In its continuing quest to look like it cares about men The Good Man Project had a post decrying the way men are barred for Platonic touch in our culture, and the harm this inflicts on men.
On the Reddit thread where this article was posted dungone made these comments:
[–]dungone 6 points7 points8 points 2 days ago*
Going to call bullshit on this. This has nothing to do with homophobia. Nothing! It starts with mothers refusing to touch their own male babies. The article flat out lies about this. It also flat out lies about sports and other male activities as only offering “aggressive touch”. What bullshit! The historical photos they use of men touching is a cherry picked joke as well – you can find just as many modern photos of men touching. This is all about confirmation bias.
This is not homophobia, this is just plain old misandry, and this article is part of the problem. For those men who are actually affected by this for days or weeks at a time, that’s all there is. No matter what it is that feminists say, there is far more stigma against men touching women than other men. Not allowed to touch children. Not allowed to touch anyone, really, without others seeing it in sexual terms. And conversely, no one will touch men without considering the sexual implications. This article tries to hijack the real pain of these men and blame it on a sensationalized men’s bigotry in order to fit an ideological agenda.
A question came up:
[–]blueoak9 -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago
“Going to call bullshit on this. This has nothing to do with homophobia. ”
dungone, do you really think gay-shaming is never used to enforce this norm?
Of course there is misandry in this. Homophobia is a subset of misandry.
[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago*
Definitely not the way it’s being misconstrued and blown out of proportion here. At the very least it ignores 2/3 of the problem – women and children.
Stigmatizing male touch causes homophobia, not the other way around. You often see it as both comic relief or perhaps real fear in male sports or the military, where there is already plenty of male bonding and touch. It’s a natural response to male touch being stigmatized and interpreted in sexual terms. Gay-shaming is also used to prod men into making risky initiatives towards women and otherwise overcoming the stigma against male touch.”
I see his point. What he is really referring to is the type of misandry expressed as untouchability.
But back to the business of demonizing male touch as a form of companionship. One effect of homophobia in the culture is to open every form of male companionship to suspicion of Teh Evil Gay. You see this in the way movies about men working as partners are coyly called “bromances”. A man who would rather spend time with his friends gaming instead of pussy-hounding is virgin-shamed and gay-shamed and called a loser. And speaking of gaming, is the all-out assault on the game culture anything but an artillery prep for an attempt to colonize yet another male space, to include calls for making it friendlier to whatever mythical women would be playing there but aren’t, unlike all the women already happily conforming to the gaming culture’s norms.
Laszlo referred to this in a comment about another example of this tendency in the culture:
“You should dig around and see what they are doing to the military. Arguably one of the last bastions for men to stand side-by-side is falling prey to unbridled equality-seeking, and political-correctness. While we are busily making sure we don’t offend anyone – including our enemies, we are gelding the honor and duty right out of an already tenuous military.”
The threat of the prohibition on male touch goes beyond untouchability. It is an attack on human bonding. It is misandry taken as far as it can go, right into actual dehumanization.
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016