Should we trust the GoodMenProject?

LucifersHammerr · 2017-02-23T01:11:08+00:00

If you lived during the civil rights era, would you trust a group known as the "Good Negro Project"?

blueyb · 2017-02-23T02:54:09+00:00

So, here's the deal. When talking about "mens issues groups", there's two types of clubs, I've found.

1) Genuine Men's Rights groups

2) "Sorry I have a penis" clubs

You can guess which GoodMenProject is.

Lethn · 2017-02-23T01:07:51+00:00

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/boys-guns-blasters-and-men-and-the-new-normalized-now-kpk-jrmk/

Yeah, looks very feminist, they're already assigning guilt to children for what type of toys they like to play with and so on and that's just one article I glanced at on the front page.

Of course he is still not allowed to play video games where he pretends to shoot at things (most especially PEOPLE), but I do think that guns have become so normalized for children that it is difficult for them to separate reality from the fantasy. Even laser tag or paintball promote the idea that targeting other human beings is pleasurable; that the person who does this most successfully is “the winner”.

Yep, the person who is writing this sounds totally deranged, don't trust them.

ykaa · 2017-02-23T01:37:19+00:00

You have to ask?

GMP publishes more articles that shame and blame men than most of the websites on the internet. Some are written by men, some by women. They purport to tell men, in one way or another, what they’re saying, doing and thinking that is wrong, and how they should think, talk and behave instead.

At this point, a lot of men, and a number of women, are hip to the game – and routinely take remedial action in the comments section.

But – really and truly – GMP is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

I advise young men, in particular, to read the material here with a great deal of skepticism, because a lot of it is toxic social engineering – attempting to shame and blame them into being something that someone else wants you to be, rather than being who you you want to be.

I noticed a trend among the published articles on GMP. For every pro-male article published, GMP will publish three or four articles deriding or criticizing it. If someone writes something positive about fathers, three or four articles about mothers being fathers, “non-traditional” fathers, or something tearing down fatherhood will pop up. If someone writes positively about male bonding, three or four articles about frat boys, bros, or whatever negative euphemism will pop up. If someone writes about male survivors of sexual or domestic violence, three or four or more articles about sexual violence against women, street harassment, and “rape culture” will pop up.

How Discussions About Men End Up Being About What Women Want From Men

I kinda feel sorry for Tom [Matlack, GMP founder]. I bought and read the original Good Men Project book, with the idea of either reviewing it or trashing it for The Spearhead. I ended up doing neither. I wasn’t sure how to feel about the book. It was good and bad. But that’s what I liked about it. There was honesty to it, and some moral ambivalence. It felt real — despite its potential to be preachy or “goody-goody”–and I couldn’t shake the sense that Tom (like Brett from Art of Manliness) was probably a pretty decent guy who was trying to do something good.

... In a way, it’s Tom’s own fault. He picked a female publisher. He probably thought she’d be fair and professional and try to keep the site guy-oriented and primarily about men. Maybe she really did try. (She allowed an interview with me to be published — and I’m still surprised) She certainly shielded him from immediate accusations of sexism. “Hey, we have a female editor, how sexist could we be?”

However, as Tom noted, the site has become increasingly feminist-oriented. Most of my friends who are interested in discussing masculinity and manhood take one look at the site and rattle off a string of insults. On an average day, there’s more content of interest to gender studies majors, feminists and gays than there is to average guys. Even the general interest stuff reeks of victimhood and the feminine message, “It’s OK to cry and be vulnerable.” Feminists may think that sounds freeing and empowering, and it does to a small minority of men who are really aching for permission to get their sob on. Most men look at that kind of stuff and see public dishonor. We turn our heads because we’re embarrassed for the guys who are making fools of themselves so enthusiastically.

Tom, you let women and feminists run your site, so you got a feminist site. The Good Men Project reads like Feministing for men. And, like those mall stores that try to spinoff their successful women’s stores, most men are going to smell something fishy and avoid it. If you want a site full of stories from soldiers and prisoners and guys who have real problems — and have found inspirational ways to overcome them — you have to put guys who want that in charge.

When you put women and feminists in charge — or even involve them, you’re going get what you got.

Feminists vs. Good Men Project: Matlack Makes a Stand, Then Disappoints

For our benefit, Amanda Marcotte, in responding to and attacking Mr. Matlack, lets us know what she thinks qualifies men as good. In a piece titled “The Good Men Project I used to Know,” she calls his article “a risible, sexist piece of garbage,” advocates censorship and throws around a few slurs.

Here’s Amanda at her feminist best:

It’s a real shame to see that a steady campaign of misogynist blather from so-called “men’s rights activists” in the comments at Good Men Project has poisoned founder Tom Matlack’s mind. Personally, I’m a big fan of just banning MRAs. They have nothing of value to add to a conversation, and exist online solely to disrupt any conversation they fear might lead others towards reaching the conclusion that women are people. The whole mission behind the Good Men Project is presumably to advocate for good men, and while they do publish writings by actual good men, they also publish writings by overt misogynists like Paul Elam, who by definition cannot be good men, any more than members of white supremacist groups can be called “good men”. Differing viewpoints is one thing, but promoting the work of open bigots is just fucked up.

One thing about Amanda is that she can be remarkably candid. Her Chekist tendencies are on display as she demands that one subset of men be banhammered from any discussion about good men, because “by definition [they] cannot be good men.”

As much as I dislike them, I don’t even ban feminists from The Spearhead comments, and I wouldn’t even think of demanding they be banned from a women’s forum/website. In fact, it strikes me that anyone who would make such demands – especially a member of an outgroup – must have an enormously entitled attitude and a huge sense of superiority. It would be as though I were to walk into a mosque and demand certain Muslims be excluded because I, personally, despite not being Muslim, didn’t agree with their views on Islam. It is this kind of behavior that really snatches the “equality” veil off the feminist face, and Marcotte does us all an unintentional favor by putting it out there for all the world to see.

byebyehillary · 2017-02-23T02:31:35+00:00

Absolutely not. It's pure SJW nonsense over there.

feedmecarrots · 2017-02-23T02:39:52+00:00

You have good instincts. That was the way I felt when I looked at them years ago. While I never went back, my gut feeling was confirmed .

Imnotmrabut · 2017-02-23T01:39:02+00:00

Yes - GMP was a promising venue at the start but was invaded and then controlled by hardcore feminists nut jobs. They peddled Dogma and rejected reality to the point it was just a venue screaming "Rape Culture" and rejected reality. I just refer to it as "The Good Rape Project". They were so immersed in the Rape Culture memes they couldn't even consider that Men Could Be raped or allow that to be covered.

I was stunned when I wrote a fully researched piece on the history of the term "Rape Culture", showing it's links to the supposed origins, core mission and values of GMP liked to Prisoners and how they have little to no voice. It was thrown away as it contradicted the Narratives of feminuts controlling GMP and their demands on what reality was to be!

I even had to laugh when they appointed the supposedly genius Noah Brand as editor-in-chief and the only thing he did of note was use it as an opportunity to show his dick to the public. "I’m Stark Naked: Deal With It - Our editor-in-chief bares it all in a direct confrontation with body shame.

The internal nutters of GMP praised him as the first editor to ever go naked - and they were pissed off when I pointed out Germain Greer had done it back in the 1960's - and promptly sent them links to the photos!

The control of the venue by feminist Hysterics who were allowed to run riot was ridiculous. The whole mess rapidly degenerated into a farce worse than 10 bitching ten-year-old madams publishing a school magazine!

One internal issue they were overly slow in dealing with was Hugo Schwyzer. He was heavily promoted and used GMP to build his reputation. Editorial and management refused to look at the evidence of his past conduct, and so allowed him to use GMP and damage it. They were Truly idiotic. They could have addressed reality and looked so good, but chose to be stupid, unprofessional and Cult Worshiping at the feet of Hugo the raping lunatic who even publicised his own history and actions ..... GMP ignored it all!

One of the worse incidents was them promoting a pedophile, MBCowan, Author at The Good Men Project, as an expert in child protection NO JOKE and letting him use GMP as avenue to promote his books on amazon!

The Idiot editorial team had no internal dialogue as to what was safe or unsafe, and lacked the capacity to even consider asking external experts if what was being presented was safe. The GMP editorial team were so carried away it was insanity personified. I even remember having to point out to the editors that News Stories Originating from the UK had to be judges in relation to UK Media and Law. They could not grasp anything outside of a US centric bubble and got quite snippy and nasty when corrected.

I won't go into details of the back room communication I was involved in on the issues, but I was staggered by the Dogma, refusal to carry out basic due diligence and the total lack of care over reputation. They were Shambolic and If it wasn't for the fact the they have been funded by Tom Matlack's generosity it would have all folded long ago! .

GMP has remained a low brow SJW driven feminist screeching loony zone! Set you GPS to treat it as a Toxic Dump and Bio Hazard of the worst order!

SenorTrumper · 2017-02-23T03:57:46+00:00

Thanks. I detected some stench early on.

HeForeverBleeds · 2017-02-23T04:24:04+00:00

But they they've made some pretty bad ones, too, which some of the others here have mentioned. You can choose to trust them or not, but I don't judge the entire site as anti-male because they have some bad articles, when they also have quite a lot of good ones, depending on the author

Pornography_saves_li · 2017-02-23T07:31:06+00:00

Are you on glue?

Mickeybl · 2017-02-23T08:17:46+00:00

Short Answer: NO!

Long Answer: I contributed an article about a subject that goes against the usual feminist narrative pushed that it's only boys and men who abuse girls and women. That was awhile ago, back when Tom Matlack, the owner, was running operations. Got a great response but sadly, as years went by and Tom Matlack left, I saw it continuing their condoning of the same toxic narrative that has since made me feel so ashamed I'd ever trusted them in the first place.

They're a publication run by feminists that are only in it to present the same old garbage you hear out there about men. Don't bother with it. You'll feel less stressed in the long run.

fengpi · 2017-02-23T08:30:08+00:00

Haahaahahahaahaahahaa....

Sorry, the headline made me laugh.

Of course that site is to not be trusted. The place is absolutely risible, despite maybe having one or two articles which might be decent.

The rest of the time, any article there which truly takes a man's side evokes outrage and gets deleted in a hurry.

Vandechoz · 2017-02-23T04:19:55+00:00

It was kind-of OK for a while - a lot of people who were annoyed with how vitriolic Elam is tended to hang out there, but it started going downhill, then it put Noah Brand in charge, then it really went downhill. I can't believe it still exists.

aussietoads · 2017-02-23T10:46:31+00:00

Trust no one. Well, except me. Now give me your money and I'll make you rich. I'll send your profit cheques in the mail. Honest.

ThePigmanAgain · 2017-02-23T11:43:29+00:00

It is a bogus site that should be renamed the Stepin Fetchit Project.

v573v · 2017-02-23T12:38:21+00:00

Almost every article is about turning men into the doting fathers or protective brothers of women.

It celebrates the eunuch as the ideal man - a castrated male servant of female royalty.

Lrellok · 2017-02-23T17:00:15+00:00

NO! A few years back one of their writers published an article (Karen did a video) rationalizing mental and emotional violence against men.

I have genuinely come to regard any site telling men how they should improve for society as ANti Male Bigotry. Invariably, they end up saying that society exists only fr women, and men are to be sacrificed to their benefit.

4man · 2017-02-24T12:09:31+00:00

Its name should be warning enough. Its content though is the smoking gun.

Title	Should we trust the GoodMenProject?
Author	SenorTrumper
Upvotes	14
Comments	22
Date	February 23, 2017 1:03 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5vmxg9/should_we_trust_the_goodmenproject/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/should-we-trust-the-goodmenproject.931407 https://theredarchive.com/post/931407

Comments