Full text to show intro after the cut.
Let’s imagine a couple in the “taken in hand lifestyle.” Otherwise known as the surrendered wife lifestyle or the traditional lifestyle.
The wife submits to her husband and he sacrifices for her. That kind of thing.
In this traditionalist system the husband is defined by his wife’s vulnerabilities. Her vulnerabilities are how she grants him the opportunity to sacrifice and feel like he is a good man, a righteous man, a just man.
And what are vulnerabilities but abdications of agency(sometimes real, sometimes affected)?
So in exchange for serving her uselessness, he gets to feel good about himself.
The people who practice a traditional lifestyle will sometimes talk about the benefits it gives men.
- They get to lead.
- They get to choose what benefits women best.
Let’s look at the first benefit: Men get to lead women.
We believe that a man leading a woman is of benefit to him and that’s how we justify extorting material, measurable benefit to women in terms of protection and provision in exchange.
But what does our traditional man give up to be the so-called leader?
There is a peculiarity to human psychology. When we perceive a group as having more agency, more ability to act, more dominance … we have less sympathy for that group.
The more power, the less sympathy. The more we can justify doing violence to that group.
When we want to destroy a group of people, we cast them as having almost god-like powers. That they’re using against us.
That’s how we justify crushing them like bugs.
Every culture has its way of casting men as dominant and “superior” to women in order to justify their disposability.
In fact all cultural traditions of male dominance are a way of seducing men into being exploited as expendable.
The more relative dominance, the more you can expect the men in that culture to be treated as disposable utilities. The more likely a man will find his manhood in strapping explosives to his chest and blowing himself up for God, Mother and Wife.
Leading someone who has skills and abilities and the will to use them is a joy; leading someone who defines a man by her uselessness is a nightmare.
Let’s look at the other benefit Traditionalists say men get.
The other benefit that’s usually described is that men can chose what benefits their wife best. Even over her protests.
He gets to decide what benefits his wife best. He gets to decide what benefits his wife best.
This is usually trotted out as some sort of benefit for the man to the “taken in hand” lifestyle.
He gets to decide what benefits his wife best.
(Wow you traditional women really spoil your men.)
Let’s examine that so-called benefit.
Let’s imagine she’s protesting. Why would she be protesting against her best interests?
Either she doesn’t understand them, in which case it’s probably best that her husband be the one in control at that moment. Fair enough, that’s the kind of give and take you have as a couple.
Making it specific to men, however, is an added burden on them.
Now if he’s benefiting her over her protests because she sees how the benefit could go to him instead, that’s sorta sweet.
Again, I wonder why he always has to win out and the benefit has to go to her but regardless…
There’s a final scenario in which she is protesting against something that he knows will benefit her… because she’s an irresponsible, entitled brat who hasn’t a clue about life.
And if he’s in a relationship with an irresponsible, entitled brat who doesn’t have a clue about life I can predict two things:
- She will never let him get his.
- He’s going to have a heart attack before he hits fifty-five.
To me this seems like all downside.
There’s a final benefit to men that traditionalists generally don’t openly acknowledge.
And that is that all this sacrifice earns men a positive identity.
But the question becomes, why is his identity tied to a woman in the first place?
And if a man earns his identity through service to a woman, how can he ever be her superior or dominant or leading her?
That’s the great joke. Having your very identity held for ransom is the most disempowering position you can be in.
It’s not just that men in this system are beneath women; it’s that they don’t even exist outside of women at all.
Only exist in fleeting moments when women have needs. At all other times they are nulls, non-entities and voids.
This is not the relationship between lady and vassal or master and slave; this is the relationship between Goddess and mortal.
She breathes life into you by her needs. And when her needs vanish, so do you.
- What will Dior’s decision regarding Johnny Depp mean for male survivors? - August 10, 2022
- Chauvin Released, Teen bullied for supporting trump, False accuser forced to apologize| HBR News 277.5 - October 13, 2020
- What Jordan Peterson checking into Rehab can teach us all - October 26, 2019
by 
The Patriarchy hurts women too. But it kills men.
“She breathes life into you by her needs. And when her needs vanish, so do you.”
Random Access Masculinity. When she has her problems processed and the solution is permanently stored the power can be cut.
I always see parallels between traditional relationships and the job market. The resume is an opening line, the interview is a date, the choice and the power is always with the interviewer not the interviewee, getting hired is like getting into a relationship. Eventually there is a recession and you get the “it’s not you it’s me” talk. So you end up screwed, nothing to show for it and having to do the whole thing over again with the disadvantage of being older. Too bad it isn’t as easy to “go your own way” career wise. If I could go the rest of my life without printing out or uploading a resume I’d be the happiest camper in Happy Camper Camp.
I don’t know if a job is more like a typical relationship or if a typical relationship is more like a job. 😛
Guys, I’m sorry if this is a derail, but can I just point out how ironic this is: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-rape-nobody-talks-about/
The NotoriousGMP suddenly doing a flipflop on male rape. They went from “well, MOST rape is male on female, so that’s what’s important” to “well, all rape victims are important regardless of the gender of the victim or perpetrator.”
So… in other words… exactly what the MRM has been saying for *years* now.
And of course Noah Brand acts like this is some big frigging revelation on his part. What a joke.
Paul, it may be a joke, but it’s also a sign that Sun Tzu would be proud. They’re fighting the battle AVfM wants them to fight while thinking it’s themselves(Noah and GMP that is). What a victory…
Yeah, Noah Brand does come off as a bit disingenuous. It’s not like the figures from the NISVS 2010 haven’t been disseminated in the comments on several blogs, including his own (now defunct) “No Seriously, What About Teh Menz” (first mentioned in January 2012 I think) and in comments on numerous articles on The Good Men Project.
Well, as they say, better late than never and so on. The perseverance of those who have spoken up about male victims and who has relentlessly quoted statistics from reputable sources showing that male victims and female perpetration cannot be dismissed as insignificant in numbers anymore have paid off. This is happening because we wouldn’t shut up about the issue, regardless of “MRA talk”, “what about the menz”, “bu-hu”, “misogynists” etc. hurled at us as invectives in order to dismiss us and the issue we speak of.
In danger of touting my own horn I’ll just point out that reading comments like this and this feel personally very rewarding, although it’s sad that the NISVS 2010 Report had to be published for over 1.5 years before it’s even beginning to make a dent in society’s gendered view of rape.
XOJane also recently published a piece by a male rape victim (it was re-published by TGMP here. The comments are generally good as well without any of the usual minimization and victim blaming that so often appears when the issue of male rape is discussed.
On the other hand shit like this still pops up.
I’ll end with a link to this in my view excellent performance (3:13 minutes) from the 2013 National Poetry Slam which illustrates how it can be expressed that rape is a human issue, not reduced to a gendered issue, not reduced to a women’s issue.
Ginkgo:
“The Patriarchy hurts women too. But it kills men.”
And yet feminists (particularly on tumblr, it seems) continually claim that misandry only causes hurt feelings, and it is misogyny that kills. I get angry when people are adamant about anything they are so utterly wrong about, but this really makes my blood boil. I think it’s because the statement itself serves to perpetuate the very thing that really kills men: denial of their needs and of the legitimacy of their issues.
Theodmann,
” I think it’s because the statement itself serves to perpetuate the very thing that really kills men: denial of their needs and of the legitimacy of their issues.”
It is the central “sly inversion” that is at the heart of what is wrong with the gender system – the dehumanization of men as beasts of burden excused with the lie that men run everything.
SOB,
“Random Access Masculinity. When she has her problems processed and the solution is permanently stored the power can be cut. ”
Bravo; you just coined a good one. RAM is when men who are proven not to be the father are still saddled with providing for children who aren’t his, when some woman out in public expects every random man in the vicinity to rush to ehr aid and makes cutting remarks aboutnthier masculinity if they don’t – that kind fo thing. That’s a good catch.
Paul, ooooh….now I have to run off and look at that. This I gotta see.
I got comment being held up in moderation, just a heads up.
Thanks, checking…
Now why won’t it show?
“it is misogyny that kills.”
It’s indifference that kills and society is far from indifferent to women.
Hey there, Typhonblue. Is that how you meant that sentence to come out?
Robert, Sun Zi would indeed be nodding in approval.
This article from Noah is a good thing. I frankly don’t care how he came to this position or this insight, but it is good. Maybe he really did mean what NSWATM said its purpose was even if he let his loyalty to feminism get in the way. None of that matters.
It’s interesting how Noah has just discovered something I had published on the GMP early in 2012, I believe.
Whatever. At least it’s getting out there.
Note that that Noah Brand article links to an explanation, allegedly from the CDC, that makes the exact same “MTP isn’t rape” error he just called out, yet he still considers it credible.
“It’s interesting how Noah has just discovered something I had published on the GMP early in 2012, I believe. ”
You know what would have shown some class? If he had come out and credited people like you and all the others whose arguments are probably the real reason he is finally, finally coming around. He doesn’t have to admit that he is sounding like an MRA here, but he could at least say that this is not some original insight of his.
“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry Truman
I had to look that one up, tbh.
Brand makes a lot of concessions to make this as palatable as possible to his intended audience, but I guess that’s better than nothing. It’s funny that he wound up spotlighting Ally Fogg when he was probably hoping to spotlight a feminist. Presumably there were up to now no feminists to spotlight.
Also, I’m leery of his appreciation of /r/againstmensrights, but I suppose that’s to be expected. (IDK if this is what SYABM refers to, but the AMR people think the e-mail they received is comparable to an answer to your FOI request, Typhon. I think I do not like them.)
Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully not every future look at female perpetration will be accompanied by some kind of “male perpetration is worse” statement. (I would like a general equality movement, but this reminds me that a discrete men’s movement is necessary at this juncture.)
To be kind of on-topic now, I wonder if part of the disparity between male and female domestics lies with women being generally unwilling to support a househusband: no validation through sacrifice? I read one of Clarissa’s blogposts about her ex, linked by debaser over at FC, and wow, she *hates* domestics, regardless of gender. I’m not judging the merit of her position one way or the other, but I’m awed, and I wonder how common this antipathy is among female breadwinners.
Actually, sorry for double posting here, but I think I got distracted by that 40% “debunking” and forgot something way more important. In the NISVS, there is near parity between rape-of-women and men being “made to penetrate”! So… Brand’s “higher-than-expected prevalence of female-on-male sexual assault” is kind of an understatement.
Since the 12-month prevalence for rape-of-men, or penetration of men rather, is either fewer than 20 instances or > 30% relative standard error, either many more men are raped than women considering these categories (let’s just assume there are very few cases of women being made to penetrate) or else male-on-male rape mostly/vastly consists of men forcing other men to penetrate them.
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but I find myself kind of surprised in that the AMR’s “debunking” recalls the suggestion of 50-50 perpetration I’d personally abandoned. (Although I do not contend that it couldn’t actually be lower than 40% somehow.) Funnily enough, the CDC’s decision to parse the most significant portion of rape-of-men off on its own with the “made to penetrate” label strengthens this sense of implicit near-parity.
Anyway, yeah, sorry for running off at the, er, fingers and probably stating the obvious.
So the editor-in-chief of the Good Men Project has finally deigned to acknowledge something that I was talking about on my libertarianism-with-occasional-gender-politics blog in January 2012. I realize I shouldn’t be looking a gift horse in the mouth and should just be happy that he’s talking about it, but based on Noah Brand’s past antics this is probably a concession he was dragged kicking and screaming into by the very sorts of men he despises.
honestly that’s what irritated me about it. Not that Brand was talking about it in the first place- good for him, the more people made aware of it the better- but the fact is, he would have likely sneered at those same stats not two years ago, and called anybody who quoted them misogynists.
John Markley: This is my inner cynic’s theory: You’ll note that the first revision of that article cited and linked to Ally Fogg’s blog post on sexually aggressive women and that it identified Ally Fogg as a feminist. I suspect he finally saw a sanctioned opportunity to write about this without having to cite those dreaded MRAs and their ilk. Too bad for him he had to correct his statement about Fogg being a feminist.
You’ll all also notice that the prevalence figures for the “last 12 months” numbers from the cited NISVS 2010 Report is nowhere to be seen in his piece. I have for some time supected that feminists think quoting them will get them their feminist card revoked or something.
Nevertheless, this is an indication that we’re seeing a change in perception about this subject.
And although I see every such article as progress I still reserve the right to wonder loudly about why it took them (the few who have) at least one and a half year to address this aspect of the findings of the NISVS 2010 Report.
“And although I see every such article as progress I still reserve the right to wonder loudly about why it took them (the few who have) at least one and a half year to address this aspect of the findings of the NISVS 2010 Report”
Because they had to wait for a feminist, or someone they thought was a feminist, to make the same point. This ties into the discussion on the NAFALT post about feminists being left behind; linking to an MRA would be admitting that this is the case. If Noah realised that Ally wasn’t a feminist then I doubt that post would’ve ever been posted.
The problem feminists are facing is that the don’t know how to deal with their modern critics. In previous decades critics of feminism were generally traditionalists, but now they are facing people who not only are able to use their own theories and language, but their critics are just so much better at it than they are.
“but now they are facing people who not only are able to use [feminist] theories and language, but their critics are just so much better at it than they are.”
You can see this evidenced in the complaints about the MRM “appropriating feminist language”.
Their issue isn’t that the MRM is merely using the terminology, but that the MRM is using it much more effectively than feminists are.
“You can see this evidenced in the complaints about the MRM “appropriating feminist language”.
This from people who have no qualms about appropriating patriarchal language such as “rights” and “justice”, on top of all the patriarchal hypoagency of their treasured memes – rape culture, victimology and bigging up the existence of patriarchy itself.