One interesting question this article brings up is -- is there a legitimate place for gender-segregated institutions in our society?
It's a bit ironic that people will justify women-only spaces (e.g. a train car[1] or taxi[2]) as creating a safe space for women, but in the same breath deny the legitimacy of traditionally male spaces as being sexist and degrading to women, e.g. the push to make fraternities and sororities co-ed [3][4].
IMO, men have their own insecurities and worries, often with respect to their relationship with women, and having a 'safe space' to work out those issues is not only useful, but symmetrically fair.
Safe space for women: a train car or taxi where for once, she doesn't have to feel the threat of sexual assault, molestation, groping, what-have you. (Problem men in these environments won't usually have cause to fear.)
Safe space for men: A smoking chair at the freemason's lodge where he can network his way up through society without worrying about competition from pesky women?
I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but bear with me: A lot of the traditional men's spaces look like avenues for social advancement that are closed to women. This may be incidental because men have historically run things and the politicking and networking naturally occurred in spaces where men congregated, but incidental or not, attempting to bar women from traditionally male spaces today has the effect of locking women out of society, so to speak. In a vacuum, a club where men hang out exclusively is no different than a club where women hang out exclusively, but in reality the sheriff and mayor are rubbing elbows at the elk lodge, not at the women's gym down the road. As long as men hold the reins, locking women out of the spaces where men hobnob is another tool of control.
That's certainly the most common rationalization that's given for the disparity, but even if accepted as valid, the criterion of being an "avenue for social advancement" is difficult to apply to one, but not the other. What's to stop people from 'networking' in women-only cars, and what of the myriad 'women in business' networking events and clubs that exist?
As long as you ignore who in society actually has power, that will work just great.
On a totally unrelated note, there are 31 women who have served in the Senate. Ever. And there are zero women who have served as president, though that will change in February. There are a tiny minority of female board members. There is a high of 22 of the fortune 500 with female ceos.
You're forgetting about the implied sub-selection (or lack thereof), which then needs to be re-applied to the situation over which the group has power.
Take random small town A containing subgroup B, which holds most seats of power in town A. This is the same as: Subgroup B, as a class, having power, within town A.
So let's rephrase:
American men, as a class, have power in America.
Now, what happens if our sub-selection ISN'T a sub-selection, and is just "humanity"?
Human men, as a class, have power in humanity.
This is backed up by leadership statistics.
Now, I think what you're trying to say is: Correlation of the "man" attribute with power is the not the same as the "man" attribute causing power".
Again, this kinda makes sense, but, AFAIK/IMHO, so long as the attribute in question is disproportionately shared by the people with power vs the distribution amongst the population, that attribute IS causing some degree of the power held.
Not really. What I was getting at was that social forces change over time. Certain members of the "man" class benefited from past social forces, not some innate powerful characteristic of the "man" class. So, it's wrong enact (and justify) policies to counteract that non-existent characteristic, like denying that class access to sex-segregated networking groups that are equivalent to those available to other classes.
Power usually goes to the classes who are most organized and cooperative. If you forbid cooperation, you eventually forbid (equal) power as well.
When you're discussing gender-segregated networking or social events that underlie a gender-segregated power structure it is exactly a denial of access to women.
If we take this to its logical conclusion, should every group of humans should form a stratified sample[1] of the population? What should the variables be -- age, gender orientation, sex, religion, disability status, race, color, national origin, pregnancy, marital status, number of pets, ... ?
First, consider that the sample size vs population size of CEOs is goddamn tremendous, and the size of both pools is pretty substantial. It's one thing to try to select a stratified sample of 10 out of 20; it's another to select a stratified sample 500 out of millions. I would expect the transition point to be around when people stop being people, and start being statistics.
Second - It's like dark matter, and then it gets more complicated.
Notionally, men and women are equal in capability; given just that, I'd expect to see a sample representative of the population demographics. This is not what is observed, so we can posit a) inequality in capability and/or b) other forces acting on the system.
A isn't born out by other experiments, leaving B. So then it becomes a question of: What are those other forces AND are they ones we want to keep?
Contrast with age, which clearly has a correlation with inequality in capability, so less of the disparity with the theoretical stratified sample must be explained by B.
Of course, shit gets complicated fast; the correlation of skill with age is not only non-linear, but is more like a non-linear probability function of skill given an age; self-selection might at first seem to be a reasonable B force, but then you have to consider what's causing the self-selection, and what effect that should have on the "equally capable" population sizes...
At 55, it looks like CEOs should be equally split down the middle. That this is not the case means there's more forces in play than explained by the "theory".
I agree with your assessment, but the lesson that society seems to have learned is that 'all-male communities are bad', even when those communities are not loci of prestige and power.
For example, I think a lot of the hostility coming out of the Gamergate community is partly an attempt to claim 'gaming' as an all-male space. These aren't country-club millionaires figuring out how to buy the next local election.
Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to have a weirdly different view of the Gamergate fracas than I had.
I thought the whole thing was a rejection of the attempt by members of the gaming media to paint "gaming" as some exclusively male (and explicitly anti-woman) subculture. There was no shortage of women speaking out as "members" of gg.
Yeah, Gamergate was probably closer to an attempt to claim gaming as a space for gamers (which might sound tautological, but the term "gamer" was heavily politicized by the gaming press because... it's complicated). It's not a good example in any case.
The example that personally comes to mind is a Daily Show segment a long time back about an all-male retreat, hosted by one Samantha Bee and shot through with mockery of the idea it was needed, condescension, and the general assumption that she understood men better than they did. (This idea that women know men's own needs, desires and experiences better than they do seems pretty commonplace. Think I've even seen men accused of "mansplaining" their own personal experiences.)
Via the avenue of widespread harassment of women, starting with Zoe Quinn and continuing with Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu amongst many others. Thats certainly a different history.
> Safe space for men: A smoking chair at the freemason's lodge where he can network his way up through society without worrying about competition from pesky women?
Well, a space when you can engage in so called "locker room talk" without getting accused of being sexist or rude.
Basically, at least for me, a lot of the time, when I'm with women in spaces, I feel judged. I can't say things like "son of a bitch" or "asshole" without feeling somewhat watched.
And yes I agree I swear too much, but where's my safe space?
Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault).
That such things can be so normalized should be proof enough that you don't need a safe space. Your safe space (and, as a white male, mine too) is the entire Western world by default.
> Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault).
No, that's reframing it in the context of the current presidential election.
The sort of thing that I'm talking about is "Hey, what are you doing this weekend? Oh, I'm going out with this Cuban girl I just met. I hear they're supposed to be tigers in the sack".
Notice no sexual assault there, just a conversation females might kick up a big fuss over. "Stop objectifying and stereotyping us."
Or even "What happened to your car? Oh, the transmission guy bent me over and fucked me good for 800 bucks to replace some shitty gears he probably yanked out of a junkyard".
These things should be allowed and have a safe place where you can say them.
The former is a conversation I--as a white male--would think you are, at best, skeevy, objectifying, and a little bit racist for having. Thinking that is not restricted to women at all. And you can be that kind of asshole anywhere you want to be. But you'll be considered in the context of the world you live in when you do. Why do you need a "safe space" where you can be shitty? Why not just don't be shitty?
The latter--I've used very similar phrasing in conversations with feminist advocates and not gotten a bit of static because the context they were used in was perfectly clear and not avowedly harmful, as per your first example. I think you're misunderstanding the objections that would be raised about your speech.
It's very interesting the quick journey from "skeevy, objectifying and a little bit racist" to shitty and asshole and avowedly harmful. I fail to see how that statement is harmful at all.
> feminist advocates and not gotten a bit of static because the context they were used in was perfectly clear and not avowedly harmful
Do they even have the right to complain? You use whatever language you want, and they can choose whether or not to hang out with you. "He's boring to talk to, all he wants to talk about is Yankees baseball". Any allegation of misogyny these days or even worse, sexual misconduct will ruin the life of a man. Even if he managed to clear himself of criminal wrongdoing, his career is over.
That's not so much true as a thing that "mens rights" advocates seem to enjoy saying. In fact: the available evidence points sharply in the other direction.
Case in point, duke lacrosse players and Derrick Rose.
Heck, Derrick Rose's accuser didn't even have her name made public whereas Derrick Rose had his name dragged through the mud and had to spend plenty of time and money on lawyers. Whatever happened to the legal system being public record?
That's the best case scenario. The woman was trying to settle, but ended up trying to sue for 21 million. Again, that is the best case scenario, that you have enough time and resources to lawyer up.
If somebody accuses you of something like that when you're at work, there is no due process when it comes to HR. You can sue for wrongful termination, but that's hard to prove and requires expensive lawyers.
> Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault).
You're shitting me. The leap you just made from "locker-room talk" equating to "bragging about sexual assault" is holy-fuck-what-the-hell-wrong-with-you absurd.
Did you miss "going around right now", somehow? "Locker room talk" has emerged as a defense in the last two weeks for Donald Trump bragging to Billy Bush, with a hot mic, that he sexually assaults women.
That phrase wouldn't be being used if it were not at the forefront of the public consciousness, and that it is being used to moderate bragging about sexual assault is telling.
Those of us who aren't obsessing over this reality TV-show, joke of an election don't think like that.
You're taking a phrase which has existed for, oh, I don't know, probably as long as locker rooms have existed, and re-branding it as "locker room talk now equals bragging about sexual assault" henceforth until the end of time.
Do you realize how dangerous that is?
In the same vein as this article (tangentially): the term "mancave" has been branded forever as offensive to feminists. We're apparently heading down the same road with "locker room talk". Unreal.
No, how do you equate Trump bragging about his success with women to sexual assault?
He basically said that if you're famous, women let you do things to them. As an example, he just said "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
He didn't sexually assault anybody, they consented. Where are you getting sexual assault from? And his statement is true once you hit a certain level of fame/wealth.
Just because they let you do it doesn't mean they want you to do it. Consent is not about whether or not you can get away with it. It's about ensuring that the other person also wants it.
You're saying people should censor and filter themselves at all times, to everyone, about everything? That's fucked up. Everyone needs a place to be themselves regardless of how often they say things that would micro-aggress people. That's why men find places to have locker room banter. Just because they are misguided by your own standards doesn't mean they deserve social solitary confinement. You should be glad they have the sense to only speak their mind in private settings rather than at the workplace or in public.
You don't have to censor or filter yourself. But objectification and sexism and racism aren't "being yourself" and the idea if it is ludicrous; it's just being hidebound and shitty. Why should you have a sinecure from which to be hidebound and shitty? Why not just not be hidebound and shitty?
I would rather they not have the sense to "speak their mind in private settings"; I would like to know who I should not trust because of who they have decided to be.
This is a really narrow minded and judgmental perspective. I hope some day you encounter more diversity in your life and have more empathy towards others.
This is classic tribalism -- like-minded people will congregate in safe spaces to share ideas and whatnot while denying entry to outsiders. Attributing it to some kind of banal hostility towards all women is nonsense, it is simply indicative of hostility towards outsiders (and in a male-dominated environment, women are outsiders).
Rigid power structures, nepotism, and the like are present everywhere but it wasn't until recently that women have been regarded as partners rather than servants. The trend will inevitably change but attacking "manliness" with silly terms like "mansplaining" and "manspreading" will only get you labelled a nitwit (and rightfully so). The goal should be to empower women, not degrade men.
This sounds like a tightly reasoned argument but is in fact just an exercise in the rhetoric of rationalist dismissal. You can see this by simply looking carefully at the words you've chosen. "Classic tribalism", you say. Apart from begging the question of what exactly is "classic" about it, there's the bigger problem of how hard it is to come up with any human conflict that can't be cast and dismissed a "tribal", from the proper border between Kaliningrad and Lithuania to whether and how cities should regulate Uber drivers.
You know the complaint about "mansplaining" is utterly bogus because of the real problem with the term, which is that English already has a universally-accepted word that means literally --- exactly literally --- the same thing:
"patronizing". What you object to isn't the term: you object to the people using it, and seek to dismiss and mock them.
Don't you find it unreflexive and ironic to dismiss their writings as rationalistically dismissive then proceed to nitpick denotative meanings?
And how on Earth do you get that deploying a bigoted version of an existing word means the person who doesn't like getting targeted with it has no right to complain about it?
For example, how do you feel about people who call women "cunts"? By your logic, objecting to that practice would be utterly bogus (not just bogus, mind you, but utterly bogus...), because the jerks doing it have a right to do it. In your logic, the bigoted, offensive term "cunts" is fine. Anyone complaining about getting called a "cunt" doesn't dislike the term, they just want to dismiss and mock the jerks calling them that...
That's ridiculous. People who call women "cunts" are trying to verbally intimidate them through gendered, offensive references. And the same is true with people who label others "mansplainers." They're just offensive namecallers, trying to use sexual imagery to shame someone into shutting up, to demonstrate that they will go further in a conflict, that they have less to lose, and dare them to push back.
Look, I kind of understand where you're coming from, tptacek. I've read a lot of the same social theory as you in grad school. I've read a lot of your writings here and elsewhere. And I object to mainstream society in a big way, too. And I object to a lot of the tech scene as well, from the huge bets on stupid tech to the path of tech from research to military to police to consumer.
But take this from someone who wants to see you succeed: You're flipping out and not being persuasive. You're relying too much on trying to overwhelm people with big words from the literature and failing to communicate. You're letting yourself get triggered and losing the ability to relate to those who disagree with you and see two or more simultaneous perspectives in your mind at once. You're moving into all black and white territory, but you know reality isn't like that.
Once again: the word "patronize" means literally the same thing as "mansplain". It doesn't just have the same connotation. "Mansplain" is essentially the Newspeak version of "patronize".
But nobody is infuriated by "patronize", either its meaning or its clear connotation, because "patronize" is mainstream standard written English, and thus presents no good opportunities to use otherization to deflect criticism.
I don't know why you think I've been "triggered", but I assure you that I spent the next 4 minutes after writing that comment drawing a Trogdor-shaped United States to illustrate on Twitter one of Hillary Clinton's proposed campaign slogans, and I remember my emotional state during that effort far better than I do picking apart the dumb comment I replied to. But: I do appreciate the concern.
What's this about Newspeak: In my experience Newspeak was a dialect of language dictated by the illegitimate power structure to prevent the accidental communication of truthful expression which could undermine its authority.
When you say "mansplain" is the Newspeak version of "patronize," that would make the gender-less "patronize" the unspeakable, but truthful expression...
...Yet it would upset the illegitimate authority to say "patronize," so the powers require us to use "mansplain" to not reveal the underlying, genderless truth?
I think I relate to Winston Smith simply wanting a peaceful Red Barchetta cabin in the forest!
You may have "Newspeak" confused with "Doublespeak" (or I may have denuded Newspeak of its political goals). Isn't the word "doublespeak" itself an instance of Newspeak (or Basic English)? Replacing a latinization with a pair of simpler words, for instance, is what has happened in the conversion from "patronize" to "mansplain".
At any rate: the two words, patronize and mansplain, mean the same thing, so feigning offense at the gendering of "mansplain" is a pitiful way to build an argument.
Newspeak was a political tool that was supposed to limit society's freedom of though by making ideas that went against the ruling power's goals literally impossible to express. Think about how that might apply here - by replacing the genderless "patronize" with the gendered "mansplain"[1], we embed the idea that this is something only men do to women into the language itself. (Obviously this doesn't make it impossible to criticize other kinds of patronizing behaviour, just harder than with this kind - Newspeak was a fictional conceit.)
[1] And yes, one is clearly gendered while the other one isn't. If someone claimed that you couldn't describe a woman as "patronizing" because that term only applied to men, this would seem like nonsense to any English speaker, whereas "mansplaining" was explicitly coined as something only men could do to women.
Nowhere in there is patronize used in a gender based way at all.
A patron is simply somebody who supports you and bankrolls you. Christopher Columbus had a female patron.
Or are you grasping at straws here? Even m-w lists a male gendered meaning for the root word patron at the eighth definition. From m-w (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patron): 8: the chief male officer in some fraternal lodges having both men and women members
Yes. Words change meanings over time/society. Why are you debating etymology? Patronize no longer has a gendered meaning. You would ask a women whether or not she patronized a store, for instance.
If you're a small business owner, you'd equally thank a woman or a man for their patronage, or yell at them equally for them to stop patronizing your employees.
The word has two meanings, and the one you invoke in your latter example is gendered. You would be yelling at your women customers for talking down to your employees as if from a father to a child. Which is fine; women can act like obnoxious men, too.
Not only is Latin mostly gendered and the Latin root of this word clearly male, but the female root "matron" is also a common root for English words.
>The word has two meanings, and the one you invoke in your latter example is gendered.
Oh, tptacek, maybe you need to go outside and get some air. You really think that people are leafing through unabridged Latin dictionaries looking for ways to be subtly sexist?
Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. [1]
It matches my definition very well:
"In my experience Newspeak was a dialect of language dictated by the illegitimate power structure to prevent the accidental communication of truthful expression which could undermine its authority."
I thought the problem was that in the current usage(or misusage), it's a quick, snappy, gendered means of shutting someone up.
Even in the original intended usage of the term, patronizing and mansplaining aren't quite the same; despite roughly analogous root words, mansplaining includes a degree of gender essentialism that patronizing lacks.
I am a man. "Mansplaining" isn't degrading. It's the recognition of a common facet in Western society where men assume that women aren't competent in mathematical and technical fields at first glance and presume without cause that they need it explained to them by those men. And that first glance is because they're women. It is not, unless you get shitty when called on it, some deep character flaw. Societal inculcation is a thing and it's hard to shake without being confronted with it.
I've seen plenty of people apologize when called on it and avoid making that assumption a second time. Recognize it, do better, move on.
> men assume that women aren't competent in mathematical and technical fields at first glance and presume without cause that they need it explained to them by those men.
Wow, what a minefield.
I don't expect anybody to be competent in mathematical or technical fields, so I generally start from the beginning until somebody says "Oh, I already worked with this particular tech stack this is the problem I can't figure out."
Immediately attributing that to the fact that they're women and the main thing they need is explanation, by a man, that's a huge leap.
Calling it Mansplaining is horrible. Like somebody else pointed out, condescending is the gender neutral way to say it, and calling it mansplaing indicates it's problem exclusive to men. Can Caitlyn Jenner mansplain? Can Oprah mansplain?
Just call it condescension, making it into a gendered term is bigotry. Tolerating the usage of that term is acknowledgement that bigotry towards men is acceptable.
The fact that you are a man is irrelevant, I'm also a man and I find the acceptance of bigotry towards men to be abhorrent.
...Implying women don't also talk for long streams wherein men are expected to listen to them.
Any socially astute man knows that women benefit from being listened to in sustained streams-of-thought speech. It's commonly called "processing." And if you're not doing it currently, then all the women in your life, from your family to friends to lovers, will be happy when you start. It's a way of showing women respect and demonstrating that you're listening to them and take them seriously.
So both men and women will talk for long paragraphs. It's only recently that a small, vocal subset of women decided to genderize it with the term "mansplaining" to mock and dismiss men. It was kind of funny when it was just a joke, but now that it's used to shout down men and these women are forgetting their own propensity for endured, one-sided conversation, it's not funny anymore.
But secretly, I'm happy when I hear a woman use the phrase "mansplaining." It's a signal that helps me decisively eliminate her from my social life. Anyone using that term as anything more than a small side joke doesn't deserve my attention.
Yes, it is. Please set aside your need to be right and think about it:
Women talk for long streams. If men were to refer to it as "womensplaining," it would be condescending.
Men talk for long streams. When the small, vocal subset of women refer to it as "mansplaining," it is condescending.
The error in logic is to say that it's a gendered pattern of condescension. Because both genders do it, it only becomes gendered when you forget that women do it, too.
Who is the Zen master who makes the grass green? It is you. You make the grass green.
Mansplaining has nothing to do with "talk[ing] for long streams". It has to do with what is being said and why. Mansplaining is when there is an assumption of ignorance on the part of a woman that can only be rectified (and must be rectified) by a man educating her on a topic, where that assumption of ignorance stems from gendered biases. And it does happen. And the reverse does not happen in any serious proportion--in no small part because of the social conditioning where women would be considered pushy and bitchy for doing so, but where men are considered leaders and experts for it.
You've failed to even grasp the topic, and yet you would condescend towards dragonwriter (one of the wisest, most insightful posters around here on a wide variety of topics) about his "need to be right" while inventing an argument out of whole cloth. Tremendous.
> Mansplaining is when there is an assumption of ignorance on the part of a woman that can only be rectified (and must be rectified) by a man educating her on a topic, where that assumption of ignorance stems from gendered biases
So 'mansplaining' goes beyond simply noting a man's condescending behavior, but suggests that the only motivation is sexism. Is the evidence sufficient to prove the charge?
Maybe the man is simply rude towards everyone; maybe the woman is ignorant on the topic; maybe the guy was having a bad day.
The problem with the word is the logic that it implies. Soon we'll be finding that if a man is ever rude to a woman in public for any reason, he is automatically labeled a sexist. I'm not sure that's a very useful, or fair heuristic.
On topics that were traditionally feminine, like housework, childcare or cooking, women can be really condescending.
I still remember the tone used by the nurse when she "taught" to my brother how to change the diapers of his newborn. I've never seen someone that condescending.
It's unfortunate that you have such a strong desire to use clearly sexist language, to the extent that you'll write at such length defending it. This is your right, of course, but please keep it off HN, which is an inclusive site.
Speaking as a woman in tech, HN is PRETTY FUCKING FAR from an "inclusive site". It's repulsive, which is why i mostly stay the fuck away from it. 4chan is at least honest about being a cesspool.
Mansplain means taking a neutral world, "explain", and associating it with both gender and a negative connotation. It also implies that only men can be condescending in this way, and that it's impossible for a woman to do the same.
Would it be all right to say that somebody is "whitesplaining" or "gooksplaining" or "blacksplaining"?
The usual use of "mansplaining" isn't limited to scientific and technical fields, in fact, I'd argue that is neither the original nor most common domain in which "mansplaining" was and is called out.
Ironically, I learned valuable psychological hacks from manspreading: When you feel down, spread yourself out and take up a bunch of space. It's really empowering!
> The goal should be to empower women, not degrade men.
Yes, but - Mansplaining is meant to point out situations when men are degrading women. So it's not about degrading men, it's about degrading assholes, although yeah, the term is inherently gender'd.
Do we label Asians that cheat on tests in college as "chinks"? No! That's awful and bald-faced racism, we just call them cheaters with low moral standards.
> I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but bear with me: A lot of the traditional men's spaces look like avenues for social advancement that are closed to women. This may be incidental because men have historically run things and the politicking and networking naturally occurred in spaces where men congregated, but incidental or not, attempting to bar women from traditionally male spaces today has the effect of locking women out of society, so to speak. In a vacuum, a club where men hang out exclusively is no different than a club where women hang out exclusively, but in reality the sheriff and mayor are rubbing elbows at the elk lodge, not at the women's gym down the road. As long as men hold the reins, locking women out of the spaces where men hobnob is another tool of control.
Why can't they get their own elk lodge, hmmm?
Money/Control/Power is not a fixed quantity jealously guarded by ragtag formations of men.
It's something generated by an activity of some sort.
As long as it's voluntary and the other genders can just as easily make their own spaces then I don't see there being a problem with it. But I fear that this won't be the case. I can't imagine male-only organizations/services/etc being take lightly. There is a lot of historical baggage that gets lumped onto these ideas when you reframe it to be for a non-historically oppressed group.
These have to be looked at individually with more context than just gender division. Such as why they exist, in the case of female only subway cars for safety in Mexico city. Having experienced the chaos and overcrowding of subways in Mexico city I'm not surprise at all this was done. But I did notice the women's cars were far emptier so these compromises always have trade-offs that need to be considered so they don't add resentment, or further create societal divisions, and end up fueling the problem.
There have been white only organizations at universities that were shut down even though the same schools had black-only and asian-only organizations, but there was more context to this issue than just race as the white groups political positions of white empowerment were seen as masking a racist movement (the founder later joined a white nationalist group after leaving school). So it wasn't a straight forward comparison of race equality as they wanted it to seem.
So I don't think the idea can be easily accepted/dismissed at a high level without context.
I've heard of a few Men's Circles around LA; there seem to be more Women's Circles, but it's still a thing.
And the idea is just what you're talking about, and really, it's just an application of the support group idea: A group of people with a shared experience get together to talk about it.
There is an experience of "being a man", and there's an experience of "being a woman". Things really only get tricky when you have people with both experiences.
> women-only spaces (e.g. a train car[1] or taxi[2])
I'm sure that an equivalent men-only train car or taxi could be established if necessary. At least I haven't heard about any resistance to making that kind of safe space. I don't think anybody is trying to justify gender biased transportation; the difference is simply due to lack of demand.
We tried having a 'Men's Shed' in our town, but I think it got shut down by a bunch of harpies.
That negative experience aside I think it is fine for men and women to spend time apart if it is voluntary.
When a member of the opposite sex, even one, is in a group of the other sex then the atmosphere changes. I don't have a better way to describe it, but unsurprisingly it suppresses some activities.
I think what I hate most, and I really do mean hate, about the left is how they have damaged something which used to be much stronger, which is male friendship. They associated male friends with homoerotic implications because gay sexuality is their fixation. There is nothing wrong with being gay, I support all forms of civil liberties for gays including marriage, I voted for it in the Irish election recently even though I had to visit 4 polling stations to get it in properly. Nonetheless I believe also that platonic male friendship has suffered badly in the last few decades for no good reason. Gay sexuality does not threaten male friendship, but the politically motivated and constant insertion of it into everyday life, especially through the media has been destructive. Many many men have not evolved a deeper friendship because they were afraid of being sniggered at as homosexuals, and I think that is wrong.
If you read books about generations gone by it is obvious that many men had much deeper friendships than they do today. Today those sorts of friendships are not really possible without stupid irrelevant discussions about sexuality.
I agree that male friendship has suffered a lot over the past few decades, and the decline of overtly exclusively male organisations for adults probably has something to do with that. The only real exceptions I can think of are athletic leagues and religious activities. Basically you can play in a men's soccer league or go to a men's bible study and nobody will think it's odd or sinister, but joining an overtly male only social club will probably be viewed differently. I wonder if the guys in this article would have just joined a local lodge of some kind 50 years ago and been happy with that.
You could just try sending a dude you want to get to know better a Facebook or Twitter DM suggesting a beer or two. I don't know. Maybe the "harpies" are after the men hanging out at bars where you are. That trick seems to work pretty well for me.
It is creepy to be hyperaware of male socialization but then to be ok with women only gyms and yoga classes.
Most young men aren't interested in Church or the GAA (sporting organization) today, which leaves basically the pub, not a healthy environment in some cases, as the remaining place a male could make new friends.
Here I'll suggest something controversial (on HN) but obvious. I don't believe men have the same kind of friendships most women do. This is because for many woman in society they have a stronger connection to their family.
Friendships for men are something more, they require them in order to build cooperative things like companies.
The fact is that the majority of risky enterprises are created and led by men. I don't need to put in caveats as legally required in California /s, it is so and has been so for millennia.
Several famous entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley have said that the best people to start a company with, are people you have known for a long time beforehand. That can only mean a friend or close associate.
My question would be: Why on earth are we surprised at a decline in new business creation when the basic link that makes it work, friendship, has been under strain for decades?!
Harpy's a rather unpleasant term to use, sure. On the other hand, at least around where I am Men's Sheds is a program that was created to tackle social isolation amongst elderly men, and the reason it's gendered is because the problem it's solving is (possibly because elderly women already have a bunch of gender-specific options). Given that, I can understand why someone wouldn't be terribly happy with people who campaigned to block it based on the fact it's aimed at men.
> I call bullshit. Everyone here knows it was a referendum, not an election,
I meant referendum.
> and everyone here knows where they're supposed to vote
I didn't receive the card in the post that enables you to know which polling station to go to so I had to visit the nearest ones by process of elimination.
> regarding the homosexuality scare, it's the right and conservatives you have to thank for, not the left.
I am fully aware that the right, specifically the Christian right has persecuted homosexuals in the past.
However today it is primarily the left that are manufacturing moral panics.
> happy is a place where the mythical Greek creatures dwell, and where they have enough good sense to shut down questionable establishments
It was nothing more than a woodworking cooperative, not a cabal of sinister intrigue against the sisterhood.
LOL! Somebody has just gone through my entire post history and downvoted all of it.
I don't care about internet points jackass.
Many men feel the way I do about this. Making who you fuck the main part of your identity is as pointless as making your race the main part of your identity. This is a valid opinion and I'm sticking to it unless somebody has a good argument for why I'm wrong.
I think the article is definitely definitely inflammatory.
There are good points though. "Womankind has let them down".
That's a fairly valid concern. If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better. The guy can't constantly be jetting off to Vegas, for instance, because now he has a mortgage maybe, and to make relationships work you're going to have to spend a lot of time together, even if you don't particularly feel like it.
However, these days, a lot of women (Western feminists) don't feel like sacrificing. They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority.
Then when you actually do want to settle down, what do you have? Rather, what do you have to offer? Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house?
Contrary to most belief, most men are not terribly impressed with a woman's ability to have a career. They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with, and once you have so much invested in your career, you're not going to give that up.
If you lack any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), you're not going to be a good partner, and you shouldn't expect a good partner.
For one, in the last year or so, the "sex appeal" of financial stability has shot up drastically. Mostly because I'm watching two friends take a year off (and likely more, since another is in the oven) to raise a baby.
> "Womankind has let them down".
...No? I mean, I see where they're coming from, but... Privilege is being used to being the target audience. Women don't owe men anything. People can only let you down if you're expecting something from them.
> If you get married to somebody, you both have to sacrifice certain of your desires to make the relationship better
To be frank, you have shitty role models for marriage. First, doesn't that occur in relationships in general? I want pizza. My buddy wants thai. Second, the better a fit you and someone else are, the less you have to sacrifice. Third, the more you're into that other someone, the less you give a shit about that sacrifice.
> They're brought up on the thoughts that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can play around when you're younger and make your career your priority.
Yeah, because you can. I mean, that's the expected story for men, right? Means women can do it too.
> Can you listen, sacrifice your spare time to listen to somebody else's problems, do you mind doing chores for a shared house?
Sounds like having friends and roommates. Also completely compatible with NOT settling down.
> They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with
Sounds like everyone. Wouldn't you expect women to be more interested in life partners that you can share burdens with? Isn't this part of the definition of a best friend?
Here's a thing you should do. Add gender to each of your sentences:
"If a woman lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), she's not going to be a good partner, and she shouldn't expect a good partner."
and then invert it:
"If a man lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), he's not going to be a good partner, and he shouldn't expect a good partner."
and you'll notice what you're horribly wrong about.
> For one, in the last year or so, the "sex appeal" of financial stability has shot up drastically.
Yes. And financial stability can be reached in two ways. Either by making more money, or reducing your expenses. It used to cost about 250k to raise a child to 18, not even considering college expenses. Wouldn't your friends be just as financially stable, if not more so, if they didn't have kids?
> Here's a thing you should do. Add gender to each of your sentences: "If a woman lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), she's not going to be a good partner, and she shouldn't expect a good partner."
and then invert it: "If a man lacks any of the skills to be good in a relationship (whether from lack of practice or inclination), he's not going to be a good partner, and he shouldn't expect a good partner."
Completely agree. However, that's what the MGTOW is doing. "Hey, it takes a certain kind of guy to have a good relationship these days, and it's going to require hard work on my end and sacrifice. I'm just going to not do that, and not inflict my crappy self on other people"
> Contrary to most belief, most men are not terribly impressed with a woman's ability to have a career. They're more interested in having a life partner that you can share burdens with.
I can't speak for "most men", but personally I find lack of ambition to be a huge turnoff when I'm considering whether I want to try and enter a relationship with a woman. You state that men are more interested in having someone with whom to share their burdens, but how is someone supposed to understand my career ambitions, concerns, and mindset when they have none of their own?
>> Contrary to most belief, most men are not terribly impressed with a woman's ability to have a career.
Women do not have careers to impress men.
The argument underlying here in more blunt terms: men bring careers to the relationship and women bring emotional support/cleaning. (and these duties are apparently exclusive - he assumes a women with a career is less likely to be emotionally supportive, so we must assume a man with a career is less likely to be emotionally supportive as well - so we're really dead centre of the 1950s here)
If your comment includes the words "Contrary to most belief, most men are not terribly impressed with", you should rethink it.
Yours is a deeply weird and poorly reasoned comment. I don't know if you meant to, but the sentiment you have managed to convey is that "men prefer women who lack agency".
As a millennial male, I have changed from being a man who grew up wanting a family life, kids and a happy family to a lone-wolf don't-give-a-fuck man in a span of just 2 years
Basically, I changed from being "Dad material" to "A guy who has fun all the time". I just don't have the motivation to be with women for anything besides fun and harmless dating.
Why did this happen? How did this happen?
- I studied/worked hard all my life to be able to provide for "future family"
- Realized women my age just want to have a bit of fun instead of a good guy with head straight. They would literally go for guys who had a bad track record with relationships, just because they "felt" something with them. Relationship was just feelings for them. Marriage unfortunately isn't just feelings.
- Also, most women with all their scholarships and opportunities really don't plan for a future life. I am not taking that burden on me. Why should I?
- Realized that I don't owe women anything....especially not to women who just want to have fun and select for guys who just party and have fun
- Understood the double standards women impose on dating very well. Women want to have fun in their youth, date the hottest guys, explore their life and when they got old, end up in the arms of a great stable person....essentially, they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Well, so do I.
I still want to be a father. But not with the women out there. Maybe I should check out the MGTOW community.
>Understood the double standards women impose on dating very well. Women want to have fun in their youth, date the hottest guys, explore their life and when they got old, end up in the arms of a great stable person....essentially, they want to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
This is known as "alpha fucks, beta bucks“.
It sounds somewhat crude at first, but as a guy dating quite a bit now in my 30s, it's an accurate description for many women these days.
Men in modern society, and especially in Silicon Valley tend to be more emasculated. There is no need to throw off women, what is needed is knowing what you really want, knowing your boundaries and having the courage to stick to it.
If you don't want to have a long term relationship and just want something casual, to see multiple people, etc, then that is something you need to communicate and not cave into a relationship that you don't really want and waste everyone's time in a relationship that isn't really what you want.
Men often think that they need to fit into some "feminist" ideal (the man hating kind, not the equality kind). Who wants to be in a relationship with someone who hates themselves?
Too many men are approaching relationships from the "feminist" rulebook. That's a recipe for failure.
The solution is not to simply avoid women, it's to be honest with yourself about what you want and not put yourself in situations where you compromise your integrity.
Too many have a terribly distorted view of "the feminist rulebook". Among them the idea that women are dead-set on monogamous, till-death-do-us-part relationships.
If you're into open relationships or poly or whatever you want to call it, you may be surprised to find that there is any number of women sharing your conviction. It's just rarely visible because it's not among the approved topics for light dinner conversation.
What usually doesn't work is to convince people of that idea. You can maybe bring it up and there's chance if they have never considered it before, but jealousy seems to be, from my experience, a rather fundamental emotion and while you can pressure some people into an open relationship, you're going to make them and yourself miserable. I've also seem men who convinced their girlfriends and ended up regretting it when they embraced it and got a lot more use out of it than their bfs.
Now if, for some reason, you expect to find a 20-year old beauty queen who'll stay at home and make breakfast for you when you come home and congratulate you on that night's conquest... That's not going to work, I'm sorry. I don't even get that idea, though. It's beyond me how you could enjoy the company of someone who apparently has no interests in life except baking and babies.
I agree with you, in that there seems to be a.... lack of quality role models and certain cultural norms that play into men feeling like they have to be a certain way. Especially a very loud minority of women, who have certain men wanting to live up to those standards... and find themselves miserable as a result.
I think the biggest point of this is that, it is possible to get what you want, and there are others who want that.
And generally that if it is a quality point it is applicable to both genders.
To be happy and get what they want, people need to be clear on what it is they DO want. To have a successful relationship, people need to have good boundaries and know where they are willing to compromise. etc etc...
Women aren't the oppressors... or... whatever else. It is a person's agreement (because they don't know any other options) to be oppressed that is the real oppression. That they limit themselves.
In principle, MGTOW makes a lot of sense--straight men should not require the sexual affections of the opposite sex in order to live happy, healthy lives.
In practice, for a bunch of men with the philosophy "a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle," they sure do spend a lot of time talking about how crappy the bicycles are for the fish.
>they sure do spend a lot of time talking about how crappy the bicycles are for the fish
Because it's extremely contrary to what 99.9% of men are brought up to believe. There are a lot of concepts that are difficult to learn, understand, and embrace. It's an experience that takes some men years to adopt. And there's a constant influx of men who are new to the concept and need help understanding it. It makes sense there would be a lot of discussion.
Hypothesis: given two similar groups of men who rely too much on external validation for their own happiness, exposing the experimental group to MGTOW will result in inferior outcomes over the course of a year compared to a no treatment control.
Care to actually explain why you feel that way? To clarify, MGTOW is the opposite of seeking external validation. The control group will spend their lives continuing to appeal to others, while the MGTOW will learn to be happy with who they are or to change the parts they don't like for their own sake, not others.
I agree that the appeal of MGTOW is that it recognizes that men's lives have value independent of whether society approves of their level of sexual/romantic success, and that it has as a stated goal helping men live that reality.
I think that spending time on, for instance, the MGTOW subreddit doesn't in actuality make progress toward that goal. It focuses very heavily on how women/feminism/society/whatever victimizes men. Victimization mindsets foster an external sense of locus of control instead of an internal one, which holds people back.
I will admit I don't really know much about MGTOW or its community. My inferences on MGTOW is based on a pretty limited reading about it. If there's really such a heavy focus on victimization and placing blame then yeah, that's shitty.
My reading is about Red Pill, which is all about being independent and taking responsibility for your own life. Everything good or bad in life is your own fault. There's nothing wrong with women today, there's something wrong with men (or at least, something wrong with the men who are unhappy about their relationships with women). I think it would be rare to find anyone who's read about Red Pill to disagree with any of these, and I don't think any of these concepts (as applied to straight, white men) would be offensive to even the most extreme feminist.
Movements like this are proof that everything creates its opposite. Mutual arising.
Some would argue that these "reaction formations" are a precursor to eventually meeting in the middle. A sane, loving marriage of equals. Some of us have this, some don't, and some don't want it.
The world is a big place. Plenty of room for everyone (for now).
While I wouldn't go full MTGOW, I guess I see where these guys are coming from as a collegiate 20-something; the economics of serious long-term romantic relationships are kind of unfavorable right now. Men lose a lot of autonomy in most relationships in my peer group (e.g. no more wild parties, more limited free time, many feel obligated to bring their partner to social events even if their partner is not in the relevant social group, etc.). On the other hand, there is not much to gain; sex is easily accessible even without being in a long-term relationship, and with much lower cost and effort. Emotional fulfillment, to whatever degree that applies, usually isn't a sufficient incentive.
Children are extremely difficult for both men and women; they are a huge expense, and raising one without a dedicated caretaker is practically very difficult. Most of my peer group in serious long-term relationships, even those married and around traditional child-rearing ages, seem to be quite confident that they won't have children.
I think we will see a serious social restructuring around family life, but it's not yet clear to me how that will look.
Then again, in a recent accounting, I noticed that most of my friends are or have been poly.
I'm not saying my life is normal. I am saying that my peer group isn't losing much autonomy to their relationships, even the monogamous ones; it's possible I'm already seeing the social restructuring you're expecting. (Or, one potential restructuring).
I thought the concept entertaining, up until I read the bit about "rape causing little to no long lasting harm to the victim". Shame, this could have been a fun, if weird and selfish, thing.
Consider that the author writes "they point to" which implies it's a universal among MGTOWs. Is it really a tenet of MGTOW belief? Is it likely that a large number of people feel that way? I doubt it. It sounds like an extreme minority opinion.
It's the opinion of one poster named "Supremo," yet the author presents it as the opinion of the MGTOW movement.
And if you read the responses, you'll find many people disagree with it.
So don't let this single, secondary source make up your mind for you. Do your own due diligence.
Any movement, tendency or idea that seeks to "change things" is always immediately attacked with suspicion. Think of when the iPod or Dropbox came out! It's just people testing the authenticity and sincerity of the beliefs.
I clicked on the link given in the article and read the opinion piece and the following comments. From my reading, this article totally misrepresented the views of the community on this issue.
Yes, the person who wrote the opinion piece linked to made that exact argument, but many of the commenters disagreed and said the crimes were as bad as each other.
So saying this is one of the views of the group as a whole seems disingenious at best. At worst, a blatant lie.
As a disclaimer - I have never heard of this group before so have no skin in the game.
To quote that in its entirety: “[Rape] ends in just a few minutes with little-to-no harm caused to the victim. Meanwhile, false accusations of rape have a long-term and much more devastating impact on the victim.” - That's really sick.
Yeah, and burglary ends in a few minutes with the victim not even being there. Meanwhile, I have friends who now are having trouble sleeping just because of the mere idea of violation to their personal space.
I don't know what the author was thinking writing the above, but wow.
The author showed his or her bias with this. There are lots of sexists and idiots on the internet talking about anything. It's fine if the author wanted to discuss systemic issues of sexism in MGTOW, but quoting a single douchebag like he somehow speaks for all men learning MGTOW is stupid.
It's the flipside of the worst aspects of the "SJW"/gender politics & identity subculture. People who accept labels in exchange for reassurance. Basically: "You're okay as you are. It's everyone else who's wrong. Fight them instead of yourself."
Just as you can go from dealing with valid issues around identity to smearing people for the pronouns they use, you can go from saying "traditional concepts of marriage and relationships oppress both men and women" to "I am perfect as I am regardless of what other people think, and a system that questions that is inherently wrong" shockingly quickly, especially online.
At these days a man who wants a wife who wants to stay home with the children is a tyrant according to feminists, and women who want to marry and stay home with the children are told by feminist they are a shame for the gender and bully them, the funny thing, is that we had warnings that this will happen in the 60's.
I'll take whatever harm you're implying over the world of the 60ies where half of the population were relegated to 2nd class citizen, I couldn't have found a life partner I would want to spend time with because none of them were allowed to get an adequate education and scientific and technological progress were willingly cut on half because only men were given the chance to participate.
(or the 1920ies, because what people were apparently warning we would lose in the 60ies had already been lost during WWII)
I said we were warned, simple as that, you are extrapolating, and when you get warned you can take measures to make the less negative inpact, not to stop it at all, looks like you are assuming I'm not ok with married women working, witch is false, but I dislike feminists who dont' respect the desition of other women.
So, as far as I understand what they describe, they are just preaching for men what feminists have been preaching for women: do what you want, and what makes you happy. You owe nothing to anybody.
A little yeah, but TBH, after I started understanding what it was about I was expecting worse.
It's a little difficult to see the differences really between MGTOW and "pick-up artists". They seem pretty similar to me, but look like they hate each other.
PUA or "Red Pill" more specifically is about changing yourself to be a better, stronger, more independent man in ways that also happen to coincide with what women find attractive.
MGTOW is about being a better, stronger, more independent man in your own terms and explicitly ignoring feedback from woman as input as to what "better" means. For some guys, if you encounter women that happen to want to have sex with you, then go for. Others choose to remove the distraction entirely and ignore engaging in sex so they can focus on themselves.
Red Pill/PUA participants will sometimes look down at MGTOW because MGTOW has a lot of guys that aren't really dedicated to improving themselves. MGTOW guys can sometimes be bitter about their lack of sex life and try to use MGTOW to rationalize it and feel better about themselves in a sour-grapes sort of way.
If there's any "hate" on either side, they're taking it too seriously and not representative of the rational participants.
Because PUA has a lot of negative connotations and it's not clear from your comment whether you were implying those connotations to MGTOW. I upvoted you, for the record.
There is a distinct difference in the attitudes of indifference, anarchy, and non-conformity in the MGTOW described in the article vs. the aggression, control, and exaggerated masculinity in PUA community.
>aggression, control, and exaggerated masculinity in PUA
I don't think this is a fair characterization for what a lot of people refer to as "the PUA community". Accurate words would be confidence, independence, and leadership. Some people choose to view these attitudes as controlling/aggressive because when comparing these actions to themselves, it erodes their own confidence or self esteem. But that's their problem and they're trying to blame someone else for it.
I'm not closely familiar with the current PUA/Red Pill community, just the one of 5+ years ago when I was a bit involved with it, back when it was just a few forums and guys trying to learn from the few people who were successful. The attitude back then, which may be well disguised these days, was incredibly sociopathic - that females only belonged in men's lives from their pleasure, that you would only succeed when you stopped respecting them, and that happiness was achieved by blatantly disregarding whatever was stopping you. This is why negging was so popular as a learning technique - it taught men that there is little downside to just being as asshole to women.
The community certainly helped (and helps) a lot of men who suffer from confidence issues, but it also did/does so in a very flawed way, and threw everyone else (namely, all women) under the bus.
This is not at all what I see in the communities I read. There is plenty of discussion on approaching arguments ("shit tests") but it's not in any way manipulation, it's just learning to not escalate and resolve tension by diffusing it. I've literally never once seen negging mentioned in the months I've been reading. The only type of advice I see about talking to women is "talk to them like human beings and like anyone else" though they do make recommendations on showing indicators of interest (placing a hand on her shoulder as you both laugh about something for example). I understand why stuff like that could be controversial to some, but overwhelmingly it's said to leave her alone if she's not interested or asks you to leave so I would hope that would prevent any sort of triggering or discomfort for sensitive or vulnerable women. I guess if I looked at the more PUA focused communities I could come across the shittier stuff.
Yea, this is the difference of 5+ years of the community developing. I'm sure the community has matured well, and it sounds much less toxic than it used to be. That doesn't change the fact that many people were exposed to the previous views.
Thanks for the comment, it explains why I see so much Red Pill negativity and poor connotations. I figured it was irrational assumptions from the other side of the aisle.
Get out of parenthood by having a lot of sex and if the girl gets pregnant... well... her problem. Seems to me like they just wanted to have a movement. Their rights hvent been violated all through history, they just want to be able to be as bitchy as their female counterparts.
There is no large or rational part of MGTOW that advocates this. If a single idiot somewhere mentioned it and some idiots agreed, it doesn't represent MGTOW. Red Pill (similar to MGTOW) is a strong advocate of being a family leader and taking care of your kids and wife and I have to imagine MGTOW is overwhelmingly in support of this too.
It won't yield long-term happiness for most of them, but knowing that doesn't deal with the hazards these men have observed in marriage. I've seen enough of my peers (male and female, to be fair) be put through the divorce ringer to be leary of commitment like that.
>It won't yield long-term happiness for most of them
For "Red Pill" stuff specifically, maybe not MGTOW, this seems to be entirely false in the experiences I've read about. Men are overwhelmingly happier and in better places in life after learning to take responsibility for their life and recognizing/fixing their shortcomings.
It's only selfish in the same sense that people call suicide "selfish."
It's a decision for personal behavior, that societal attitudes say do not meet their obligations to the rest of humanity.
But describing what exactly someone's obligations to humanity are gets a bit muddy when you're talking about it, even at the point of positively positing that they may exist (rather than only talking about them when someone fails to meet them by killing themselves).
Let us agree, for purposes of this discussion, that they have no obligation to anyone, either to individuals or to society as a whole. Their decision is not "selfish" in the sense of "not meeting their obligations to others".
But, from the article, "Most MGTOW will tell you it’s more of a philosophy than a movement, punctuated with a serious helping of ZFG (“zero fucks given”). MGTOW are unapologetically selfish..." That's selfish in a different sense - I'm going to make my decisions in a way that cares only about myself, and deliberately avoids any circumstance that might lead to me caring about anyone else.
Why does that not lead to happiness? After all, I get to make all my own decisions purely for my own benefit. But it turns out that happiness largely comes from being close to a few other people, mattering to them and having them matter to you.
If this were true, there would be a lot fewer electrons perturbed by the depth and breath of the efforts that this "movement"'s purveyors go to to convince everybody that, no, no, they're fine, they're really fine. They totally don't care, even though they can't stop writing about how much they don't care.
(And then you actually read what they write, and it becomes obvious that it's MRA-style misogyny buried beneath a veneer of "those grapes were sour anyway.")
I don't think that's true at all; I think for many this is an extended whinge that they aren't getting what they think they deserve. viz the (wildly misogynistic) picture of the "international symbol for marriage" which shows a man giving a woman cash.
Personally, I don't care much about the structure of other peoples' relationships: who earns more, who contributes more in other ways, etc. But the thing is, you pick your partner. So if these guys think women are just after their cash, maybe they should pick different partners.
But my strong guess is they generally have low incomes, low physical attractiveness, poor social skills, and poor personalities; think they deserve really attractive women who make a ton of money and love doing housework; and are pissed that these women aren't showing up.
It's a bit ironic that people will justify women-only spaces (e.g. a train car[1] or taxi[2]) as creating a safe space for women, but in the same breath deny the legitimacy of traditionally male spaces as being sexist and degrading to women, e.g. the push to make fraternities and sororities co-ed [3][4].
IMO, men have their own insecurities and worries, often with respect to their relationship with women, and having a 'safe space' to work out those issues is not only useful, but symmetrically fair.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/04/47299760...
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/16/should-colle...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-harvard-shouldnt...