Please inform all, in detail why Garcia would compromise a mission that has already been established and demonstrated publicly.”

        I’ve read his 12-step program. That’s all I need to know to conclude that he won’t benefit your movement. He’s much more likely to be a force of division rather than unity for you.

        “BTW, did you attend the online conference last year?”

        No.

        1. Then I would suggest you are making conclusions based on very little information.

          For the record, I think the 12 step program is a cheap rip off of AA, and nothing more. As an addictions counselor I can tell you that there is some real good to be had for people who want to work those steps, but to imply that men as a class should work them is stupidity bordering on misandry.

          I hope his experience at The Foundation will teach him better. But as someone who knows the architects of this mission, and the goals of the organization, I don’t see him as dangerous. In fact, I think he is much more likely to be changed than to change anything.

          And of we can’t count on academicians changing their mindset, then there will be no growth.

          I can only judge them by their actions. And thus far, their actions speak quite loudly. They are clearly on a track that will undermine the feminist establishment in academe.

          When the fembots quit trying to vilify them, then I will question their intentions.

  39. FOLKS THE BIG PICTURE IS WE CAN PROFESSIONALLY RECOGNIZE EACH OTHER AS AUTHORITIES….AS WE ALLREADY ARE DOING NOW!!
    WE ARE THE MENS RIGHTS ACADEMICS!!!!, WE WILL PUBLISH THE NEWS STORIES WILL WILL RECOGNIZE EACH OTHER AS AUTHORITIES ect,ect.. who gives a f%ck what this other guy does.

  40. Paul and jack, you both are top gunners around here, and should learn to tolerate each other for the greater good. just my 2 cents!!

  41. Heh, i agree with the article but after that it’s downhill all the way…

    Anyway Jack is very troubled, or something, and best ignored. I wrote a similar thing last year which ended with this…

    “Most of what Donovan sees as manliness is a collection of social constructs meant to keep men doing what society wants them to – father kids, sacrifice for women, fight every stupid war that comes along, or at least destroy your body with overwork so that you and your family can buy, buy and then buy some more. The definition of a real man is an easy one, so listen up Jack – a real man is an adult male homo sapiens. It really is that simple, and anyone who tells you otherwise, be they conservative or liberal, man or woman, is just trying to control you.

    All this macho stuff has to be taken with a grain of salt. It has its uses but only because the world is so fucking dangerous for men, so any man with sense learns how to fight, and tries to get big and strong, but you have to keep your sense of humor about you or you’ll go nuts and end up either in jail or in the local morgue .

    Years ago, being straight but broke, I spent a few months working-out in a cheap gay gym. One day I was standing there, grunting and straining during some dumbbell curls, very grim and serious, when suddenly on the gym’s stereo the Village People start singing out “Macho, macho man! I want to be a macho man!” and I had to stop mid-rep to smile at the delicious irony of it all!

    Mr. Donovan, alas would have kept grunting, completely unaware of the joke being played on him by the universe.

    1. Most of what Donovan sees as manliness is a collection of social constructs meant to keep men doing what society wants them to – father kids, sacrifice for women, fight every stupid war that comes along, or at least destroy your body with overwork so that you and your family can buy, buy and then buy some more.

      I’ve only read a few things of Donovan’s so far, but I am getting a sense that your assessment is correct, especially since he’s an admitted fan of James Bowman. I have to admit to being a fan of his as well. I don’t know how much Donovan agrees with him, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a lot.

      I already discussed some of my issues with Bowman in this article, one of which is his deep concern with the loss of honor. I believe that since the definition of honor is actually so broad, and since I doubt Bowman would like to see a return of many ancient principles of honor, or a morphing into a society resembling modern-day honor cultures (like fundamentalist Islam), that honor need not necessarily disappear, but be changed into an honoring of the pursuit of love, freedom, truth, and peace. If men are predisposed to gravitate towards such a morally neutral phenomenon such as honor, it need not disappear, but merely change its focus.

      I see something quite honorable in the men’s movement, but what I see is outside the traditional, Americanized, conservative vision.

      1. Bowman’s book about Honor is more political than I would have liked, but you need not imagine what he would have thought about Islam vs. the West, because it is in fact the main topic of his book “Honor: A History.”

        What you are saying about honor is that we need to change it into a meaningless warm fuzzy, like “masculinity.” This way, people can claim to be “honorable” whenever they are simply behaving nicely. This is not honor. There has always been a conflict between public and private honor in the west, and this is interesting, but without the public sort of honor that Bowman tries to get a grasp of in his book, we are really just talking about “whatever.”

        You are really imposing your own morality, and calling it honor because it sounds important.

        1. I impose nothing, and I have no morality. I am making a suggestion, based on four principles that I am coming to believe are required if life is desired. This will be hard for many to comprehend, but I believe that love, freedom, truth, and peace are all required to sustain life. Life, however, is not a requirement.

          Bowman often says that “honor” is not equal to “moral” or “righteous.” He has also made it clear that the perception of honor changes from culture to culture, and time period to time period. He himself would reject a great many activities that fall under the heading of honor, because they would conflict with his own views of morality.

          I’m not talking about “whatever,” but if you really think that the definition of masculinity has become meaningless, then I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

  42. I whole-heartedly agree side with Paul Elam and his logic on “in-fighting” and the growth it provides a movement.

    Some people said this is like a war, and we all have the same enemy… well guess WHAT? That’s a PERFECT analogy, because I’ll let you imagine the following:

    – Imagine you’re leading a team of soliders, and you have this loudmouthed rookie… The dumbass is so narcissistic that he frequently “borrows” the ammo of teammates without asking, consistently does friendly fire and throws grenades in tight-quarters without warning team-mates that he’s about to throw a grenade.

    He’s so far injured 3 of his team-mates, once ran head-on into an enemy encampment alerting the enemies too soon endangering the stealth teams, and has injured 2 team-mates with the shrapnel of unannounced grenades.

    The metaphor make sense yet? JUST BECAUSE someone has the same enemy as you do, doesn’t make them your friend, or EVEN an ally. Some people, who have the same enemy as you, can actually HURT the cause… So this stupid notion that all MRA should agree with all other MRA is just idiotic.

    I see Paul right now as that sergeant who grabs that careless rookie by the neck and gives him a verbal beating.

    Just because you have an enemy and you think you’re fighting them, doesn’t mean you’re actually hurting the enemy! You can actually be FEEDING and straightening the enemy… and that’s what I think a lot of the spear-head authors do in fact do. They’re just randomly throwing grenades in random directions…

    I fully support “in-fighting” because it is crucial to figuring out a strategy and a long-term victory, removing the bad apples, as well as letting the movement “grow” and develop. Anyone can run in guns-a-blazing rambo-style, that doesn’t require neither courage nor brains, only stupidity. A good, long-term strategy however requires patience, fortitude and dedication to long-term victory, not a mere temporary ego booster… In fact, I often get the sense that a lot of the Spearheadey types are more interested in settling their own egos, rather than winning anything for men as a group.

  43. Just stole the following from The Spearhead. It is Harry’s take on this entire matter and more balanced than anything I have seen so far, including my own posts.

    He is getting the last word here, too.

    —-

    For what it is worth, I cannot see much wrong with Jack Donovan’s piece; and I share some of his reservations (and the reservations of others round here) about the Male Studies Course.

    However, I do think that it will more likely be of benefit to us rather than the reverse.

    Well, let’s hope so!

    I can also see why Paul got so wound up.

    1. He positively hates the idea of men being expected to be men, or to be anything in particular; believing that men should be left alone to follow their own pathways. And Jack Donovan’s commonly-expressed view of what men *should* be like drives him nuts.

    Jack Donovan’s idea of a worthwhile man does not resonate with me either, nor with millions of other men would be my guess.

    And there is a certain irritating arrogance about a man who keeps telling other men what they need to be in order to be a ‘real man’.

    2. Paul hopes very much that the Male Studies Course will prove to be a great boon for men, and so he does not want to see it undermined in the eyes of MRAs – e.g. as per Jack’s piece.

    If it turns out to be the usual academic sop – or worse – then we can always start moaning about it later.

    But it could turn out to be a very good counterweight to feminist thinking IN THE MAINSTREAM.

    And that would be very nice indeed.

    On the other hand, Jack Donovan might be right.

    But the point here is this.

    The people who run this Course could well do with our support at this point in time, and Jack was undermining it.

    In addition, there is surely a sneering tone arising in parts of Jack’s piece when it comes to talking about the Course’s website.

    Is anyone really surprised that Paul got angry at this?

    3. Jack ends his piece by saying, …

    “Men will not rise again democratically, through education, or through clever social engineering. Men negotiate and settle wild zones. They will experience resurgence in the aftermath of social collapse.”

    Fair enough.

    But Paul and I believe that we men are clever enough to ‘win’ this war without having to wait for societal collapse.

    Otherwise, why do we bother doing what we do?

    **Indirectly**, therefore – and perhaps unwittingly – Jack is, basically, telling us not to bother, and that we are all wasting our time – to which I feel the urge to explode and to say, “Then why the FU#K are YOU here, Jack?”

    But, I do not really think that he means to suggest this.

    And I am merely trying to explain the kind of emotion that people like me go through when it is suggested that we have spent the past decade and more, “wasting our time.”

    As if we are morons or something – too stupid to realise how useless we are.

    So, all in all, I can understand Paul’s ire.

    Did Paul do the right thing by writing his current piece about Jack on AVfM?

    In my view, No.

    I think that it was a mistake.

    And, in fact, we have been in this situation before round here – with Jay Hammers; who seems to have disappeared; much to my regret.

    But I empathise VERY STRONGLY with Paul’s fairly intolerant attitude towards those within the MRA community who he believes undermine the cause.

    However, in this particular case, I think he went too far.

    But, of course, very much the same could be said about Fedrz – on *numerous* occasions – and about many other people round here; including You~Know-Who-Of-Three-Letters

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *