#21stcenturymen

[21stcenturymen]

Bringing it to the REAL WORLD

Thank you all for your patience. A Man’s Guide has been on hiatus for some time as I get my ducks in a row. As I live in Minnesota, they’re technically grey ducks, and I have no idea how to handle that, so it’s been a bit of a quandary.

BUT! We’re jumping out into the real world. And by “we,” I mean me. In one of my other lives, I’m a theatre writer, performer, and producer, so live theatre is my most cultivated language.

As such, I’ve secured a slot in the Minnesota Fringe Festival that runs from August 1 - 11 of this year. Instead of writing a play, however, I’m going to host a discussion series. I know we talk about toxic masculinity a lot around here, and I want to give the men who read this blog a chance to hear how toxic masculinity manifests from experts in the gender zeitgeist.

There will be more to come (including new artwork!), but put these dates and topics on your calendars:

August 1 - 10:00: Street & workplace harassment August 3 - 5:30: Dating August 4 - 8:30: Gender, sexuality, & intersectionality August 10 - 7:00: Violence, incels, & managing expectations August 11 - 1:00: Producing theatre

I’ll ask the participants questions and have them speak from their expertise. At the end, there’ll be a brief period for questions, but the real focus here is on the guests, who will bring volumes of valuable knowledge right to your fingertips. I’ll then post reference materials and info based on those discussions.

Hope to see you there!

SIDE NOTE: I got married and took my wife’s name, so I’m now Scot Froelich if you’re a little confused. More info on my projects at scotfroelich.com.

[terminallysingle-blog]

Why are you single?

After the initial excitement about writing my first blog post for Terminally Single subsided I realised that i was going to have to write something that someone else might actually want to read. What on god’s green earth was I going to write? After some serious deliberation I settled on a question that plagues many of my fellow single ladies. Why are you single? Now the answer is different for everyone and but I figured I’d give my personal insight on the matter. 

  Personally, I am fully aware of my flaws, and i have a multitude. One of which is the fact that i am unable to just go with the flow, I need some kind of plan. Blindly wondering along a road that may or may not be leading to deadly drop is not my portion. And this seems to be what 90% of 21st century men want me to do. 

“Lets just see how it goes babe... No one can see the future....Who knows how we will feel in a few months..What wrong with just taking each day as it comes... YOLO**(kmt)”

These kind of comments are not conducive to my happiness. Now i’m not saying that I want a full blown bullet point plan (although that would be nice) but I would like to know we are at least on the same page, living in the same time zone and looking at the same picture. For example if you know you are not ready for a serious relationship, that’s fine but you can’t get involved with someone who is looking for something serious as the relationship/situation is inevitably going to fail. 21st century men want to have their cake, eat it and not get fat without going to the gym and even those with great metabolisms will eventually put on the pounds. I’m not saying that everything has to be super serious and words like ‘marriage’ and ‘kids’ should be thrown around but we are adults now and this whole ‘YOLO’ mentality is not helping matters. How can we be living our lives in accordance to a Rick Ross/Drake lyric? If we aren’t even starting on the same page how can we except to keep moving the same direction, it’s a recipe for disaster and normally ends with feelings being hurt and tyres being slashed. No woman wants to slash a man’s tyres but months or in many cases years of being in “relationships” with these YOLO types leads women to extreme actions.  

I’m not saying that i want to get married tomorrow (however preferably sometime this decade) but at this stage I would like someone who is open to the idea that this may just be forever because if that’s not even a possibility then what’s the point? The very notion that whatever I am about to embark upon has an expiry date not only slams the door in the face of the here & now but also but on the whole idea of possibility and potential. Yes you only live once but I’d rather do it alone and happy than in a semi-serious relationship which all that these 21st century men seem to be offering. 

The Hopless romantic x

** YOLO – You Only Live Once see here 

[21stcenturymen]

Human Compassion

RATING: Everyone

Leviticus 23:22 says "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God."

Exodus 22:21 says "You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt."

Luke 14:12-14 says "Then Jesus said to his host, 'When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.'"

The Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

William Shakespeare voiced Sir Thomas More, saying, "Should so much come too short of your great trespass, As but to banish you, whither would you go? What country, by the nature of your error, Should give you harbour? ... this is the strangers' case; And this your mountainish inhumanity."

Immigration, homelessness, and the need to flee one's home (becoming a refugee) are endemic to the human condition. Either due to war, lack of opportunity, natural disaster, or other circumstance beyond the control of the traveler, humans have sought asylum in the compassion of others since the beginning of our species. And since the beginning, we have been cruel to them.

As we watch the events unfold in Mexico where over 7,000 refugees make their way to the U.S. border, we must be presented with these thoughts. And so I ask, where is your humanity? As a man, as an American man, how do you demonstrate your strength? How do you demonstrate your humanity? As someone who heeds the call of Jesus, Moses, Emma Lazarus, Shakespeare and thousands of other humanitarians, and seeks to provide safe haven for the refugees? Even if only by contacting your government and demanding they be presented with humane treatment?

Or do you act with cowardice? With a fear of people whose only desire is to survive? This is not the behavior of a thoughtful, mature, or decent man. The purpose of a life well-lived is to reduce human suffering. Maybe you do this by providing insurance to those who need it, entertainment as enrichment, or roads and housing. There are millions of ways to help reduce human suffering, but rejecting the plight of the stranger is not one of them.

PURPOSE: If you seek to reject refugees, their family cohesion, and their right to dignity, the cost is more than their lives. The cost is your soul. And you must, at some point, realize your soul is the currency with which you transact on a daily basis. And you may not believe in a soul - I'm not even sure I do - but you must believe in the inherent worth and dignity of others, if for no reason than you need that same treatment from them to survive. The dignity of your soul demands the dignity of others'.

As Sir Thomas More points out in The Strangers' Case:

"For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought, With self same hand, self reasons, and self right, Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes Would feed on one another..."

And it all seems far off when authoritarian forces attack those with whom you are unfamiliar. Surely, you've heard the Trump Administration plans to essentially remove trans persons from existence. "But I'm not trans, and I don't believe in that anyway, so what does it matter?" If that is your belief, then I ask, when is it too late to speak out against hate? I'll leave you with this quote by Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

[21stcenturymen]

Tolerance of Intolerance

RATING: Mature

It’s time for a thought experiment. If you had a time machine and could go back and physically stop Hitler, or Columbus, or Pol Pot (together responsible for the deaths of untold millions of human lives) would you do so before they committed their crimes, or after? It sounds like an absurd question, but one that a surprising number of folks seem to be choosing the latter on. And I don't mean fascists or Nazis. I mean liberals.

Since the infamous election of a certain American president, fascists have been returning to the streets to express their "right to free speech" in increasing numbers. Or, they were increasing for a time, but have petered out recently. Merely a couple dozen such folks showed up for a "rally" in Washington D.C. in early August compared with hundreds of counter-protesters.

These guys felt an "atmosphere of intimidation," as rightly they should. It needs to be made very clear that these men are not exercising free speech. Free speech - as defined by any civilized society - must exclude hate speech that promotes genocide. And that's precisely what these people are doing. Whether it's the white supremacists like Richard Spencer who believe the white race is being annihilated and that the only solution is to kill or enslave those who aren't white, or Brother Dean who believes women should be raped.

Dean took a metal baseball bat upside the head for his efforts.

This is not someone standing outside an abortion clinic and saying they differ on the definition of when life begins. That's speech, however much pro-choice advocates may disagree with it, it's speech centered around operational definitions, and may be permitted. It is, of course, ludicrous to think a living, breathing woman's rights to her own body are subservient to the rights of an unborn being within her friggin' body as defined by people who aren’t her, but that's a discussion for another time.

Here’s Richard. See Richard take an elbow to the face.

To the point. Richard Spencer, Brother Dean, and a few others of these racist, misogynist individuals have been publicly assaulted, and with great success. Whiny white supremacists don't complain about an "atmosphere of intimidation" created by counter-protesters because they don't like mean words. They complain about it because they fear getting their skull pounded in. And they should, because they're engaging in what's called stochastic terrorism - the incitement of violence against a person or group. A demonstration of how hate speech becomes action is the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was (at the time, though we've conveniently forgotten) a well-known white supremacist, and his hateful anti-immigrant, anti-black speech caused an uptick in violence against marginalized groups. Similarly, we see these white supremacist groups having a resurgence not just online, but out on the streets since the election of Donald Trump. Violent speech begets violent acts.

And while Trump's language has certainly dog whistled to white supremacists, he hasn't come right out and said that black people, Jews, or women deserve to be annihilated or raped like Spencer and the others have. The language they are engaging in brings up the issue of tolerance. At what point are we so tolerant of opposing view points that tolerance loses all meaning? Genocide, subjugation, and intolerance of others' rights to exist in peace. That's the line.

This dude crossed that line, and is already unconscious in this image as a result.

If you are tolerant of hate speech and proposed genocide, then you are complicit in it when it happens. In the words of Desmond Tutu, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." This kind of hate speech is injustice, and by tolerating it, you will have chosen the side of the speaker themselves, not the side of "free speech."

Which brings us back to how these haters have been handled. Do I suggest that you go out and punch everyone who espouses these hateful beliefs? Well, no, if for no other reason than you can do damage to yourself. Assault is a crime, and even if you get away with it, there's a possibility you'll break your wrist, like this guy very well may have:

That wrist angle is very unhealthy. Try this instead.

But to say that violence isn't an acceptable action against hate speech is also too simplistic. None of these men were killed, and the demonstration of violence as a consequence for hate speech is working. Instead of a bunch of loudmouth, angry, tiki torch-wielding guys in khakis, the August 2018 demonstration in D.C. was peopled by a handful of cowards who whined about feeling intimidated afterward.

I want to stop short of encouraging people to commit violence. If it can be avoided and you can speak sense to someone, I recommend you do that. Always. But I also want you to understand that a society has a right to defend itself from a cancer of violent ideologies. After all, if we do get that coveted time machine, we would never even consider stopping Hitler after he'd attempted to take over the world and murdered millions of souls based on his racist, misogynist views. We'd stop him before. These men are espousing their hate now. That's a known factor. What they do next week may be out of our hands. These men should feel scared. And if a few of them getting punched or walloped upside the head accomplishes that, I won't cry in my beer for them.

[21stcenturymen]

Suicide

RATING: Everyone

In looking back over the first year of A Man's Guide, I realize suicide has never been discussed directly. That said, I believe the entire blog deals with issues that relate.

Anthony Bourdain took his own life this morning in a hotel in France. He was 61. Robin Williams took his own life at age 63. Chris Cornell committed suicide at age 52. These were not young, hormonally troubled men. These were established, self-determining, thoughtful, grown men. Suicide in general has increased in the US over the past twenty years, but men are three and a half times more likely to die from a suicide attempt. Half of suicides in the United States are committed with guns, and of those, almost exclusively by men.

There's nothing I can say about suicide or depression that someone else hasn't stated more expertly, so instead I'll talk about toxic masculinity and its role in US suicides.

For starters, we're afraid to seek help. And I do mean afraid, not too strong. Our culture of toxic masculinity tells us that men must be strong to be men. That if we seek help for depression we're weak. And for as long as we allow a toxic society to tell us how we're supposed to handle our flaws, we'll continue not to handle them at all. And these three men all sought help for depression at some point or other. Maybe not enough, and maybe they didn't get the help they needed, but these were strong men who often epitomized our ideals of masculinity. And fellas, if they couldn't handle it without help, then you must --MUST-- understand that it's okay for you to admit the same, and seek help as well.

There's no shame in speaking to a therapist. You're not weak for talking to someone. Maybe you even have depression exacerbated by a chemical imbalance that can be treated. Imagine if you decided to suffer through the pain of depression because someone told you to "tough it out" instead of getting help, getting life-saving medication, and starting to enjoy life!

Does it always work? Of course not. Humans are imperfect. Our solutions are imperfect. But to deny help at all because of this mythic John Wayne notion of masculinity - where we bootstrap ourselves out of healthy emotional expression - is to deny our own humanity, our sense of worth, and our sense of belonging.

As I think about the topics we've discussed here, I can tie almost all of them back to a few basic concepts: lack of self worth, a false sense of entitlement, and perceived notions of rightness.

Toxic masculine culture tells us men must look, act, and feel a certain way. We then feel entitled to the rewards of those things, and when the mirror doesn't show us these successes, we internalize a powerful lack of self worth. These manifest in things like street harassment (the idea that a woman walking down the street owes us something), driving like macho idiots (the idea that we must compensate for one failing by acting out in another), talking down to and/or abusing our partners (the idea that another person is responsible for making us whole), and so on.

Our failings as "MEN" manifest in failings as humans. If we want to see a decrease in male suicides, we have to stop placing our lack of self worth on everyone who's not a cis, straight male, and start recognizing it comes from unrealistic, fabricated expectations. And it doesn't matter who started those expectations, it is incumbent upon us to dismantle them.

Bourdain, Williams, and Cornell were not victims of toxic masculinity because they were toxic men. By most accounts, they were flawed, but striving men. They were victims of toxic masculinity because our society didn't allow them to comfortably seek or receive the help they needed. And perhaps, in these three cases, there was some chemical imbalance that no amount of therapy or presently-available medication could have solved, but most of us knew fairly little about their struggles in comparison to others much more comfortable expressing their struggles. Imagine Dragons lead singer Dan Reynolds, for example, frequently talks about his struggles with depression and acts to help dismantle stigmatization of mental health.

And, to be completely open, I struggle with it myself. Prior to age 11, I had already attempted to take my own life three times. In my thirties, I had a breakdown and was very close to attempting it again. When I realized what was happening, I sat up and said, "This is bad. I need help." I was fortunate enough to have health insurance that covered a highly qualified therapist right down the street from me. So I went. I've made progress, but for many of us, these things don't 100% go away. Every day, when I experience something that makes me feel inadequate, a voice in the back of my head says, "BE A MAN! SUCK IT UP!" My therapy taught me to follow that up with, "I am worthy of love."

That thought alone got me through a horrible break-up a few years ago, and I repeat it to myself every chance I get. But a therapist taught me that. Not the Red Pill or some other hateful MRA site. I've survived because of the love and compassion in my life, not by seeking others to blame for my lot.

PURPOSE: You are not alone. We all struggle with feelings of inadequacy and with not belonging. Taking responsibility for that doesn't mean sucking it up and holding it in. Taking responsibility means getting the help we need to mitigate and, if possible, eliminate those feelings of worthlessness.Those are big goals, but if we're MEN who think we can handle it all ourselves, then we're certainly man enough to lighten the load by sharing our fears with others.

If you are struggling with these feelings, that is okay. You are human. You are good. You are worthy of love. Seek help not because you're "weak," but because you are strong enough to know you might need it.

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 800-273-8255

[21stcenturymen]

Listening & Ceding Space

RATING: Everyone

I could publish a weighty tome featuring nothing but pics of white guys taking up space. Having conversations in front of doorways, slacking in the center of escalators wide enough for two, walking four abreast on a sidewalk, spreading their legs on transit, or operating Audis at all. And I think driving is probably the best analogy I can come up with to talk about why ceding physical space or time to listen doesn’t diminish our lives.

Think of highway driving. When you're cruising down the road and encounter a slower driver, you move over to the lefthand lane to pass, but that car slides over as well. Or they speed up. In any case, they don't want you to pass. Your need to get somewhere doesn’t impact their life at all, and yet they take umbrage at your existence and attempt to inhibit your need to pass anyway. You know they'll still have their part of the road after you pass, and you know you're not trying to take that away from them, but they're behaving as though being passed will be of grave consequence. You getting to where you’re going means nothing to them, yet somehow it’s a race. To where? For what purpose? You have different lives, goals, destinations, and yet for that moment, you seem to be locked in a death match… for no discernible reason.

This is what cis white men's fear of women, people of color, and the LGBTQIA community having the same rights as us looks like. It is literally no impact to us if they are treated as equals, and yet, we slide over, speed up, and refuse to cede space when others weren’t trying to compete with us in the first place.

We can expand the metaphor a bit further to examine how it’s funded. Everyone’s tax dollars go to make that road drivable, and yet that one jerk thinks they have more rights to it than we do. Ridiculous, right? Why not let people pass, get to where they need to go, and participate in the pavement they also contribute to? Remember, this is a metaphor, so it’s not intended to drive a discussion about road funding, but you do have to concede enough about how public funds are used for the public good to acknowledge the metaphor’s validity. Do you drive on roads? That’s a trick question, everyone does. Do you pay for them yourself? Obviously, you don’t pay for it yourself, and you do drive on them, so let’s acknowledge sharing is mandatory.

So what about non-physical space? What about time and energy? Turns out, men do this in conversation as well. We think women talk longer and that we’re doing well at listening, but - in general - they don’t and we’re not. According to numerous studies, men take up far more space in meetings and other formal settings than women do. Physical and verbal space are culturally synonymous. Says Deborah Tannen, “When choosing a seat at a theater or on a plane, most of us [women] will take a seat next to a woman, if we can, because we know from experience that women are more likely to draw their legs and arms in, less likely to claim the arm rest or splay out their legs, so their elbows and knees invade a neighbor’s space. For similar reasons, when they talk in a formal setting, many women try to take up less verbal space by being more succinct, speaking in a lower voice and speaking in a more tentative way.”

I’ve seen it many times in meetings myself. Women will be interrupted by a man who insists on explaining something before he’s even listened to what she has to say. Frequently, if he’d listened for 10 - 20 more seconds, she would have explained precisely what he was wondering about. Instead, he blathers on for minutes on end only to have the woman roll her eyes and say, “As I was saying, _____” where we then hear the Reader’s Digest version we could have been blessed with in the first place.

In one meeting I actually interrupted a man who’d beed doing this to say, “Excuse me, but I want to hear what she has to say. Go on, please, Janice.*” The room went silent and the man’s jaw gaped open as if he’d never been so accosted in his life. Interrupting a woman was just second nature to him, but being interrupted was a grand offense. He’s seldom spoken to me since. So what does it say about male fragility that a man considers an act perfectly acceptable when employed on a woman, but a gross injustice when enacted upon him?

PURPOSE: Breathe. Is another person talking? Yes? Then don’t interrupt them. Children get this training from a very early age. When did we forget it? I understand we all struggle to be heard, but whether you realize it or not, you’ll get your chance. Respect other people’s right to be heard and listen when they speak. Particularly when someone says something you have an opinion about, let them finish before responding. They might just address your objections, but if you interrupt, you’ll never know because now you’ve created a combative environment. Let people finish their thoughts.

Take your space - and only your space. Let people pass. They may not even have the same destination and life’s not a race anyway. I promise you no one is trying to take your personal space from you. Keep your legs closed on the bus, stay to the right on escalators, don’t jam up doorways with your conversation, and for the love of God, if you own an Audi, don’t drive like you own an Audi. There are too many other people on the road for you to stretch your fancy car’s legs as if you’re a racecar driver.**

Next Up: Special guest writer - Personal Responsibility

*Her name was not Janice.

**You’re not.

[21stcenturymen]

You Are Not a Nice Guy

RATING: Teen

No, you are not a "nice guy." Or a "good guy." I mean, neither am I, so I want to make that clear. This week, we're going to discuss the myth of the “nice guy.”

Men believing themselves entitled to attention from women and dubbing themselves Nice Guys™ is so culturally pervasive that it has its own page on Geek Feminism Wiki, Urban Dictionary, Wikipedia, and numerous other aggregate and news sites. In other words, it's not a unique phenomenon or invention by your neighbor's very pleasant but girlfriend-less son. Lots of guys think they're entitled to female attention based on some mythical metric of niceness.

*I’m going to come back to this abomination.

First of all, there's the belief that nice guys finish last. I'd like to point out that this comment was actually coined by a baseball coach to describe a next-to-last last place team. It was not intended to describe how bad guys always "get the girl." That usage came later. But fine, let's say that women do, in some way (though nothing that's ever been provably demonstrated) prefer the Bad Boy® over the Nice Guy™. What do we expect beating them over the head with "I'M A NICE GUY" to accomplish? Seriously, what does the second half of that interaction look like in your imagination?

"Oh, you're a nice guy?! Well shit! Sign me up!" said no one never.

And how does telling women, "You're idiots for not dating nice guys!" demonstrate you're a nice guy? I hate to break it to you, but a nice guy wouldn't say that. But fine, let's say there are Bad Boys® and Nice Guys™.

If you know women prefer Bad Boy® types, I can't imagine why you insist on them relaxing that standard to date a nice guy. You claim not to live by other people’s standards; why should women pre-cognitively live by yours? So then, that means you have to find the specific women who don’t want Bad Boys® which means you must learn to predict which women prefer which type of guy. Seeing as how that’s not really possible, that leaves you with the alternative of becoming a Bad Boy®. But, of course, that’s ridiculous. By becoming Bad Boys® we relinquish the cudgel with which we can judge women for being interested in literally anyone else but us. As nice guys, we want sex from women just for being nice, the right to judge them for withholding that from us specifically and as a Nice Guy™ monolith, and the authority to maintain competing standards of what other people are allowed to find attractive.

Real Talk: I don’t want you to be or not be anything. Rather, I want you to focus on one thing: you're not a Nice Guy™. You don't have to adopt a Bad Boy® persona. Just admit you aren't a Nice Guy™ to begin with. Because, let's face it, anyone who has to announce how good they are at something is really just profoundly insecure about how good they are at it.

As the saying goes, “Real ganstas don't flex nuts, 'cause real gangstas know they got 'em..." except that's not the real phrase, and you probably sing the real phrase, sans editing, in your car with the windows up when you know there are only other white folks around. Does that sound like something a truly "nice" guy would do?

PURPOSE: Being a Nice Guy™ or expecting women to prefer Nice Guys™ is a false expectation a century of bullshit pop culture has indoctrinated us with, but it's not real. You being a Nice Guy™ means you're attempting to live up to someone else's expectations or standards; to fit yourself into a mold you didn't create, and that Nice Guy™ mold isn't you. It isn't anyone, really. Sure, it's Cameron Fry, Ronald Miller, and a host of other “nice” qualities squeezed into sexless Hollywood white guy characters, but it's not a real person. There’s no mask you can put on to make women like you, and you certainly should never judge women for failing to swoon at such a mask anyway. Because, even if it works, they’re falling in love with something that isn’t really you.

If you’re trying to date someone who doesn’t like you for who you are, thank her for her time and move on. You shouldn’t be with that person in the first place. She’s not wrong for not liking you, just like you weren’t wrong for being you. That one woman doesn’t speak for all women and it’s a waste of your own energy and time to blame all women for the fact that one person was just interested in other things.

Your loneliness isn't unique. Happily-coupled people can be crushingly lonely, too. Loneliness and being alone aren't the same thing, and it's important to decouple your expectations of personal time from your expectations of contentment. If you just want to be coupled, then niceness is irrelevant. If you want to be content, then you must give up on someone else's standards of what you should be or what other people want, and accept that you create your own niceness and compassion for your prospective partner. They won't be impressed by how well you fit an arbitrary set of expectations (holds the door for her, beats up bad guys, mansplains board game rules... etc.) but rather by how well you communicate your intentions and listen to theirs.

Don't try to be a nice guy. Nice Guys™ suck because they're too hung up on proving they're "nice." Just prove you're honest. Prove you actually want to hear what other people have to say. Everything else is posing.

Next Up: About Those Activists...

*"Give the good guys a chance to help you be less afraid of the world" That image made the rounds last year and again this year, and is probably the quintessential example of Nice Guy™ apologia. Essentially, the entire missive boils down to, “Bad boys don’t care what happens to you, but nice guys do as long as we get to decide what it is and when.” Whoever wrote that is an Asshole®.

[21stcenturymen]

About Those Activists

RATING: Teen

I frequently see men, particularly conservative-thinking men, tear down activists and liberals just for being activists or “SJWs.” So it would make sense that in reading this blog, someone might think, “There’s another SJW trying to change how everyone behaves!” Over the past year, there have been a number of concerns or topics brought up that I want to address:

1. "Scot hates white men." Well, I am a white man. So, it would either be super self-loathing (an MRA's pet descriptor of any man who toes a "feminist" line) or really weird for me to hate white men. Fortunately, neither is true. I was raised by a white man, work with predominantly white men, and comprise a not insignificant portion of my friends group of white men. They're mostly decent humans and I certainly don't hate them. Wanting better for someone doesn't mean you hate them.

2. "You want everyone to be a feminist!" I mean, sure? But people's definition of "feminism" varies depending on their perspective. The generally-accepted academic definition of feminism is that it's the effort for equality of women and men. A hyper-masculine society is dangerous for the emotional and physical health of everyone, though women and gender non-conforming folks bear the brunt of the abuse such a society brings with it. So, use the word, don't use the word... I don't care what you call yourself. Are you treating people with decency and respect, and are you listening when you should be listening? Groovy! That's enough for me.

3. "You just want everyone to be an activist!" Actually, this one is straight-up wrong. I don't. And I want to take a second to talk about liberal "activists."

Everyone contributes in their own way and activism isn't that way for a lot of people. At times, it really sucks. It's a constantly moving target of nitpicking, redirection, and wordplay. "Well, actually..." frequently gets pegged as a phrase used by mansplainers, but if I had a nickel for every time I heard or saw a fellow liberal used that phrase or one of its analogs, I'd have a more robust 401k. And you've probably seen it happen, too. One person tries to make an observation or complaint about something, and a dozen people pile on to say, "That's discriminatory towards ____" or "The way I see it is ____" whether the OP had asked for those opinions or not. It's exhausting. Or, you share your thoughts to someone's original post, and they tear you down for not having mind-read what their personal experience was, even though they left it open to interpretation to begin with. Liberals are kind of horrible to each other at times. Some of them expect people to be perfect, not realizing other people’s individuality and personal experience might cause them to be knowledgable on some things but lacking in others. "They did one ignorant thing! All of their advocacy is a sham!" or, “Oh no! A person who demonstrated ignorance in one thing is a complex, ever-evolving human? Whatever shall we do but block and report that heathen?!”

There is no one right brand of activism. Everyone has things that resonate with them. My particular brand of activism is the emotional health of men and boys. Plenty of liberal activists think this is a waste of time - men just need to do better. But you and I know that can't happen without spending some time on how. So that's where I'm at and what I'm choosing to put my effort into. It doesn't make someone else's activism wrong or misguided, it just means we may have different energies and priorities. And that's fine, because what they do is crucial, too.

PURPOSE: I won't give advice for other activists, but I do have a recommendation for you: ignore them. Acknowledge that the world is screwed up and please listen to their message, but when they start telling you how bad a person you are because you don't share their priorities, decouple the message from the person. Their message is no less valid just because they're rude about how they convey it. Activists don’t block the construction of oil pipelines because they don’t want you to have heating oil or because they want to attack you, personally. Activists don’t block freeways because they want you, personally, to be late to your next appointment. Activists don’t plug up the halls of state legislatures because they want to annoy you, personally. They want to inform, to educate, and to make you aware of the issues that not only affect them, but you. The same as you believe the military may be doing work to protect everyone from foreign threats, these activists believe they are doing work to protect you from toxic drinking water, fascist security forces, and legislation designed to take people’s rights away.

Are activists difficult to communicate with at times? Absolutely. Because they’re human. All humans have moments when they’re difficult. But if all we see in other humans is the ways in which they’re difficult, then we’ve rejected their humanity, and that doesn’t dehumanize them. It dehumanizes you. The same way some of those activists dehumanize themselves when they reduce you to a one-note comment on an internet message board. Find your voice, and realize that other people are striving to find theirs. It’s a lot healthier to assume the best out of people than to constantly assume the worst.

Next Up: Anniversary Recap

[21stcenturymen]

The Arithmetic of Consent

RATING: Everyone

This post comes to you via guest writer John Heimbuch. Consent is an extremely important topic and one I’d been noodling on in margins for a while. But John hit it on the head, with actual demonstrations of how it works. So, without further ado, a treatise on consent:

Before discussing the question of how to have these conversations, it's important to look at the need/want/desire that lives at the root of all such conversations. Fundamentally, having a conversation about consent and boundaries assumes that at least one person involved in the conversation has some kind of sexual desire for the other person(s) involved in the conversation. It seems almost silly to point this out, it's so fundamental. Why discuss boundaries and consent unless there's already an assumption of attraction and desire? But pointing it out is important, because if one (or both) (or more) parties are operating with desire for certain outcomes, it's not an abstract conversation. It's a negotiation.

When we acknowledge that it's a negotiation, we reveal that it's at least in part about each person getting what they want. Let's assume Person A wants to have sex with Person B. There are words and there are actions.

Person A can express this directly to Person B.

Person A can express this indirectly to Person B.

Person A can choose not to express this to Person B.

Person A can act respectfully toward Person B.

Person A can act duplicitously toward Person B.

Person A can act abysmally toward Person B.

Depending on A's choices, B must try to decode both the desires of Person A, their assumptions about the potential actions of Person A, as well as determining what they themselves want. That's a lot of work that Person B needs to do, usually all at once.

Therefore, the best thing Person A can do is to attempt to minimize the amount of work that B needs to do in the moment. If it feels welcome, and there’s no conflicts of interest, it’s often okay to state your attraction up front. Then clearly state what you want, which may be nothing beyond friendship. If there is desire for more, try to telegraph that desire far in advance of any decision being made, so no one is surprised, and Person B is given plenty of time to make whatever decision they want. It’s also super important to let Person B know that you are legitimately happy and comfortable with any decision they make. Because no one deserves to be pressured. And you have a responsibility for that to be true, regardless of what Person B decides.

In a nutshell, Person A has a responsibility to make things as safe and easy for Person B as possible. And remember, neither role (A or B) is intrinsic to gender or self-identity. It's just circumstantial depending on who speaks their desire first.

If consent and desire are mutually established, great! Then you can determine what options* are available to you both. That can be as simple as just saying directly - ”I will do this, but not this or this.” And then everyone needs to respect those boundaries in the moment, and constantly check in if there are any questions "How are you doing? Is this okay?" Assumptions during sex are usually a way of one person getting what they want without worrying about the needs of the other person. As long as those things are pre-negotiated, great! But if they aren't, you need to Stop, Collaborate, and Listen.

It’s easy to feel awkward about these conversations, but they really don’t have to. Directness can be charming and healthy. And it can be tremendously beneficial to clear the air as much as possible when there's something unspoken hanging over things. Even without wanting sex, it can sometimes be nice to acknowledge attraction and leave it at that. It eliminates a lot of nervousness and uncertainty. Maybe the most honest answer to "What do I want?" is "I want to not spend so many cycles on this." That's okay!

The relationship status/future conversation is a whole different kettle of fish. Honestly, it's hard to really know what the future holds, or what shape things will naturally want to take over time. Trying to put a relationship into a shape it doesn't naturally fit can be incredibly damaging to a relationship that might otherwise be fine if it were left to develop naturally, without any roles or narratives externally applied to it.

To this end, it can be better to not worry about what anything and everything *means* outside the context of this particular conversation. Person B doesn’t want what Person A does? Or later changes their mind? That’s okay! Life changes. It’s not a personal critique. And becoming okay with however things go in those negotations (and after), is a critical step in opening one’s heart to meaningful connections, whatever they might be.

Next Up: I’ll be taking next week off, but our upcoming topics include uterine anatomy, gratitude, and apologies. See you soon!

* Creating a Yes/No/Maybe list for things you'd open to trying (or not) is a fine way of approaching this.

[21stcenturymen]

You Don't Own Me

RATING: Teen

It seems* obvious that owning another person is morally reprehensible when describing slavery, but ask most men how they feel about significant others, and they'll likely exhibit some sense of ownership. "My woman," "My girl,**" "...another man's property..." etc. I don't think anyone can claim they've never heard those phrases, and I think most of us guys would have to admit having used them.

In Lesley Gore's 1963 hit "You Don't Own Me," (recorded at age 17, by the way), she catalogs a litany of behaviors men exhibit in relation to their significant others:

I'm not just one of your many toys

Don't say I can't go with other boys

And don't tell me what to do

Don't tell me what to say

And please, when I go out with you, don't put me on display

Don't try to change me in any way

Don't tie me down 'cause I'd never stay

She clearly demonstrates allowing a man to have his autonomy:

I don't tell you what to say

I don't tell you what to do

So just let me be myself

That's all I ask of you

Followed by an expression of individuality:

I'm young and I love to be young

I'm free and I love to be free

To live my life the way I want

To say and do whatever I please

Peppered throughout with a crucial refrain: You don't own me.

And Lesley Gore is right. You can't own a person, and these cultural notions of ownership need to die. Sure, most relationships revolve around some agreement of propriety: “I won’t cheat on you if you don’t cheat on me…” “My things are your things…” “I’ll pay for the movie tickets if you pay for the popcorn…” but to assume that these agreements mean a person belongs to another person is ridiculous.

“But Scot! We exchanged vows!” Of course you did. But you didn’t give the woman’s father a check with For goods and services in the memo line. You didn’t buy a person. You exchanged vows as a testament of your fidelity. Marriage hasn’t been strictly a property arrangement in this country for a century or two (probably not long enough) so maybe we need to stop treating it as such.

Expressing ownership over another person just because you're committed to them is exceedingly unhealthy. "If you love something, set it free." The need to always be around someone and keep them from expressing themselves individually without you is a symptom of an attachment disorder, and you're friggin' stifling them. Knock that off. People are individuals and have their own unique interests, energies, and personal expression. Being in a relationship doesn't alter a person's composition, it just changes focus or direction to greater or lesser degrees.

Men in particular struggle with expressing themselves outside of their intimate partner relationships. This frequently manifests in being controlling, overbearing, or emotionally needy with those partners. When we don't have any other safe space to be expressive, of course our partners are going to bear the brunt of our emotional neediness, and that's not healthy for anyone.

In a recent episode of the Hidden Brain podcast on NPR, we hear Shankar Vedantam say, "[For men] the only acceptable place to express emotion is within the context of a relationship." A teenage boy responding to a survey about emotional expression explains, "When you get a girlfriend, like, you have to spend a lot of time with her. Or if you get a boyfriend, you have to spend a lot of time with him. So, like, you kinda spend more time with them than you do with your best friend, and they might get jealous..." Vedantam then explains "Both men and women are plagued by a bias that pushes us towards isolation, rather than connection."

We're putting all of our emotional energies into one person, then restricting that person from having any other outlet. And I don't mean exclusively romantic outlets, either. Many men get jealous when women spend time with their friends. Those are the guys who need intimate male friends the most. And no, I don't mean "intimate" as in sexually intimate. I mean "intimate" as in someone you're comfortable sharing your fears, hopes, and dreams with. If the only person you feel comfortable sharing that with is your partner, then you're putting the responsibility for all your happiness in one other person, and then they're doomed to fail you because NO ONE CAN DO THAT. Learn to talk about your feelings with your friends.

PURPOSE: You don't now, never have, nor ever will own your partner. They're an individual and you fell in love (or will fall in love) with them because of that individuality. Understanding that you need to let them go doesn't mean saying goodbye. It means acknowledging that you can love them without putting all your baggage and needs on them all the time, and that they can enjoy aspects of their life independent of you. Just like you both did before you met.

Eliminate those phrases of ownership from your vocabulary and learn to identify toxic proprietary notions in your daily interactions. Like when a guy friend asks, "Hey, can I talk to your girlfriend about something?" rather than saying, "Why?" learn to reply with, "She's a grownup and so are you. Ask her yourself." If you don't trust your friend or your girlfriend to talk to each other without you, then you have trust issues and potentially the aforementioned attachment disorder. You should talk about that with your friends and therapist.

It's lonely being a guy in 21st Century America. We've created a culture where we stifle emotions then expect one person to be the answer to all of our emotional needs. That has to stop. Relieve your partner of your stresses by talking to your friends at least some of the time. You might be surprised by how much your friends need to open up to you, too. And allow your partner to express themselves individually. Not fretting over what they do when you’re not around instills trust and acts to strengthen your relationship, not weaken it.

Next Up: Listening & Ceding Space

*Apparently this is somewhat difficult, too, what with white supremacy making a comeback.

**If you are dating someone, please only ever use the term "girl" if you and they are under 18, otherwise, she's a woman, not a girl. That, or you're a statutory rapist.***

***I’m talking about how you refer to your partner in public. If you and your S.O. have terms of endearment for each other, that’s totally your business. Say whatever you want.

As for any guys who want to argue with Gore's assertions of her rights as an individual, I'll do the Point/Counterpoint for you.

GORE: "I'm young and I love to be young" GUY: "Young women don't know what they want." REALITY: "Sorry you squandered your youth, bro. Let the woman express herself."

GORE: "I'm free and I love to be free" GUY: "Not in a relationship, you won't be." REALITY: "Dude, please demonstrate this belief from the outset so people know to avoid you like the plague."

GORE: "To live my life the way I want" GUY: "You're selfish!" REALITY: "Yeah, because a world of people who sacrifice their individuality for social norms has worked well so far. eye roll"

GORE: "To say and do whatever I please" GUY: "You're spoiled." REALITY: "Dude, you're repressed."

[21stcenturymen]

Benevolent Sexism

RATING: Teen

Frequently in conversations with men, there seem to be only two possible expressions of how to treat women (specifically women as the associations get more grotesquely nuanced when we descend into how some men view trans persons, people of color, and really anyone in the LGBTQIA community) that tend to bubble to the surface.

She’s precious and should be protected and revered!

She wants equality? Fuck it, that’s fine. She gets to sign up for the draft, get pummeled by linebackers in gym class, and lift steel I-beams with her bare hands.

Either of those sound familiar? Hell, I think both have escaped my lips at different times in my life. And I’d like to take an aside for a moment to say this: You’re not perfect. No one expects you to be perfect. You don’t have to change on a dime or magically know all the right things to say and do. As the two thoughts above indicate, there are always multiple ways to look at things and it’s okay if we shift around a bit before finding reality. Which, as with most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

Are women precious and need to be protected and revered? No and yes. No, as in, no more so than you. And yes, if you agree that all people should be protected and revered. And if you mean physically precious or fragile, then I’ll ask you this. Have you ever stubbed your toe? Literally zero people in the history of humankind have stubbed their toe and said, “Yeah, I’ll just walk that off. It’s fine.” From Goliath to R. Lee Ermey, every man to ever stub his toe has hopped around the room screaming and cussing bloody murder as if someone just clipped the thing off with a pair of garden shears. We’re human. We’re all fragile, ya dig? We’re not above feeling pain or injury because we’re “male.”

Women don’t need protection. They’re not incompetent or unable to fend for themselves. Is the particular woman you’re going to be interacting with smaller than you? Okay, do you think her value rests in how much she can lift, or how high she can reach? As if ladders don’t exist or you can lift that couch all by yourself? What genuine day-to-day value is there in being stronger than your partner? Unless you plan on being a threat to her, your variance in size shouldn’t matter. So… what do women need protection from then?

The idea that women are inherently “less than” and need protection is called benevolent sexism. Like, you’re not really sexist! You’re a Nice Guy™ and you just want to do what’s best for women. I want you to read this Facebook post that made the rounds a while back. Not because it’s particularly insightful, but because it’s like a ‘greatest hits’ of the presumptions men have about “taking care of” women.

I’m going to analyze this, piece by piece. “Women ask for a provider…” No. No they don’t. A particular person may ask for a provider, but anyone who just wants a provider without having to put in their own effort is a freeloader, not a partner. And women never insisted on men being providers. In the 1940s and 1950s major corporations and the government hired marketing firms to cultivate that belief because they wanted women either in “women’s work” or out of the workforce entirely. It’s MEN - TWO GENERATIONS AGO - who created that belief. Are there women now who still believe it? Sure, but if that’s not what you want, go find another woman. Don’t blame all women because you found a freeloader. Plenty of men are freeloaders, too.

“Can you handle it? Can you wait on him? Do you see and know what time it is and why he is not home where [he] wishes [he] was?” These are manipulative questions utilizing a logical fallacy called “begging the question” where someone argues a position assuming one of its premises is automatically true. In this case, the assumption is that anyone wanted this guy to be a provider in the first place. Which, believe it or not, most people don’t. So, whether a woman wants to “handle it” or “wait on him” is completely irrelevant.

“I have always worked my back off with my career. It has cost me friendships, family time, and relationships.” Then you need to break up with your career because it’s an abusive asshole. Any employer who asks you to do this doesn’t value you and you should therefore go elsewhere. Period. Employers get away with abusive behavior because we put up with it. Remember the blame for this situation is on your employer for expecting it and you for going along with it. Not on your partner for being justifiably upset by it.

“…I work like a dog so that I can be a successful man…” Cute, but succeeding at everything except your family isn’t success. Unless you never wanted your family in the first place.

“…but because I love them and would do anything for them and never fail them.” A. You have failed them because B. You obviously wouldn’t do anything for them since “anything” includes being fucking present.

And the picture is the perfect summation of the entire thing. A man putting literally zero effort into an interaction while a woman dotes on him anyway. This entire mindset of benevolent sexism is a lie we men tell ourselves to excuse the fact that we’re poor at relationships and communication. We support it by calling emotional labor “women’s work” and anything remotely resembling feelings “soft.” Grog punch… timecard. And really, if emotional labor is so easy and so soft that women do it, then it shouldn’t be so hard for men to try it, too, right?

Okay, so we shouldn’t assume that women want us to be a provider and to do all the hard work for them. This can be misunderstood as thinking women should have to suffer all the same physical hardships on the job as men do. Except, no, they shouldn’t. Not because women are more special, but because no one should be suffering physical hardships as part of a job. And if you’re worried about smaller, weaker humans suffering physical labor injuries on the job, maybe you don’t need that pair of Nikes sewn by a 10-year-old in Bangladesh. Because you can’t claim to care for “fragile” women if you don’t care for fragile children. It’s a crutch to continue to treat women as though they are “less than.”

I’ve registered for selective service, because I had to. I’m pleased the draft was never reinstated while I was young enough to qualify but I understand the feeling some men have of, “If women really want equality, then they should have to register for the selective service, too!” I mean, if men have the potential to be pressed into life-threatening military service, then women should have to as well, right? But why does that have to be the answer? Why do we have to look at equality as a set of matched miseries? Why can’t we just say, “Actually, no one should have to register to be killed for someone else’s war. Let’s get rid of it for men, too.”

Removing threats men have to our safety is just as good a mechanism of equality as anything else.

PURPOSE: Stop assuming that women want to be protected or that they deserve to be as miserable as you. This isn’t a competition. We shouldn’t be in a race to see who has it worse. Or in a race to point up our differences. In the same breath as saying “all women are precious,” or “all women are experts at emotional labor,” we could just as easily be saying “all Asians are good at math,” or “all American natives have natural healing skills.” Even positive stereotypes are damaging, reductive, and mostly false. By reducing all women to having the same skills, abilities, and desires, you’ve outed yourself as someone incapable of acknowledging the individuality of others, and then you can’t wonder why they wouldn’t want to date you.

Which brings me to the second part of the purpose: ask people what they want. Don’t assume that every woman wants a “provider.” You’d be surprised how many women prefer to be independent and handle their own shit. More importantly, you need to pay attention to the fact they were likely handling their own shit long before you came into their life. Women don’t cease being capable adults just because a penis enters the room. Trust me, that thing’s magical powers of ineptitude do not extend to others. And if you meet a woman who likes to be independent, this is not a reflection on you. Be grateful you get to just be yourself and not have to fit into a mold she never asked you to pour yourself into in the first place. You’ll have much better conversations and far healthier relationships the less you assume about others.

Next up: Single Doesn’t Mean Unhappy

[21stcenturymen]

Golly, THANKS!

RATING: Teen

This week’s post is going to sound a bit like a rant on one dude. And sure, it may be that to an extent, but I want you to focus on his priorities, and what he chose to expend his energy on.

I was buying a salad for lunch at a chain restaurant one day, and there was this douchebag* in line in front of me. They’re all over the place, so I daren’t criticize that particular lunch spot. Downtown areas are replete with douchebags at lunchtime; pushing their way through lines, refusing to cede space, taking up tables far longer than is necessary, and competing for who has the most gravelly Will Arnett impression while exaggerating the deals they’d made that week.

The guy in front of me was the worst kind of douchebag: a white man who has no concept of the humanity of others. Or, possibly, no concept of humanity in general. At this particular establishment, there are three sizes of soup bowls; small, medium, and large. Not difficult. Especially since he would have to have said one of those things when ordering it. However, upon reaching the cashier, he had somehow either forgotten where he was or just decided that he was going to implement a new nomenclature.

When asked what he had, he replied, “A cup of the tomato bisque.”

“You mean, a small?” the cashier asked.

“A cup. Whatever,” he answered, ignoring the fact that a human being was talking to him, and digging for his wallet as if the matter were settled.

“Well, what size do you have? We have large, medium, or small.”

Now smiling and speaking slowly in a condescending fashion, he said, “I have a cup. Looks pretty small to me.”

She answered, “Sir, we don’t have cup and bowl sizes. Just large, medium, or small.”

“Then small! Jesus!” he shouted at her. She took his money and gave him change for the small soup. He then added, while pocketing his change, “Thanks a lot. Get working on that attitude problem.” And he left the shop.**

I stepped up next and put my salad on the counter. “That dude’s an asshole,” I stated.***

“Did he just say I have an attitude problem?” she asked.

“Yeah, some people suck. You’re doing just fine.”

There are a few things happening here. First is that this man doesn’t understand the value of time. He genuinely feels that his time is worth more than the woman behind the register. It’s not. She’s at work, doing a job. The very simplest thing a person can do to understand how not to make other people’s lives difficult is to put themselves in the other person’s shoes - at their own job.

Example: Would I enjoy someone coming up to my desk, demanding something from me, doing so using their own terminology that didn’t match the operational definitions of my job, then having the gall to hold me responsible for the misunderstanding? No. No, I would not enjoy that. Had this man had a stroke of empathy at any point during their interaction, he would have understood that. But, he didn’t. Because he was in a rush, and cared only about himself and the fact he had somewhere to go. His time was more valuable to him than her job/humanity/dignity/etc.

Another item at issue is the value of the work. He believes that her work doesn’t have value - a cashier is just a cashier. “Who cares about that job, they should just do what I tell them!” Except he’s simultaneously expecting her to read his mind. So, while he thinks the job is simple, he also insists on its workers having skills he clearly doesn’t possess. Think about every time you’ve asked, “OMG, how hard is their job?!” Now realize you’re the 50th person they’ve had to deal with that day and the 49 bad attitudes before yours are more at fault for the quality of your service than the worn-down human in front of you. Smile and say thank you. How hard is that?

And finally, he doesn’t believe the person has value. As a cashier in a low-wage job, she’s not worth his respect. So, he can treat her however he pleases, and she just needs to take it. This is completely contrary to his own belief that he should be treated with respect so profound that others should read his mind or magically convert to a different size nomenclature so as not to bother him with knowing what he ordered. If you think you - as a person - have more value than the person ringing you up at the register, you are wrong. Period. Say thank you because you wouldn’t want to be treated like this either.

PURPOSE: Gratitude is simple. When someone is working a job where they are obligated to serve you, put yourself in their position. Say “please” and “thank you” as if you were working that job. Be gracious with your words and actions. These behaviors are viewable by others and you will either present yourself as a kind person or a douchebag. Maybe something in between, but you should really avoid the gray area and aim for the kindness. Kindness is infectious.

Say “thank you.” Cede space and time to others, not because your time isn’t as important as theirs, because that’s not true, either. Do it because you understand that kindness begets kindness and that the world is better if we don’t fight everyone else on our way through it. Do it because you actually understand that other people have value, and aren’t some obstacle between you and what you want.

Is it fair to judge an entire person based on one interaction? Of course not, but no one in that establishment knows this guy for anything other than being a complete, willful jerk to an innocent cashier. And that’s sort of the point. Your reputation is what you put out into the world and while you may be thinking how difficult it is to be nice to everyone at all times… NOW consider what it’s like to be someone in the service industry, who could just use a damn “thank you” every now and then, and the expectations we heap upon them to be nice to everyone at all times.

Next Up: Women Do Not Want to Be Raped

*I get it. Some folks find this word gratuitous and offensive, but it has its place.

**Just to clarify - this all happened too fast for me to be able to reasonably interject on the cashier’s behalf. That doesn’t mean I don’t wish I had, but by the time I could have said anything, he was already out the door. Also, her tone was direct, but not disrespectful. The man’s behavior was wholly out-of-line and the situation was entirely of his own making.

***This is an insult to assholes. I apologize for that.

[21stcenturymen]

Women Do Not Want to Be Raped

RATING: Mature

I want to be clear about this week’s rating. The content I’m going to reference is the worst kind of hateful misinformation, and it’s not healthy for… really, anyone to be exposed to. That said, the post itself is only mildly “mature” in content. I want men in particular to read all the way to the end, but for anyone who’s been victimized by men who spew hateful, misogynist rhetoric, this post may not be for you.

I’m going to begin by discussing the man who essentially started the “Red Pill” movement. It would be easy to call folks like Robert Fisher “garbage” or “toxic” or any of those epithets for people we wish we could block from taking up space in our minds. But there’s so much more to this than the quality of person he is. Robert Fisher is a symptom, not a cause. His belief - that women want to be raped or that there’s some magic potion (e.g. the red pill) that would make everyone see that subservience to cis-men is the right and just state of being for humanity - didn’t begin with him. It began ages ago, and for who knows what reason.

Perhaps somewhere in prehistory a dude realized that men couldn’t give birth and insisted on holding women accountable for all of humanity’s flaws to make up for it. It’s likely this jealousy is part of why Abrahamic religions latch onto the Eve story: women suffer childbirth because Eve was foolish and took the apple from the serpent. But let’s be real, here. That’s bullshit. That story was passed down through oral tradition as an allegory for having faith in the design of a creator, and inked into permanence as Eve’s sin (as opposed to Adam’s) to ensure we blame women specifically instead of just the poor schmuck who happened to be tempted first. If it’s an allegory for lacking faith, it shouldn’t matter who sinned. But as it’s clearly a tool for creating subservience, the choice of Eve as the sinner is no mistake.*

Fast forward a few millennia, and we have Return of Kings, The Spearhead (thankfully, now defunct), A Voice For Men (‘cause we’re lacking, apparently), The Red Pill, and a host of other cellar-dwelling sites that cater to our basest fears of inadequacy. If we can’t succeed with women, it’s clearly their fault, and these sites will not only tell us why, but arm us with all the tools we need to win** every internet debate about gender rights. I’m going to tell you right now, they’re wrong.

Shocking, right? Yeah, this isn’t one of those “I see where they’re coming from, but…” types of situations. These guys are wrong. Their hypotheses are flawed, their arguments contradictory, and their evidence not only lacking, but completely fabricated. It requires an advanced course in cognitive dissonance to even comprehend how these guys hold the competing thoughts they do. While I wish to encourage debate, free thought, and compassionate discourse, I will hold no quarter for out-and-out lies, distortions, and self pitying slander of half the human race. The men who run these sites are sad, pathetic men. And here’s what they do.

Men like Paul Elam take their own failings, fears, and inadequacies, align them with those of other men, and package and sell a solution - of sorts. Elam coined his ex’s dislike of him “misandry” and packaged it as an explanation for any time a woman doesn’t do whatever the hell he wants. And that’s easy, right? We take our own failings and blame them on other people as a quick way to feel better about ourselves. But it’s not a permanent one.

As a metaphor: When you want to build a house on an already-developed plot, you don’t just start building on the ruins of the previous structure, do you? Of course not. That’d be a surefire way to collapse your new structure. Elam, Fisher, and the soon-to-be-discussed Roy Den Hollander would tell you otherwise, though. You just blame your neighbors for not care-taking land they didn’t own, build on top of the ruins, and keep piling on junk until there’s the appearance of something stable. This is true both of their paper-thin arguments and their personal lives.

Admitting you’re wrong and seeking to change is the moment when you clear off the junk and fix the foundation. It sucks. Personal growth is hard and sad and disappointing at times, but the long-term result is much more structurally sound. These men sell ideas and prop up their personal lives with garbage, and it shows.

Roy Den Hollander has filed federal lawsuits over such things as NYC “Ladies Nights” and forcing women to register for the draft. He continually has his suits thrown out due to a complete lack of legal footing, and the fact the courts consistently determine he’s basing the suits on his own personal preferences. Elam started A Voice For Men as a way to pile vitriol on top of his own failings, and Fisher started the Red Pill as a way to push his completely fictional agenda for subjugating women.

They preach hate as a salve for self doubt, and for a painfully vocal number of men, it’s quite appealing. This hate is rooted in fear. The fear of being bad, of being “less than,” of not meeting the desires of others. We turn fear around as loathing of those who might reject us. This is a self defense mechanism, and a very poor one, because we just keep heaping that shit on top of an already dysfunctional foundation.

And there's a difference between playing on fears and discussing subject matter that makes people afraid. For example, when CNN, NPR, or Al Jazeera talk about the U.S. President threatening nuclear holocaust on North Korea, that's not "playing on people's fears." Though there are certainly sensationalistic ways to present it, the information itself isn't playing on pre-existing fears. There's a narcissistic, ignorant man with access to the nuclear football. As a human who enjoys existing on this planet, you should be afraid of that.

When I say "playing on fears" in reference to sites like Return of Kings and the others, I'm talking about creating news and sensation out of things you were already afraid of. Everyone is afraid of losing their job. Everyone is afraid of being emasculated and made to be subservient when we haven't given consent to do so. Everyone is afraid of feeling "less than." So, in come these hate sites, knowing you're afraid of those things, and whether your fear is legitimate or not, they already know who to blame. Convenient, isn't it?

Women taking over society isn't real, and it couldn't be even if they wanted to. And here, for the first and only time, are you allowed to compare feminists to Nazis, because if actual fucking Nazis couldn't take over the world, do you really think women or people of color who want the right to vote without being intimidated are going to accomplish what the Third Reich couldn't? And with far fewer firearms? Because, let’s face it, white men own more firearms than anyone else. Supposedly to protect themselves from… something? Trust me. Feminists, LGBTQIA folks, and people of color are not attempting to take over anything except their own peace of mind and personal safety.

Where these sites want you to take stock of all your faults, all your frailties, and all your fears, and lay the blame at women as if it's common sense to do so, I want you to use actual common sense and say, "Yeah, that's ridiculous. A forced takeover of half the planet's population is super unlikely, so I should get back to managing my own damn life."

PURPOSE: Take responsibility for your fears and failings. If you think someone’s going to ‘take something away’ from you, odds are you just fear that and the threat isn’t real. Don’t lash out in search of conflict where there isn’t any. Keep your own house in order. In fact, knock it down and fix the foundation and remember that’s your task to undertake. No one else’s.

Learn to spot bullshit. When you see news, or websites, or resources that identify a specific cause of an issue (a corporation that pollutes a reservoir or a jerk who defrauds investors and takes advantage of sick people) and they have legitimate sources to cover their asses? You can probably trust them, but always keep a watchful eye. When you see links and content that blame entire groups of people (Like FOX news blaming Muslims in general for violence or any of the sites above blaming women for… really anything) don’t just turn it down. Turn it off. Familiarize yourself with bullshit enough to spot it and refuse to give it your time or attention.

Women do not want to be raped, and if you have a friend who starts quoting Robert Fisher, Roy Den Hollander, Paul Elam, or any of their hateful acolytes saying women do want to be raped, call them out. Tell them they’re quoting hate mongers. Tell them they’re seeking to avoid blame for their own feelings of inadequacy. Tell them they’re on a dangerous slope toward true emotional annihilation and alienation. Tell them you smell their bullshit and you won’t stand for it.

Next Up: Misdirected Rage

*I’m aware most established religions and denominations of Christianity in general try to shy away from blaming Eve specifically. If your church is referring to this story as gender neutral, awesome! I understand not all believers are cut from the same cloth. This is about the many denominations and sects of the Abrahamic religions who do choose to subjugate women and use Eve as one of the many reasons why. Also, it’s just an example. Try not to get too hung up on literality.

**Does anyone ever really “win” an internet debate?

[21stcenturymen]

Yelling Is Violence

RATING: Everyone

You (cis, white, male reader) and I were sitting around the table together at some point during the holiday season. We were 8, maybe 9 years old. There was family. Someone said something a man disagreed with. He didn’t hit them. But he shouted and they shut up. We were upset and maybe we cried— started to. And the man said, “Stop whining! Act like a man!” But we weren’t men. We were children.

An old college friend and I used to spar on social media about these types of topics. Essentially “shouting” through the internet at each other about the right ways to be men. And one day I finally asked him, “Is that what you want? For your child to be emotionally distant? Like, when he’s struggling at school, you’re just going to tell him to suck it up?” I will never forget his reply. He typed, “He’s only two and I already think he whines too much. So yeah, I tell him to stop whining…” At a certain point, we have to protect ourselves from toxic people by removing them from our spheres, so I don’t keep in touch with him anymore. But that interaction has always stuck with me.

Dr. Max Wachtel is a forensic psychologist who has worked with inmates and troubled youth for years. While traveling a few years ago, I plowed through his book The One Rule For Boys in a matter of days. It was so thoughtful and engaging that I didn’t even take notes like I normally do, but rather just read it like a manifesto on why I’m so angry all the time.

And I am. I’m sure many of you may feel the same way. But we’re not superheroes just barely keeping it together. We’re everyday men just barely keeping it together. While one may be entertaining on screen, the other is genuinely dangerous. When we can’t understand why we’re upset, or that we can disagree without yelling or being physically violent, we perpetuate a culture rooted in violence and fear.

The ability to not only understand our emotions, but to control them such that we can function on a daily basis is essential to having valuable and lasting relationships. Lashing out, shouting, knocking things over… we were supposed to have learned how to use our words to express ourselves in childhood. But we didn’t. What happened? Well, my college friend, myself, and many of you men were told from an early age that we needed to “act like men.” In its simplest form, this entire discussion breaks down to one phrase: we needed to act like children. Because we were. By running roughshod over our emotions and not allowing us to express them, our parents (and the broader world at large) told us our emotions don’t matter. We didn’t learn how to talk them out, understand them, or process them in a healthy way.

To quote Bell Hooks, “The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves.” We have to get those parts back.

We’re not superheroes. And we should probably stop glorifying men who resolve things through violence. The notion of men as noble beasts who shed their emotions for a solitary life of battle and honor is just that: a notion. And it has gone way too far. Closing ourselves off from our emotions hasn’t made us into Bruce Banner, Frank Castle, or Howard Roark. It’s made us into monsters who shout and bully our way through the things we don’t like.

And I know the instinct to say, “Well, mom didn’t love me enough,” or “Mom was responsible for the emotional education because dad wasn’t around as much…” and choose to blame women for their role in raising men. By no stretch of the imagination am I saying violent male behavior concocted itself in a vacuum. But I want you to turn those questions around and ask yourself, “Why wasn’t dad there as much? Why was mom solely responsible for the emotional stuff? Why couldn’t dad have had a hand in teaching me to deal with my emotions?” And, even more importantly, recognize, “Hey, I am a man now, and am responsible for my own behavior. I need to own this.”

PURPOSE: Here’s where this all comes back on us. We can’t keep fighting the past. Short of having a time machine, we can’t go back and give ourselves a better childhood. So it is incumbent upon us to do the work of changing ourselves now, and our children for the future. What’s done is done, and however awful it was, we can’t change it. But we can take responsibility for making change going forward.

It’s the holidays and we’re all going to be very stressed. There’s all the family we struggle to get along with (that shouty patriarchal figure included), money troubles, and expectations we could never hope to live up to, both from ourselves and others. You’re going to get angry, and that’s okay. Anger is an emotion just like the rest. Don’t abuse yourself by now denying anger as well. But I do want you to acknowledge it.

When you start to get angry:

Ask yourself why you’re angry.

Breathe in.

Breathe out.

(repeat those last two a few times)

Consider other ways to react than through shouting.

Breathe some more.

Tell the person you’re angry with, “I hear you,” and actually listen to them.

After that, you don’t have to say anything else. But if you want some next steps, continue:

“I hear you. I just want to paraphrase to make sure I understand.”

If they agree, then say, “Here’s how I feel when I hear that…” and their response will be a learning opportunity for you to better understand why they said it.

If they disagree, then you get to have a conversation about how you misunderstood each other.

Through it all, breathe, and remember you are in control of your emotions.

There are dozens of other exercises you can do to work with your emotions, and I’d recommend Dr. Wachtel’s book as an excellent place to start.

I’m not asking you to change who you are. But I am asking you not to shout. Shouting only serves to silence others, not to come to an understanding. And no relationship ever got better when one of the parties was silenced. When the only reaction you can think to display is to shout, this is a great time to back away and breathe a bit. Think about why you’re angry, and that you don’t always have to be. You’re not a superhero, just a regular dude. And that is totally okay.

Next Up: Macho (or not) Sex!

[21stcenturymen]

Period

RATING: Teen (and probably sooner)

This week’s anecdote comes courtesy of researching for this week’s post. Do a google search relating the words “men,” “women,” and “period,” and you will find vast swaths of information about how men and women relate gender, communication, and relationships (intimate and otherwise) to women’s periods. Normally, I can find valuable resources relatively quickly, but it turns out there is a ridiculous amount of info (and plenty of garbage) out there on this. There are literally hundreds of articles just about men’s periods (apparently, a thing). Hundreds of articles about women’s exercise regimen while menstruating. Thousands of articles about dating and attraction while menstruating. And even a number of articles about period sex (also, yes, a thing - don’t say “ew”). We’re also not 100% sure why women even have periods. In any case, Facebook and Google have now decided my targeted ads are exclusively for feminine hygiene products. At least it’s a break from the hippie dating websites.

But I want to start out by flipping a comment that’s been going around since the late 1990s thanks to Matt Stone and Trey Parker. I’m sure they never intended the phrase to take on a life of its own, but, well, it has.

Do not ever say this: “I just don’t trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn’t die.”

1. You are talking about human persons. It’s “anyone” not “anything.” This is the “othering” of women. By calling them things, it absolves you of having to respect them. Back that truck up and start over. We have to get beyond this.

2. How about you be in awe of someone who bleeds for 5 days and not only lives, but manages not to murder you when you say something like that? Any idea the amount of pain they might be in while you’re judging them? It is, at times, on par with a heart attack.

3. Equating your trust for a person with their biological processes means you refuse to see them as people who are capable of thought and self-determination. How would you feel about being judged for nocturnal emissions? “Oh, men drop semen while they’re sleeping? That’s gross! I don’t trust them.” It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Then stop judging women for their biological processes.

Next is the judgment over women’s behavior when they’re menstruating. “Are you on your period?” I want you to banish this question from your lexicon. Let’s say that having one’s uterine wall shed into a state-taxed sanitary device actually caused women to behave less rationally than at other times of the month. A. You’ve never had to go through it, so don’t judge. B. Odds are, it would make a person more honest, not less, because who’s got time for bullshit?

Except it turns out that men are more rapidly cyclical in their hormonal moodswings than women.

...recordscratch.wav...

Get up off the floor and keep reading before you pen a frothing rebuke. This is real. Men have a 24-hour hormone cycle as compared to women’s 28-day cycle. For both men and women, testosterone is what makes them the most aggressive. And, we men have significantly more testosterone and do this daily. So, no judging women for their moods, okay?

But this gets political, too. Just a few paragraphs ago I said “state-taxed sanitary device.” At least 39 states assess taxes on feminine hygiene products, regardless of the fact that they’re considered a necessity. Though the aforementioned study points out all products should be taxed regardless of necessity, consider what it says when a woman is told that her bodily functions should be taxed. That their act of existing as a woman is a taxable event. Not only that their regular bodily functions should be taxed, but that men’s dysfunction shouldn’t be. Only Illinois currently charges a tax on Viagra, and even then only because they tax all prescription drugs. Dubious win, Illinois.

image from the Netflix series Big Mouth, S.1. episode 2

While it is true that there is technically no specific “tampon tax,” politicizing, and then taxing women’s functions serves only one purpose, and that is to tell women that their humanity is a cultural expense. It’s not that we should allow it because “Well, all products are taxed,” but that we should probably be looking at human bodily functions - the things we are biologically engineered to do - as exemptions from state taxes. And that we should be examining more sustainable options than taxable tampons.

For instance, I’ll wager a number of men reading this have never heard of a menstrual cup, much less that there’s an entire website just for reviews of said products. Know why? Because they’re not profitable long-term to companies like Procter & Gamble, who would prefer the monthly purchase of $5 to $20 versus a one-time purchase of between $30 and $70. They advertise and create brand loyalty that’s hard to break through. Additionally, some menstrual cup companies make it simple to donate their products to women in developing countries. Go ahead. Click on one of the products in the review website link above and make a donation. You never have to tell anyone you’ve purchased feminine hygiene products and you get to be a good human at the same time.

PURPOSE: If you’ve read this far, I’m grateful. Thank you, men, for putting in the effort to learn a little bit about this. I’ll be honest, I learned a bit, too. I want you to view women’s periods, the pain, the taxes, and the shrouded availability of alternative products differently than we have in the past. Menstruation is not gross. It’s an amazing, complicated, and evolutionarily unique process our partners on this planet undergo with a regularity you can’t even imagine.

Avoid judgement of something you don’t have to experience. If you are in the fortunate position of being in a relationship with someone who menstruates, realize that you can support them. Don’t ask “How can I help?” because then you’re making it about you. And whoa, boy, is it not. Instead, ask “What do you need?” and when they answer, take a note and just go do it. Save that info for later. Do it again without having to be asked. Be a partner in human processes. Because without the process of menstruation, you wouldn’t exist. Stop “othering” women by demonizing their body and start realizing that their bodies are part of the same human processes as yours.

Next up: Yelling Is Violence

[21stcenturymen]

You didn’t ASK me to do that!

RATING: Teen

I think it’s safe to say there are very few people who truly enjoy washing dishes. Or, who enjoy doing household chores and planning in general. This week’s topic is not about how they’re done, but by whom. And who’s responsible for organizing them.

French comic artist Emma has a fabulous piece about this that I recommend starting with. She explores how the mental load is frequently unevenly distributed. Sure, most people think of the physical load of doing household chores, but it’s also the amount of psychic energy women disproportionately exert around the house.

And I understand about being tired after a long day of work. But in most families, both partners are working, and a lot of times while trying to raise children. To get home at the end of a workday, kick off our shoes, and sit back on the couch without lifting a finger now means our partners are doing a second job. And all of that second job.

And one could argue, “Who said she had to do all of it?” to which Emma has a valuable response: “Of course, there’s nothing forcing us to do all this. The problem is that when we stop, the whole family suffers...“ Therein lies the problem. When men don’t help by anticipating chores need to be done (not just doing them once reminded), they not only don’t get done, but everyone gets frustrated and resentful as well.

*image from Emma’s comic “You Should’ve Asked”

Why does it happen? Well, in part because men aren’t trained as children to anticipate others’ needs. Girls are generally socialized to talk out their problems, while boys are usually given physical tasks to deal with daily frustrations. This generally leads to women being better at not only remembering daily tasks, but at remembering things in general. In other words, we have to work to get better at it.

To say the mental load impacts only women would certainly be false. There are plenty of stay-at-home dads or at least men who are primary in caring for the kids in certain families, but the vast majority of people suffering in this situation are women. British writer John Adams pens an entire screed about how “feminists are wrong” if they think only women feel it, even referring to Emma’s comic.

Except that no one is saying only women feel it. His defensiveness over the discussion falls on the #notallmen continuum of being defensive over something that wasn’t leveled at him in the first place. It is unnecessary to say, “Nuh-uh! Some men suffer, too!” in response to every assertion that women do the majority of the work. We do not need every feminist argument about gender dynamics to take time out to applaud the few men who get it right. If you need a pat on the back when someone is commenting on the behaviors of other men, that is very nearly the definition of fragile masculinity. You’re either confident in your shit or you aren’t.

PURPOSE: Help out by anticipating and playing an active role in household planning and chores. No one should have to ask you to do the dishes, or to order dinner, or to set the table. Just do the things and make it a habit. Lifehacker has a great list of ways to help make this happen that I would recommend reading and saving. And it may not even take that long to adopt those good habits.

Will you be able to resolve everything? Of course not. There will always be things that fall through the cracks, because we’re not perfect. Admitting we’re not perfect and that it’s okay to learn new tricks will reduce resentment about getting feedback and help us learn how to anticipate needs better in the future.

Next up: #MeToo