Only Feminists Can Be REAL MEN

Post image for Only Feminists Can Be REAL MEN

by Jack Donovan on November 29, 2010

As far as Michael Kimmel is concerned, everyone else is just a “guy.”

In Guyland, Kimmel describes and analyzes young American males with all the civilized horror of an eighteenth century missionary reporting on the customs and activities of naked heathen cannibals. These savages, born innocent and full of childish wonder, learn early to fear the scorn of their male peers and become so desperate for male approval that they will engage in bizarre and often criminal behavior. Enter “Guyland,” a human terrain inhabited by young men that Kimmel maps only by the most extreme and sensational accounts of fraternity hazing, excessive gambling, sports obsession, drunkenness, video game addiction and gang rapes. Kimmel is at his most even handed and truthful when, as an avid sports fan, he writes about sports talk with his son and the influence that sports have on men’s lives. But for most of Guyland, he’s a critical outsider looking in – Kimmel, a Jew, offers that he was unable to join a fraternity in college because of the ethnic restrictions of the era, and Kimmel’s C.V. shows that he’s spent the majority of his adult life seeking the approval of feminist women. (He was one of the first males to attend and graduate from Vassar.)

Like many women and bookish solipsists, Kimmel looks at the male world and sees fear of social disapproval as a primary motivator for typical male behaviors. But this is spin and half-truth. For instance, if you only read Kimmel and had little firsthand experience dealing with “guys” in real life as peers, you’d think that young men only drank heavily because of peer pressure, campus rituals and outmoded masculine ideals. You’d think that men only drink out of fear that they’ll be ostracized by other men for not drinking. I read I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell by Tucker Max alongside Guyland. Max’s stories about drinking and “hooking up” filled out Kimmel’s caricature and reminded me that men often drink together to create conflict and excitement out of the sense of boredom with polite, modern society that Kimmel acknowledges but fails to truly understand. Men drink to relax, and sometimes to wallow in self-pity, but men drink in packs for the story. Lionel Tiger was correct when he observed that men bond during aggression, and heavy drinking puts average guys in “safe crisis.” They fight their own bodies, concoct strategies to pick up girls, narrowly avoid or get into fights with other men. They do and say things they normally wouldn’t. Crazy things happen. Young men drink together because they’re looking for a good bad time, a story to tell, proof that something happened. While Tucker Max’s tales often involve boasting, they are just as often self-deprecating and have an honest humanity to them that doesn’t come across in Kimmel’s ethnography. For Kimmel, the only “guys” with any humanity – the only real men — are the ones who resist or reject the culture of “guyland.” Coming from the leading feminist scholar of “men’s studies” in America, this thesis feels more than a little self-congratulatory.

Guyland isn’t really an attempt to understand “guys.” It’s ultimately more of an exercise in telling women, feminists and frightened parents the horror stories they want to hear about the “privileged” white American male.

Unlike their male counterparts, Kimmel says that young women today don’t feel defined by any particular ideal of womanhood – they believe they can be or do anything. He says that young “guys” however, adhere to a strict “Guy Code.” The Guy Code includes a handful of sayings and slogans that Kimmel says young males have internalized and repeated back to him in interviews and classroom situations. He offers a top ten list of examples including phrases like “Boys Don’t Cry,” Take it Like a Man,” “Just Do It,” etc.  The list feels a bit doctored, but Kimmel identifies the unifying theme of these sayings as an aversion to “showing emotions or admitting weakness.” However, by framing this observation with a bunch of goofy sayings and slogans that men like, he takes a simple and relatively cross-cultural phenomenon and casts it as arbitrary, commercialized, harmful, culturally specific and ultimately unnecessary. The phrase “showing emotions” is weaselly, and “aversion to admitting weakness” could just as easily be re-stated in the positive as “preference for cultivating and portraying strength.” What successful culture has encouraged the majority of its men to show weakness and discouraged them from cultivating strength?

It’s one of the great magic tricks of feminists that they’ve somehow managed to get us to consider the possibility that normal and consistent patterns of male behavior over the last few thousand years were actually psychologically sick and evil. Apparently men have been “doing it wrong” all this time, we can only trust women and feminist academics to finally show men how to “do it right.”

Kimmel holds up the more fluid or flexible gender identity of women as an ideal, and in Guyland the refusal of young men to abandon The Guy Code is conveniently blamed for epidemic levels of casual sex (“hooking up”) and binge drinking among both young males and young females. Kimmel blames lagging male academic performance and a general lack of direction on The Guy Code, too, and he refuses to entertain the possibility that feminist influence on the educational system has played any role whatsoever in hindering the intellectual development of boys. He accepts natural difference uncritically when he supports the behavior of women or homosexual males, but his whole position relies on the assumption that men behave the way they do for the most part due to the culturally constructed “Guy Code.”

Drawing from his sociology background, Kimmel uses a set of markers to define adulthood, and to draw a line between what he sees as boy behavior and man behavior. A man establishes a career, gets married, has children, assumes responsibility, and abandons the world of boys and “guys” for family life. These are traditional distinctions and they have some value, but seem at odds with a modern feminist reality where fathers and husbands are regarded as an extra paycheck, a gateway to motherhood and homeownership, a “kitchen bitch” who puts up shelves and makes the bouillabaisse. (Really, click on the link. Sandra Tsing Loh’s “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” is a shockingly honest window into the mind of the stridently feminist “wife.”) Kimmel gropes around at this, summarizing some of the reasons why “guys” are in no big hurry to abandon Guyland. He admits that our culture portrays manhood as the end of all fun, and that television husbands are “infantilized by their wives, unable to do the simplest things for themselves, clueless about their kids’ lives, and begging for sex—or reduced to negotiating for it in exchange for housework.”

Guys are not as stupid as women think they are. Every man knows at some level that in this post-patriarchal arrangement, his kids are generally regarded as her kids first, and while she will likely work outside the home, the household is still ultimately her domain. Feminist Hanna Rosin recently called on women to reclaim the kitchen because her husband turned out to be a better cook, and she felt that he’d infringed upon her rightful domain. Women everywhere are making it clear that “equality” means they call the shots and get whatever they want, and that husbands are the new wives. Many of the men who achieve Kimmel’s markers of adulthood can only hope to graduate to the status of renter and supplicant, living on borrowed time.

The idea that guys are not men is repeated throughout the book, but climaxes in this paragraph toward the conclusion.

“And feminism also dares to expect more from men. Feminism expects a man to be ethical, emotionally present, and accountable to his values in his actions with women—as well as with other men. Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so. Feminism is a vision that expects men to go from being “just guys,” accepting whatever they might happen to do, to being just guys—capable of autonomy and authenticity, inspired by justice. That is, feminism believes that guys can become men.”

This gloss of what feminists want from men seems reasonable enough at first glance, though it includes a lot of built-in and arguable assumptions about what it means to be “emotionally present,” honorable or authentic. When compared to Hanna Rosin and Sandra Tsing Loh’s own accounts of what men can expect from their feminist wives in real life, the whole proposition is revealed as a farce. While it is true that not all women are self-centered, neurotic shrews like Rosin and Tsing Loh—I’d like to count my two sisters as examples of sane women capable of compromise and cooperation with their husbands — Kimmel doesn’t ask women to make any sacrifices or take any active role in making modern manhood more appealing.  Male readers of Guyland are ultimately left with nothing but Kimmel’s scolding, scare tactics and empty feminist platitudes about “justice” and “humanity” as reasons to “grow up” and become kitchen bitches.

In dismantling the patriarchy, feminists have disincentivized family life for men. It is disingenuous to withhold the mantle of adulthood from these men by holding them to the higher standard of a system that no longer exists or serves their collective interests. Men can be motivated to do just about anything. When they had to, they did support their families and shoulder enormous responsibilities. They built cities and crossed oceans.  What feminism lacks is something to offer that the majority of men actually want.

It is a regular hypocrisy of pro-feminist writing by men that while these authors portray traditional masculine norms as oppressive and absurd, they set up their own benchmarks for who is a man and who is not, and emasculate other men accordingly. Like the Newsweek writers who recently told men to “Man Up!” and take jobs they don’t want, Kimmel takes aim at jocks and frat boys – claiming they are not men because they don’t follow his own example.  This is ressentiment. Kimmel is inverting strength based masculine virtues and aiding the creation of an ad hoc moral system that elevates his own servile and sensitive intellectualism. In spite of his admiration for fluid feminine identities, Kimmel just can’t help himself. He isn’t abandoning The Guy Code, he’s just fashioning a new code to separate the men from the “guys.”

{ 114 comments… read them below or add one }

gwallan November 29, 2010 at 03:13

Surely Kimmel must be nearing terminal saddle-burn.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 29, 2010 at 03:20

Kimmel, a Jew, offers that he was unable to join a fraternity in college because of the ethnic restrictions of the era,
This doesn’t ring true and he probably made it up. If he was one of the earlier groups of men who attended Vassar then there probably wasn’t even a fraternity on campus or if there were he certainly wouldn’t be rejected as a Jew in this ultra liberal college.

One Esquire article centered on the especially flamboyant “Jackie St. James” (a.k.a. Sheldon Weiss ’74), and portrayed Vassar males as characteristically gay or effeminate
In fact, one male alumnus remembers learning foremost how “to be subordinate to women” at Vassar. While pursuing leadership roles in student government or with The Miscellany News, he became accustomed to having a woman superior
A student named Ed, on the other hand, was considered an “oddity” for his interest in athletics. He gained a reputation as a reclusive weight lifter, and could usually be found in the dorm basement, alone with his barbells

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 2
Ivo Vos November 29, 2010 at 03:57

One of the most interesting aspects of today’s ‘guys’ culture is that they are redefining what it is to be human in today’s changed world, and whether or not the definition of adulthood might be changed or has to be put on the pile of old fashioned manipulations to be studied by historians. While the feminists are desperately trying to hold on to an outdated view of the world that has no change of surviving, the guys are already out there to discover the new reality and act accordingly. On their own terms. Luckily for mankind, not too much restrained by all the frightened people who stand at the sideline shouting the moralities of the past. Which of course won’t work today, let alone in the future. Again, like so many times in the past, if it wasn’t for the guys we already would have been sunk into oblivion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
thehermit November 29, 2010 at 04:49

I bet he has serious problems about his masculinity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 1
cracker November 29, 2010 at 04:53

“Kimmel holds up the more fluid or flexible gender identity of women as an ideal, and in Guyland the refusal of young men to abandon The Guy Code is conveniently blamed for epidemic levels of casual sex (“hooking up”) and binge drinking among both young males and young females.”

If women are so “ideal”, then who are all of these guys “hooking up” with?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
cracker November 29, 2010 at 05:04

And feminism also dares to expect more from men.

No, feminism dares to expect men to be more like women.

Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so.

It’s not out of love – feminism expects men to take it however women dish it out, and expects men to take it with a smile (“honorably”). Nothing about feminism has anything to do with “love” for men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 1
Obsidian November 29, 2010 at 06:08

Jack,
Excellent review! I enjoyed it.

O.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 5
duke November 29, 2010 at 06:10

Real men don’t attend Vassar College.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 4
Epoche* November 29, 2010 at 06:15

michael kimmel is a bitch.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 3
Seed November 29, 2010 at 06:16

Whoa this all rings to me like some pseudo intellectual chick gossip. Let us be reasonable and admit our faults, for we are human foremost but let’s not fall in a pit of resentment and anger. This author is indoctrinated, there is no other word that best describes his compulsive attitude towards his own sex and the fact that he completely fails to grasp basic logic (blaming men for hooking up, completely eliminating consent from the girl’s p.o.v). Ironically, the author describes himself as a feminist but fails to see that he is denigrating women with his writings.

Whenever a person tells me to “man up” I sense that he doesn’t have anything constructive to say. That person just wishes for something, instead of offering advice or help.

“Guys” are the product of your system. Most of them will not wake up, some of them won’t care about society and only a few will challenge the status quo by rebelling or fucking off to greener pastures.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 2
John Lee Pettimore November 29, 2010 at 06:33

“Drawing from his sociology background, Kimmel uses a set of markers to define adulthood, and to draw a line between what he sees as boy behavior and man behavior. A man establishes a career, gets married, has children, assumes responsibility, and abandons the world of boys and “guys” for family life. ”

This second sentence is the key to the whole problem. Who the f*ck says that any of these determine what a man is? A real man is someone who gets a job working for someone else, who marries a woman (any woman, apparently, no matter how she treats him or what’s in it for him), has children (what? So, if you’re gay, or a bachelor, or infertile, or just don’t want kids, you’re not a man?), assumes responsibility (this concept is completely meaningless — responsibility for whom, for what?) and lastly, shifts from independence to what is traditionally defined as family life (which is run by his wife, and in which almost every single thing he wants is subordinated to what they’re supposed to want, as interpreted by his wife).

A real man may paint landscapes, fix motorcycles, build houses, or simply live alone, thinking and reading and living. The definition of a real man is someone who is a) male, and b) lives his own life, the only one he gets, in his own way according to his own values. This book is a complete load of feminist bullshit, written by someone who has never actually had a real job or lived in the real world. Being a sociologist at what used to be an all-women’s college is the equivalent of having no life experience at all.

Human nature has not changed in ten thousand years, and the idea that the basic rules of the game have changed in some fundamental way is pure bullshit.The first thing real men need to do or understand is that you can do whatever the f*ck you want, and that anyone out there who tells you whether what you want is right or wrong has some kind of vested interest, however mistaken, that they’re defending. The only real question that matters is “What do I want?”

The other thing that he completely neglects is economics, by which I mean personal economics. The whole feminist structure starts to break down around middle age, when women suddenly a) become very interested in their financial well-being; and b) become a lot nicer when they realize that they cannot, in fact, have or do it all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 29, 2010 at 06:41

Another excellent piece of work from you, Jack. I’ve really enjoyed this book review series from you. Your wading through this dreck has saved me the time of having to do so myself.

But I have one small quibble, in particular with this passage from you:

“It’s one of the great magic tricks of feminists that they’ve somehow managed to get us to consider the possibility that normal and consistent patterns of male behavior over the last few thousand years were actually psychologically sick and evil. Apparently men have been “doing it wrong” all this time, we can only trust women and feminist academics to finally show men how to “do it right.”

I think feminists are more likely to argue that in our modern post-industrial democracies that traditional patterns of male behavior are now obsolete. That however necessary they were at one point—to build civilization and whatnot—they are no longer needed due in part to advanced technologies and a rather nebulous idea of “progress”. I think this is still wrong but it’s still a different argument. Am I off base?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
SingleDad November 29, 2010 at 06:47

@ Seed if being a “Guy”is a weakness then count me guilty. Let’s look, yep, definitly not a girl must be a guy.

I have never done anything to anybody to apologys for that I haven’t apologiesed for. I have no guilt.

“Guys” are the product of an X and a Y chromosome coming together.

Society has a problem with this.

That’s why I’m here.

I don’t believe in these stereotypes of my fellow males by those who hate them because they want their money or kids revenge or something.

It’s called hate, no different than hate of any group. I’m too tired to make the list.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3
Jack Donovan November 29, 2010 at 06:56

Thanks, dragnet (and others who have enjoyed the review so far).

Regarding your question, I feel that I’ve seen both arguments made. Just the other day I read someone somewhere describing traditional masculinity as “pathological,” and the tendency is to portray strength-based masculinity as near psychotic or criminal (for oppressing women). More sophisticated arguments include what you mentioned about technology and obsolescence, but there is an overwhelming sense in a lot of feminist work that masculine men, male hierarchies and patriarchy were all some kind of collective angel dust-driven mania for which men must now make amends.

Seed November 29, 2010 at 07:22

@ Single Dad : I do not view the term “guy” as a negative.

What happened to the word “gal”? I don’t see or here it anywhere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Scattered November 29, 2010 at 07:42

Anothing thing about strength based masculinity that he fails to understand is the selfless desire to not burden others with your own problems.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Stickman November 29, 2010 at 08:04

I really liked your article. i think part of the reason “they” have so much sway over identifying what a MAN is. is because in our current culture we have no line in the sand that says today son you are a MAN! we have a lot of punks who call themselves men. who think committing crimes or knocking a woman up makes him a man. but in my opinion thats not a MAN. only other men can know what a MAN is. but we have no tests no rites of passage, at least not in our current culture. and because we have no clear boundary, others people who have no right are claiming they know what a man is these asshat feminists and their trained bitchboys . if a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. a woman can teach a man to be a man like a fish can teach you to ride a bike!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
misterb aka misterbastard November 29, 2010 at 08:18

Well Jack as always your reviews are interesting. Keep it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
TERRY November 29, 2010 at 08:46

You know what this whole thing is like??
I’ll tell you what it’s like. It’s like Hitler and the Nazis telling the jews during WW2 to “..just man up and take ‘it’ like a man”!!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 8
Uncle Elmer November 29, 2010 at 08:49

A big reason that men seek male friends and hang together is simply for survival. Not so crucial in our advanced society but in the days of yore a man needed compatriots to stay alive. It’s a strong urge that lives on in most of us.

Most of you will concur that the loss of male friendship hits harder than losing a woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 08:52

For Kimmel, the only “guys” with any humanity – the only real men — are the ones who resist or reject the culture of “guyland.” Coming from the leading feminist scholar of “men’s studies” in America, this thesis feels more than a little self-congratulatory.”

Whaaaaat? What horse piss! We’re all human. We all make mistakes but dammit! That doesn’t stop us from being “real” men. Sure, I got really drunk at college parties and picked up some pussy. What normal man in his early 20′s doesn’t? What gives Mr.Kimmel the right to define what a real man is? Apparently, this mangina knows what a real man is. F*ck that. He either woefullly ignores that most men do grow up and mature, or wants to paint a very specific picture of a normal heterosexual male.(I haven’t read the book yet, so I can’t draw real conclusions of his intent, I’m going to actually read so I can safely shit all over it.)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 09:02

“Most of you will concur that the loss of male friendship hits harder than losing a woman.”
Yes and no. I’ve been in many relationships that it hurt me for months because of the circumstances involving the breakup.

With my male friends it’s a completely different matter. While it hurt badly, the hurt was considerably different but just as lasting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
misterb aka misterbastard November 29, 2010 at 09:04

@Silent blood.

Here in where I live some people here still gather wood for their wood stove. Armed only with a chainsaw, snowmobile and a sled. They often drive their snowmobiles hours on end, just look for trees that can be used for fire. Lugging them them home is a hazardous task, you could get stranded.

In northern climate and back in those old days, one is required to gather wood to keep the fires going.

I don’t think guys from guyland would survive in the northern bush. God forbid anyone being stranded out there in the cold with little or no supplies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Rebel November 29, 2010 at 09:05

If this guy, Kimmel, hates himself so much for being male, then why doesn`t he simply chop his penis off and leave it at that?

Is he waiting for someone to volunteer?

This “waste of skin” is wasting paper and ink: isn’t that criminal?

Where did I put my guillotine?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
modernguy November 29, 2010 at 09:07

“…men often drink together to create conflict and excitement out of the sense of boredom with polite, modern society that Kimmel acknowledges but fails to truly understand.”

I think this is the crux of it. What’s been removed from men’s lives is hard, purposeful work from a young age. That’s what builds a masculine character. Today we’re in school for 20 years learning a lot of things that have no immediate application, and a lot of it never will be applicable. By the time we’re in college we’re so used to milling about in a largely pointless existence that you need some outlet. Don’t forget that besides the jocks and frat boys you also get nerds. The common denominator is affiliation to a stereotype. Men want to be part of a group, preferably working towards a purpose. A man’s existence has been reduced to a useless existence in the school system for twenty years only to graduate and expect another useless existence as a faceless employee in a cubicle that comes home to serve his bitching wife that probably has a higher paying job than him. What you also forgot to mention is that Tucker Max is in his thirties, and quit being a lawyer because he didn’t see a purpose in it. So this is what men are becoming.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 09:09

@misterb aka misterbastard
Oh probably, I’m a city dude and I fully admit that my survival skills aren’t that great.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Uncle Elmer November 29, 2010 at 09:13

OK silentblood. I’ve woken up in a rage over some woman’s perfidy. As the years pass it seems the loss of a male friend persists longer than that of a woman.

As a man ages, his friends pass away, move on, or worse, are defriended by the wives who can’t stand the threat posed by a man’s rowdy, debauched friends. Many older men have no friends left while their wives enjoy cadres of hen chums. Most TV drivel centers around women and their circle of friends. Hell, while we’re at it, women evaluate you not on how you thrill them but how you might pass inspection by their hen-house.

Male fraternal organizations used to be a big deal in this country. I used to smirk at these outfits as “old men’s drinking organizations” but now as an old man I understand the attraction. Too busy to stop at the American Legion and sign up though.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
J. Durden November 29, 2010 at 09:15

Well done as always, Mr. Donovan.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
modernguy November 29, 2010 at 09:17

Paul Graham had a good article about this when he talked about nerds in junior high and high school.

“Officially the purpose of schools is to teach kids. In fact their primary purpose is to keep kids locked up in one place for a big chunk of the day so adults can get things done.”

http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
misterb aka misterbastard November 29, 2010 at 09:23

It noted that its a double standard, that men are expected to give up their friends when they get married. While the women kept their friends aka cackling geese, when they get married.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
djc November 29, 2010 at 09:27

God I’m tired of these leftist s0-called intellectuals. This man is an idiot. A REAL man lives his life any damn way he sees fit. The old rules don’t apply any more.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 09:28

@Mr. Elmer
Perhaps I’m much too young, but…
“As a man ages, his friends pass away, move on, or worse, are defriended by the wives who can’t stand the threat posed by a man’s rowdy, debauched friends.”
Eh, my wife and I share the same friends. A couple of other couples, we rreally don’t have that many friends.
“Many older men have no friends left while their wives enjoy cadres of hen chums. Most TV drivel centers around women and their circle of friends.”
Agreed. That seems to be the case. My dad is more or less friendless, he talks about his war buddies all of the time and yet I never met them. TV drivel is annoyingly bad, I can only stand to watch, well…History Channel and other educational televison.(and even then it’s not that great.
“Hell, while we’re at it, women evaluate you not on how you thrill them but how you might pass inspection by their hen-house.”
True. And hilarious watching them gossip about you is even more hilarious.
“Male fraternal organizations used to be a big deal in this country. I used to smirk at these outfits as “old men’s drinking organizations” but now as an old man I understand the attraction. Too busy to stop at the American Legion and sign up though.”
Absolutely, I’m fairly young and I understand the attraction.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 09:57

This book is outrageous – somebody should complain about it to the editor.

Using Tucker Max as our MRM mascot is such a wise tactic; who dares question the reason!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 24
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 09:58

“God I’m tired of these leftist s0-called intellectuals. This man is an idiot. A REAL man lives his life any damn way he sees fit. The old rules don’t apply any more.”
Exactly. Total agreement there.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 10:00

@Firepower
“Using Tucker Max as our MRM mascot is such a wise tactic; who dares question the reason!”
Fuck you. That is all.

Personal abuse is unacceptable on this site and will not be tolerated.
First Warning.

Christian J.
Moderator.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 15
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) November 29, 2010 at 10:01

“Kimmel says that young women today don’t feel defined by any particular ideal of womanhood … they believe they can be or do anything.”

Only problem is. They can’t.

“A man establishes a career, gets married, has children, assumes responsibility, and abandons the world of boys and “guys” for family life.”

And then, like me, gets screwed over by a lying woman, a criminal legal system, and gets NO support from wester women. He realises that he has had a 20 years ‘detour’ down a shit hole and he emerges stronger and better for the experience. He then turns around a writes a book that will free hundreds of millions of men should they use it. He tells every young man not to go down the ‘man’ path because it is a trap. And he goes on to make lots of money. Eat fine food. Drink fine wine and beer and find lovely women as fantastic company. And he stands ready to swear on any number of bibles that marriage is a scam for women and that no man should be so stupid as to do it nowadays. Glad I could finish that for Kimmel.. ;-)

“Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so.”

And I have proven beyond ALL DOUBT that the VAST MAJORITY of western women are liars and hypocrites. It seems ‘feminism’ does not expect honesty from women. In fact it expects them to be liars and hypocrites. And they are being so in droves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
Rachel November 29, 2010 at 10:05

The book had the single greatest impact on my own views of men was Shaunti Feldhahn’s For Women Only. It is, as it says on the label, written to women, but it never bashes men, nor is it a book that teaches women how to manipulate or change men. It’s a book that changes women. In contrast to the book reviewed, For women Only is not ashamed of men. I read it several years ago and yet I’ve never forgotten it. It radically changed my perspective and helped me relate to the men in my life better. I’m not sure what the criteria is for choosing the books that get reviewed, but I’d like to recommend this one. You can evaluate how near the mark it is from a man’s perspective.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 10
Keyster November 29, 2010 at 10:08

Very good Jack!
“Guyland” actually is this hazy phase boys pass through to manhood; drinking, getting laid and other debaucherous bonding adventures. Some take longer to grow out of this than others. It IS the modern rite of passage all boys must go through to become men.

Kimmel sees masculinity through a feminist indocrinated lens. That men need to ADAPT to feminism or “equality”, (except for those like him), they’re not. What never ceases to amaze me about these elitist academics is that they lecture the ” lowly commoners”, while being oblivious to the facts on the ground, hoping if they say it often enough people will believe it must be true. As if we can’t now share our real world experiences via the internet.

The extended version of “Guyland” exists BECAUSE of feminism, and he won’t dare admit to it. Women have become ball-busting/careerist shrews…not “wife material”…until they sense the biological clock ticking, then they snag an abliging beta, marry, have kid and divorce. This pattern has become so prevelant guys are VERY aware it happens.

And I’ll add, no where does he mention that girls now refer to each other as “guys” in the plural and “dude” in the singular. If that isn’t a sociological sign-o-the-times, I don’t know what is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence November 29, 2010 at 10:12

I’ve been put on a “forbidden” list by a couple of wives of my friends. It is regrettable, but if he acquiesced, he wasn’t worth keeping as a friend anyway. BTW I behaved as a polite and fun-loving jolly man around them so they had no logical reason to shun me.

One friend’s wife called me “creepy” and a “closet fa*got” which I consider a badge of honor coming from such a despicable and ugly ingrate.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 10:13

@ Rachel
“The book had the single greatest impact on my own views of men was Shaunti Feldhahn’s For Women Only. It is, as it says on the label, written to women, but it never bashes men, nor is it a book that teaches women how to manipulate or change men. It’s a book that changes women. In contrast to the book reviewed, For women Only is not ashamed of men. I read it several years ago and yet I’ve never forgotten it. It radically changed my perspective and helped me relate to the men in my life better. I’m not sure what the criteria is for choosing the books that get reviewed, but I’d like to recommend this one. You can evaluate how near the mark it is from a man’s perspective.”
My wife owns that book. :-) It definitely helped our marriage and it generally had good reviews on Amazon, so I think it’d be worth it to have a review on here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 10:17

Also now that I think about it, I think there’s a For Men Only book too. That helps men communicate better with their wives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 10:44

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 30
Migu November 29, 2010 at 10:45

Personal Insults will not be tolerated.

First Warning.

Christian J.
Moderator

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 10:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 24
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 10:48

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 26
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 10:49

“Such sound reasoning on your part. Maybe you can improve when you reach 19.”
Funny, I’m a 26 year old man.
“Hey guys, let me prove my moral superiority by insulting another man! That discredits him forever!!”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 10:51

“kwls.
You agree on being “tired” with the opposition.
Brave statement.

Good luck applying (in that little thing called ‘reality’”)
“living life any way you damn please”

The FOTC’s gonna luv u, babyz”
Obvious troll is obvious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 10:54

“Real clever – no wonder ya got the Wymyns on the run.
No wonder your kind is so victorious
showing daily victories in policy”
Cool story, bro

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10
TFH November 29, 2010 at 11:04

Gentlemen,

Assistance requested :

The Misandry Bubble recently got linked at Jizzabel, and both a ‘feminist’ and a mangina have commented there :

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html?cid=6a00d83452455969e20147e0368ba4970b#comment-6a00d83452455969e20147e0368ba4970b

The ‘feminist’ says that only the people who study Women’s Studies in college are qualified to discuss feminism, and the mangina uses the same old shaming language.

If anyone feels inclined to bash up these misandrists, I would be honored to have you do so, at the link above.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 5
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 11:07

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 23
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 11:09

“Guess you can’t read the membership roster. I’m one of the top 15 posters here and have been since the very first day it opened.”
Tough f*cking cookies. I don’t care about how many posts you make but the quality of the posts you make.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7
CashingOut November 29, 2010 at 11:10

A bit OT, but…

Men drink to relax, and sometimes to wallow in self-pity, but men drink in packs for the story. Lionel Tiger was correct when he observed that men bond during aggression, and heavy drinking puts average guys in “safe crisis.” They fight their own bodies, concoct strategies to pick up girls, narrowly avoid or get into fights with other men. They do and say things they normally wouldn’t. Crazy things happen. Young men drink together because they’re looking for a good bad time, a story to tell, proof that something happened.

The bullshit of the author of the book being discussed aside, I have to pull the accountability alarm on this one. Having lived and dealt with drunks, I can tell you that I’ve seen far too many instances where drunk guys X, Y, and Z got together, did some horrendous shit like wreck a car, assault random passers by, wreck up various houses, and then blamed it on the booze or “male bonding.”

While I live a clean, dry lifestyle, I understand that there are people who do not, and I do not look down on them for not living the exact same way I do. This does not mean that I am tolerant of any kind of bad behavior, guy bonding or not, especially if said bad behavior has a detrimental effect on me. The suggestion that drinking together just to start shit and break the bordeom is part of normal, healthy masculine behavior seems like a copout and excuse to me. I would just as soon attribute such drinking to inability to cope with the world as an adult than to the search for adventure. If it were suggested that females get together to drink “for the good bad story,” and this were used as a defense for their numerous drunken escapades, I would not buy it. Furthermore, I would not buy any defense that arose from their claims of intoxication. How many of you here would buy that a female was raped solely because she was drunk because she decided to have sex? I hold men to no less of a standard: I don’t give a shit if a bunch of guys are getting drunk to bond or not, if they come after my person or property, I’m going to view it as a bunch of guys coming after my person or property, not a bunch of drunk guys coming after my person or property.

Getting drunk so you can have the balls to do something stupid generally isn’t the way to go, regardless of your sex, and you should have to live with the consequences regardless of your level of sobriety when you did the deed.

And now back to our regular feminist he-bitch roasting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 11:18

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 23
Lara November 29, 2010 at 11:23

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 32
Stickman November 29, 2010 at 11:44

@ Lara

did you miss post on the wrong topic like the one on rowdy chicks in GB if not what are you talking about ??

also if a female cant handle liquor then dont drink so much most fems cant lift and carry as much as a guy but on that they show restraint and allow me to carry the heavy crap. the body mass thing is a load of smelly stuff it all boils down to knowing your limits and having SELF control ya know the thing guys are supposed to have when a female is drunk and horny

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 11:44

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 23
Gx1080 November 29, 2010 at 11:48

Apparently being a “real man” is offer yourself to be sucked dry by a 30-something used up slut.

Perhaps I’ve been saying this a lot, but f*ck that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
silentblood November 29, 2010 at 11:49

“if YOU say so, it must be true
what with all your display
of brain power

What a wonderful insult! You gotta be creative! I know you can do better than that!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
Odin November 29, 2010 at 11:55

It is almost incredible that Kimmel actually appears to believe that feminism is capable of defining male “autonomy and authenticity” and what it takes to become a man. Feminism cares for women first and women last, and cares for men only to the degree that they are useful to women. Feminism, in fact, dares to expect men to be lackeys rather than men, and while Michael Kimmel seems to be perfectly happy with this, it makes him appear even more deluded in holding himself up as some kind of paragon of manliness. It’s like he’s doing a cheap magic trick and is conceited enough to expect that the illusion will be sufficiently convincing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 12:06

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 23
Stickman November 29, 2010 at 12:15

LOL @ Firepower good one

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Migu November 29, 2010 at 12:21

How does the ignore function work here again?

I’d like to throw firepower in there with null.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
WGMOW November 29, 2010 at 12:39

Who the hell is this Kimmel??? For a long time I thought he was the guy who used to co-host “The Man Show” on Spike TV. I had to Google him to find out that he is an American sociologist specializing in gender studies. So he’s worthless on two levels in my opinion. Anyway…

“Kimmel holds up the more fluid or flexible gender identity of women as an ideal.” Yes, females want to redefine and co-opt many traits considered typical of men as they are POSITIVE traits, e.g. strength, intelligence, independence. But why would men want or need that so-called fluid gender identity? Do men want to be emotional, dependant, irrational, weak, or assimilate any other of the negative traits that characterize females? Of course not. The lack of a fluid gender identity among men is a very positive trait.

“The Guy Code is…blamed for epidemic levels of casual sex…” Duh, it takes two to tango. If females weren’t so hot to jump into the sack there wouldn’t be any so-called epidemic. But if somebody is giving something away that you want, then why not take advantage of it? This is what smart men do.

Now I might call Kimmel a mangina, but I think that’s somewhat simplistic. First and foremost he is a hypocrite and panderer. Like Dr. Phil and the rest of the daily TV network shils, Kimmel makes big bucks telling females what he thinks they want to hear. Without a doubt, the vast majority of readers of this book will be females, who will then try to foist its opinions on their men. Who will in turn, I hope, tear out the pages and use them to sop up oil in the garage or start the woodstove.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 12:50

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 23
djc November 29, 2010 at 12:52

“Lara November 29, 2010 at 11:23

A lot of people can’t handle their alcohol and women are no exception to this. Plus it doesn’t take anywhere near as many drinks for us to get drunk. My friend recently found a young woman completely passed out in a parking lot. She used the woman’s cell phone to dial the last number called and a male friend ended up coming out to get her and take her home.”

This actually happened to me a number of times through the years, when I had to go pick up my drunk wife. Thank God she is now my Ex-wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
djc November 29, 2010 at 12:56

Firepower November 29, 2010 at 11:07
Guess you can’t read the membership roster. I’m one of the top 15 posters here and have been since the very first day it opened.

And judging by your Like/Dislike count, you’re in the top 5% of people that no one likes.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7
Migu November 29, 2010 at 13:03

Damn it didn’t work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Killa Magilla November 29, 2010 at 13:10

Whoa this all rings to me like some pseudo intellectual chick gossip. Let us be reasonable and admit our faults, for we are human foremost but let’s not fall in a pit of resentment and anger. This author is indoctrinated,

No. He is an _indoctrinatOR._

there is no other word that best describes his compulsive attitude towards his own sex and the fact that he completely fails to grasp basic logic (blaming men for hooking up, completely eliminating consent from the girl’s p.o.v).

The other word that describes him is… um… er…

Well suffice to say he is a genetically left handed cosmopolitan(city) literate effete from, ehem, “eastern Europe”. It is part of his nature to yelp out the pie hole sounds he makes, like it is the nature of a particular “race” of birds to chirp out the particular chirp noises they make in the tree. The noises sound different than other bird-race chirp-noises because the different bird races are different at the biological level.

You put too much self aware purposeful-ness into humans that simply isn’t there at the “module” (bio chemical compulsion*) level.

[* = whether 'nature or nurture' induced]

Since you all–anglo world (american) christian white males–keep winning their wars for them –and advocating the things (ie capitalism, “growth”, christian ethos, ” civilization”) that lead to the “liberal” bird-type’s flourishing and ascendancy– they will keep having power (ie academic, media, law) to engage in the instinctual chirping noises they instinctively make, through louder and louder amplified megaphones. Megaphones that you build and protect as part of your instincts; One of which is to conform to the religions that that “race” of birds creates for you. [And to each bird type, his own instincts...]

The fact that those religions are absurdities when parsed by other bird strains is irrelevant to their sociological power-garnering effectiveness.

===
As far as his points, like everything the liberal establishment now bemoans, “guy culture” [male peter pan ness and crude ness and binge drinking and etc etc] is the side effect of liberal success at destroying the previous culture. (A success made possible, because the anglo right keeps winning their wars for them, DUH!!!!!)

That is just like liberalism blames crime and “rape” and patho-level DV and serial killers and everything else (eg divorce and porn and ill raised children/dead beat dads) on some phantom called patriarchy / “western culture” (very effective propaganda which causes white males to fall on their swords thus destroying their own families/sons more and more). But those things/problems liberalism demagogues about are actually the side effect of non northern euro immigration into north euro zones and white female led households and compulsory school enviros –ie neuroses inducing social structures.

The debasement of upper education is not a flaw in men; it is a flaw in liberalism goals of inclusiveness for low people (white or otherwise) and females (ultimately a type of low intellect/ vapid-interests male).

——
Also females certainly do have a girl culture too of forced conformity that pulls the smarter/more thoughtful /better etc dames down. They –females, feminist activists etc– complain about it (out the other corner of their multi cornered mouths). They simply blame the “forced to be a rotten apple” thing on “patriarchy” rather than on the anti eugenics vibe of western culture.

(Western culture’s ability to think in term of “eugenics” [ie purposeful directed breeding] at all is the side effect of the west being so effective at keeping god’s flood waters of nature OUT.

Anti eugenics is the defining psalm tone here because of the FALSE DICHOTOMY the anglo west has established going on centuries now.

Raising the bar (eg “eugenics”) solves all problems that liberalism demagogues about. But then liberalism would have a worse problem– expulsion.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 13:22

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 26
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 13:25

Migu November 29, 2010 at 13:03

Damn it didn’t work.

wah.
you’ll just have to man up – do more googling. More manly wikipedia-ing.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19
scatmaster November 29, 2010 at 13:33

Gentlemen:

Ignore. Rinse. Repeat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Firepower November 29, 2010 at 13:42

Hey, I’m all for ignoring you all on purely convenient grounds.
I’d feel less repulsion at all your mewling and your endless, tiresome use of the word “should” in your cream pie wishes of justice.

Kimmel does have a point:

Women, liberals and their allies stripped men of their power. Men allowed themselves to be so disarmed.

Women, liberals and their allies degrade men on a DAILY BASIS – News flash!

And what do “men” do in response to this outrage?
Complain online here.
Then queef even more when I point it out.

Thank god wussies weren’t dominant in 1941 or we’d all be speaking Japanese.

What was the name of that once powerful MRM site that predated this one?
Oh yeah, it shut down.
Voluntarily.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 23
Migu November 29, 2010 at 14:18

Tar babies are great. Especially when they aren’t recognized.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Bob Smith November 29, 2010 at 14:24

The Guy Code includes a handful of sayings and slogans that Kimmel says young males have internalized and repeated back to him in interviews and classroom situations. He offers a top ten list of examples including phrases like “Boys Don’t Cry,” Take it Like a Man,” “Just Do It,” etc.

It is somewhat ironic to see a feminist say that men should abandon the “Guy Code” described above, while simultaneously feminists use such phrases to shame and demean men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
ZenCo. November 29, 2010 at 14:36

Here we go again. Another self-hating eunuch who never did an honest day’s work in his life tells a bunch of morons what being a Man should be.
I really would like to reduce this pussy to tears.
This guy should be parachuted into the Congo with a porkchop around his neck. That’d make a man out of him…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
ChewyBees November 29, 2010 at 14:38

The greatest thing to blame in all of this, whether it’s the correct interpretation of some of the weaknesses of men in modern society, or the incorrect assumptions of a storyteller, or the poorly assumed domination of the feminist mind, is the very illusionary system we men (and women) have allowed to perpetuate. Why wouldn’t the feminist just assume she can disregard men as chattle, there to donate sperm and work to bring home company script. The system supports that attitude 100%. A female has no need for the protection, or the working capacity of a male, she has police and government and grocery stores for all of that. And since the feminist also has no need for a knowledge of history, as that would definitively contradict the very foundation of her beliefs, she also does not fear a societal collapse that can and has occurred in any number of ways in the past.
The same is true of confused men. Armed with no greater task then living out their lives as a corporate automaton, where is the fulfillment to come from? There is no question that a great number of men waste countless hours of their daily lives paying attention to the mundane provided by the system en masse. Sports and drinking are 2 fine examples of a complete waste of time after working a waste of time shift 5 to 7 days a week. Where has the thirst and quest for knowledge gone? We live in an age of information where not only is there a mountain of knowledge available out there, but it is interpreted in myriad of ways just waiting for the active and energized mind to devour it with satisfaction.
At any time, and without warning, the entire system we call world could disintegrate before our eyes. The void that is left will destroy with equal enthusiasm those that were addicted to its construct. Where will the feminist run to when every store in the strip mall has been looted and burned. Where will she turn to when the only forms of subsistence requires cooperation and reliance on (OMG) men! And where will lost men gather when the pub and idiot box aren’t guiding them to the pits of the mundane?

As the most interesting man in the world said recently: “stay thirsty, my friends”. The Castro looking actor may have been talking about Mexican beer, but I’m here to tell you the real thirst should always be for a higher knowledge. That knowledge transcends any fictional system a bunch of rich fools and feminists can ever project.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
piercedhead November 29, 2010 at 15:14

The type to sit at home sniffing perfumed hankies – NOT taming a frontier, founding a Republic, building a Hoover Dam or winning a war. You all respond like girls.
-Firepower

So why are you wasting your time with us, when you could be out taming some frontiers or winning wars?

Do you think shaming language is effective against total strangers who have no regard for your opinion?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
jack donovan November 29, 2010 at 17:00

To be clear, the point of using Tucker Max was not to put him forth as some kind of role model.He’s pretty obviously an example of what Kimmel was writing about, and the point was that Tucker Max is not as much of a caricature of guys as what Kimmel brings across.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Gx1080 November 29, 2010 at 19:23

Firepower, couple of questions.

What have YOU done to fight Feminism? You seem to like demanding. WHat gives yu that right?
If you don’t like most of the men on his board, why you just don’t leave? You must like having a flamewar against a lot of people. If the commenters here annoy you so miuch, why are you here? I know that myself or many guys in here aren’t frequent visitors Feministing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan November 29, 2010 at 19:26

WGMOW –

Kimmel is a major go-to guy for the US media and for progressive policymakers and is pretty much the male “expert” on “men’s studies.” We can laugh at that, and we should, but it is important to know what he says and why he is wrong. He’s a jerk, and he will always lie and distort things to support women, because he’s ideologically opposed to supporting men in any meaningful way. These men rest on their credentials, and trade on them, and while they can be commended for having done a lot of reading and talking to people, it is important to say, as often as possible, that they are full of shit and why. They are propagandists, not “scientists” or “truth seekers,” and they need to be repeatedly exposed for what they are. It is important to cultivate public distrust for their “objectivity.”

You were thinking of Jimmy Kimmel.

Paradoxotaur November 29, 2010 at 19:27

Jack, thanks for another great article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
WGMOW November 29, 2010 at 20:14

Jack Donovan November 29, 2010 at 19:26
“Kimmel is a major go-to guy for the US media and for progressive policymakers and is pretty much the male ‘expert’ on ‘men’s studies.’ ”

Yeah, I was being a bit facetious in my post. Actually, I think Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary on the Man Show was a lot more relevant than Mangina, oops, I meant Michael Kimmel ever could be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Travis November 29, 2010 at 21:42

@ChewyBees,
Just wanted to say I thought that was an excellent post. I agree with absolutely everything you said 100 percent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire November 29, 2010 at 22:33

@Killa Magilla

Is that you MacCloud?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Killa Magilla November 29, 2010 at 22:36

Yes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
evilwhitemalempire November 30, 2010 at 01:25

@Killa Magilla

Is that you MacCloud?

‘click’

Guess it is. Well duh. It was colored blue I could have clicked it earlier.

Since you all–anglo world (american) christian white males–keep winning their wars for them –and advocating the things (ie capitalism, “growth”, christian ethos, ” civilization”) that lead to the “liberal” bird-type’s flourishing and ascendancy–

Left pushes A.
Right resists. “A is wrong!”
Right relents. “Well O.K.”
Right denies having changed. “A is good and always was.”
-next-
Left pushes B.
Right resists. “B is wrong!”
Right relents. “Well O.K.”
Right denies having changed. “B is good and always was.”
-next-
Left pushes C.
Right resists. “C is wrong!”
Right relents. “Well O.K.”
Right denies having changed. “C is good and always was.”
-next-
Left pushes D…..
-and so on-
Each letter is a deferment from the stronger to the weaker.
Todays strong are yesterdays weak.
Todays weak are tomorrows strong.
The left is just the spearhead of the zeitgeist that is ‘runt male ascendancy’.

Also females certainly do have a girl culture too of forced conformity that pulls the smarter/more thoughtful /better etc dames down. They –females, feminist activists etc– complain about it (out the other corner

Alpha/beta/gamma coupe for women?

As far as his points, like everything the liberal establishment now bemoans, “guy culture” [male peter pan ness and crude ness and binge drinking and etc etc] is the side effect of liberal success at destroying the previous culture.

They needed a little anarchy to loosen things up enough to dislodge the female. But now it’s clean up time.

Well suffice to say he is a genetically left handed cosmopolitan(city) literate effete from, ehem, “eastern Europe”.

Of the 3 abrahamic religions the most misandric is the first (explains why they circumsize) and the most misogynistic (Islam) the last.
Maybe Judaism is this way cause it was formed in the most misandric period of the middle east (ancient Babylon). Maybe this ethnic/racial group retains runt male characteristics from that period to the present day in both its genetic AND cultural DNA.
(Islam, on the other hand, is the result of cultural knowledge about women from the earlier times.)
But for Israel all of its recent wars has pulled out better men that otherwise would be kept down by the runts. Maybe that’s why they aren’t as much interested in feminism.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/27/israeli-white-knight-bemoans-sorry-state-of-feminism-in-israel/

(Western culture’s ability to think in term of “eugenics” [ie purposeful directed breeding] at all is the side effect of the west being so effective at keeping god’s flood waters of nature OUT.

Fascism/eugenics must have been an attempt (maybe unconscious) to restore the more ‘natural’ rule. Maybe the Germans (in both world wars) were the ‘alphas’ being subdued by runt coalition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Migu November 30, 2010 at 03:32

No personal insults???

No problem, I’ll just direct them at the entire forum like firepower does.

That is much more acceptable than singling out the disruptor right?

You kick rob outa here too Christian?

The only Robert on record has not posted here since Sept 23, 2010, I have no record of banning any Rob.

Christian J.
Moderator.

I notice skadi still sends out her insults.

Oh yeah one standard for men, another for women.

I can handle moderation just not arbitrary moderation.

Maybe you could give me a link as there is no discrimination here. I will kick anyone to the curb that does not follow the site’s comments policy. After a warning ofcourse.

Christian J.
Moderator.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Seed November 30, 2010 at 05:29

@Killa: The book is a piece of indoctrination, but the author is clearly indoctrinated hehehe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) November 30, 2010 at 05:35

TFH November 29, 2010 at 11:04
Hope you like my contribution…manginas like Guthrie disgust me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
sharpcool November 30, 2010 at 05:51

Migu:

You kick rob outa here too Christian?

Rob got banned?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Migu November 30, 2010 at 07:25

Sharpcool,

I have no Idea. Just pointing out what appears to me as a double standard.

Plenty of personal insults around, but I got warned while the trolls roam free. It peeved me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
ICW November 30, 2010 at 07:26

there’s a reason that otto weininger compared jews to women in his book. kimmel is of course only providing a real life model for the traits shared by the two groups. nothing has changed in the 100 years since weininger laid out all the cards on the table.

notice the cover: it shows four white males. since when has it become standard to omit a black and an asian when showing groups of people clustered together on a product cover? the implicit message is that “guyland” is the construct of evil white males.

kimmel is a jew. he’s simply doing the same kosher spiel that tim wise does on a more visceral level before college audiences during “diversity” week celebrations on campuses. jews hate. that’s what they do. anything that weakens european civilization is pursued by them relentlessly and ruthlessly.

most of the articles in the man-o-sphere are triggered by something a jew says or does that is patently anti-white male. wake up folks! feminism and multi-culturalism are not airy abstractions from the ether; they are poisonous ideologies advanced by jews to weaken the west. they are hate strategies meant to advance jewish interests above all others.

rosin, sonntag, steinem, dworkin, kimmel… next time you read an article concerning the plight of men and/or european-americans, check the surnames of the evil-doers mentioned. they will be heavily kosher. check the names of divorce lawyers and anti-male judges. you’ll find the same disproportionate representation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Migu November 30, 2010 at 07:29

BTW. Whoever clipped the last two lines of my response to moderation,

Fair enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Migu November 30, 2010 at 07:32

Rob is no troll. Just needed to clarify

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Nergal November 30, 2010 at 08:58

” He offers a top ten list of examples including phrases like “Boys Don’t Cry,” Take it Like a Man,” “Just Do It,” etc. The list feels a bit doctored, but Kimmel identifies the unifying theme of these sayings as an aversion to “showing emotions or admitting weakness.””

You mean these dudes internalized the messages that “forward-thinking” “empowered women” spout to them? Imagine that. Wait….I know the solution, these guys need MORE FEMINISM to degrade them in new “progressive” ways.

Or maybe, these motherfuckers need to realize they don’t get to tell men what to do. The essence of feminism is basically demanding things from men that they have no right or authority to ask for. You can con a bunch of gullible women, but keep your feminist laws off MY body,you sick cunts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Common Monster November 30, 2010 at 10:34

I love a good book review, Jack, and that was the best work I’ve read of yours.

It’s one of the great magic tricks of feminists that they’ve somehow managed to get us to consider the possibility that normal and consistent patterns of male behavior over the last few thousand years were actually psychologically sick and evil. Apparently men have been “doing it wrong” all this time, we can only trust women and feminist academics to finally show men how to “do it right.”

From the perspective of evolution, males and male behavior are the result of a breeding experiment run by females. So, when feminist types diss men, they’re essentially dissing the choices their mother’s and grandmother’s all the way back up the line made. (Perhaps most women intuitively ‘get’ this, on some level at least, and that’s why they’re reluctant to join the feminists at the barricades, at least to the satisfaction of the true believers.)

That, and when the experiment runs amock you don’t lose your head and go off and blame the lab rats. They’re just trying to negotiate the maze as best as possible. If Kimmel wanted to step in and lend a hand… nah, he’d never do that. He’s too busy doing the traditional white knighter thing of trying to help women. He’s like the guy at another publication who was going on trying to convert PUA’s into (his definition of) “gentlemen”. The focus is always on the wrong side of the equation.

-And he hasn’t learned to heed the advice of the great Jesse Owens that “you never get anywhere with people giving them the lowdown on themselves”. So those who he’ll get the most applause from are not those he’d like to reform.

If Guyland is (in no particular order) naked babes, hot cars, lots of booze, endless sports and general good times, what’s not to love about it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TFH November 30, 2010 at 10:53

Hope you like my contribution…manginas like Guthrie disgust me.

Yes, many thanks to Peter, Snark, gwallen, Reaver, and Jackson for their obliteration of the Jizz-abel misandrists…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Firepower November 30, 2010 at 12:30

piercedhead November 29, 2010 at 15:14

The type to sit at home sniffing perfumed hankies – NOT taming a frontier, founding a Republic, building a Hoover Dam or winning a war. You all respond like girls.
-Firepower

So why are you wasting your time with us, when you could be out taming some frontiers or winning wars?

It is a waste of time, isn’t it – you accuse yourselves by your own very words.
It’s like shaming a girlscout troop for crying.

How telling it is, when accused of wussitude, you tell me to go f*ck myself – instead of listing your accomplishments.

The feminists are gonna eat you up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12
Firepower November 30, 2010 at 12:38

Gx1080 November 29, 2010 at 19:23

Firepower, couple of questions.

What have YOU done to fight Feminism? You seem to like demanding. WHat gives yu that right?

Again, instead of even one of you brave laddies
(who “outnumber me” and are “more popular” than me)

countering my argument with a factual recitation of your alleged MRM “accomplishments” you resort to telling me to suck a dick or question my record…on teh internets.

Sure, OK: I’m a CIA fighter pilot who contributed 1 Billion dollars to The Spearhead and squatted on Gloria Allred’s Persian Rug. Satisfied?

Grow up – you fool

If this bickering continues I will be forced to close this thread. Grow up the pair of you.

Christian J.
Moderator.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13
Malestrom November 30, 2010 at 14:41

”Kimmel is inverting strength based masculine virtues and aiding the creation of an ad hoc moral system that elevates his own servile and sensitive intellectualism.”

That’s the money shot right there, I think this comes up more often than a lot of people realize.

I always wonder how far people are willing to extend this inversion, like when they say ”[rather than being effeminate pussies] men who wear makeup and give a shit about ‘fashion’ are the ‘real men’ because they arent afraid to be themselves bla bla bla, waa, waa, waa”

I mean why stop there? Why not ”men who allow their wives to get gangbanged by meth addicts are the real men because they arent insecure” or ”men who allow others to physically spit on them in the street are the real men because they don’t feel threatened” or somesuch bullshit like that? Once you go down the weakness=strength route there is really nowhere to draw the line that is not arbitrary.

Of course the reason fools like Kimmel spout this crap is because they need it to be ok that they are the pedastalizing, white knighting wimps that they are, and the reason women parrot it is to identify those men too stupid to see that it’s bullshit for efficient and unapologetic weeding out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Jonathan Mann November 30, 2010 at 18:03

Is it possible that a “man” like Kimmel can even look at himself in the mirror in the morning without seeing a gigantic douche bag in human form?

How can he say with a straight face that men are being enforced into a social code of what manhood is all about and then try to make the argument that a man that behaves differently than himself is’nt a real man? I know that there are some men that have been suckered into thinking that feminism is all about equality, but when reviewing a feminist stooge like Kimmel it is important to remember just what some men are willing to stoop to in order to suck-up to women or in order to sell a shabby excuse for a book.

And furthermore, I say, feminism must be destroyed!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan November 30, 2010 at 19:20

Malestrom -

That’s a point I’ve often made myself. It’s like that half-believed nonsense men and women alike spout about men who drive fast cars or guys who lift weights or men who drive big trucks — they *must* have small penises and they *must* be overcompensating. The same line of thought makes every rollerskating drag queen horse hung. It’s not true, but people repeat it like it is and feel cute and smug when they do it. It’s emasculation by inversion of values. Up is down, down is up, cats and dogs living together in peace and harmony. And those same people never look at the drag queens or Micheal Kimmels of the world and ask what they are hiding from, what they are insecure about.

Jonathan Mann –

The thing is, too…there’s no middle ground with feminists. It’s always all or nothing. Kimmel edited an entire book about the mythopoetic men’s movement.

The Politics of Manhood: Profeminist Men Respond to the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement (And the Mythopoetic Leaders Answer)

Almost every essay in it — including Kimmel’s own contributions — are snide, dismissive and dishonest. They all mocked the mythopoetic men mercilessly, and then at the end Kimmel feigned surprise that the mp men were offended and defensive.

If I was even remotely successful in my reviews of Iron John and Sam Keen’s Fire in the Belly, it should be clear that both movements come from the political left, and both seek some sort of non-patriarchal harmony and equality between men and women. If anything, the two groups should have been allied — but ideological feminists like Kimmel refuse to accept or support any movement that accords men anything resembling a distinct and meaningful identity, even when the men involved dare not speak ill of women or all but the most insanely radical (Valerie Solanas) feminists. Kimmel dismissed them all as “whimps, whiners and weekend warriors.”

You can’t play nice with self-identified feminists because they are incapable of compromise.

Dan November 30, 2010 at 21:21

I’m still astounded by this popular image of “manliness culture” being basically nothing but beer drinking and sports talk.
To me, manliness culture involves things like shooting, sparring, building things, lifting weights, hunting big game, earning medals and having attractive women lick their fluids off your dick. Getting drunk and talking about football is something anybody, not just a man could do…it’s in no way manly or unmanly in my opinion. But I guess that’s more of a problem with lousy man-children who can’t do anything, not just this book eh?

Anyway great review Jack, you’re a much more patient man than I for being able to read an entire book full of angst and bitterness from all the wedgies this douche got in school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) December 1, 2010 at 05:08

Dan November 30, 2010 at 21:21
I also see inventing and doing complex things as very MANLY. A mate of mine is the best data modeller on the planet. He is writing a book on this. It is a pure work of genius. When I read a draft I just shook my head in astonishment at what he has come up with. Such things are very MANLY!
Also, I was at the Netezza conference in London recently http://www.netezza.com. Their database machine is VERY MANLY! It’s going to crunch data at astonishing rates. They are bringing out a solid state disk version as well. There is nothing more MANLY than competing in business and using this kind of technology to do so is very MANLY.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Migu December 1, 2010 at 05:43

W

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
thehermit December 1, 2010 at 09:49

He’s a jerk, and he will always lie and distort things to support women, because he’s ideologically opposed to supporting men in any meaningful way

.

With other words, he’s a traitor.
Let me tell you, traitors are maybe amoral, but not dumb too often.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 1, 2010 at 14:18

Ok, I’m going to finally take a stab at this.

You’d think that men only drink out of fear that they’ll be ostracized by other men for not drinking. I read I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell by Tucker Max alongside Guyland. Max’s stories about drinking and “hooking up” filled out Kimmel’s caricature and reminded me that men often drink together to create conflict and excitement out of the sense of boredom with polite, modern society that Kimmel acknowledges but fails to truly understand. Men drink to relax, and sometimes to wallow in self-pity, but men drink in packs for the story. Lionel Tiger was correct when he observed that men bond during aggression, and heavy drinking puts average guys in “safe crisis.” They fight their own bodies, concoct strategies to pick up girls, narrowly avoid or get into fights with other men. They do and say things they normally wouldn’t. Crazy things happen. Young men drink together because they’re looking for a good bad time, a story to tell, proof that something happened

Here’s the question though. Is this an ok way to bond, have a good time, to make things “happen”? I just don’t see how it’s ok that getting drunk in order to have a good time and bond is considered male behavior. I mean, isn’t that kind of insulting. But maybe you meant simply drinking and not to the point of getting drunk. If that’s the case, then fine. I just hate it how people make such a big deal about women drinking and fighting (rightly so), but when men do it, it’s either tolerated or seen as male behavior, thus ok.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14
KARMA MRA MGTOW December 1, 2010 at 14:33

Michael Kimmel has problems with his sexual identity, he stupidly thinks rest of the world does also.He should get help and stop projecting his issues and get help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 1, 2010 at 17:50

Regarding the ongoing discussion of drinking — the point here is not to say that “drinking to excess is awesome and all related bad behavior should be excused.” I brought it up because it is something that Kimmel pretty obviously doesn’t understand — I’ve done plenty of honest talking with ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ guys about drinking. Men have been drinking together since the beginning of recorded history and probably before. And older men have always given younger men advice about how much is too much, and so forth. There have always been boundaries. Saying a behavior is normal (as opposed to some sort of psychological illness) doesn’t mean it is automatically always appropriate or good. “There’s a time and a place.”

The problem, in the case of Kimmel’s “guyland,” is that an occasional thing becomes the only thing, and in my opinion it also often becomes the most accessible substitution for some kind of “ordeal” or “crisis” for men to overcome in an otherwise overprotected society.

Jack Donovan December 1, 2010 at 19:48

Basically, if you’re going to shut off a release valve that has worked for thousands of years and say it is “not OK” suddenly, what are you going to replace it with, Renee? Kimmel doesn’t have an answer. Do you?

Drinking (in addition to other things) creates “acceptable risk” for a wide range of men. Sports, extreme sports and martial arts provide healthier outlets. Jobs the pose anything resembling an ordeal (an ordeal is different than simply learning how to tolerate submission and fulfill a task) are disappearing quickly. You really have to admit openly what something really is and satisfactorily understand the “why” before you can begin to stop it or regulate it more healthily.

David K. Meller December 5, 2010 at 12:14

How in the world would the likes of a “michelle kimmel” even KNOW what a “real man” is or does? His book “guyland” obviously is written for agenda-driven feminists whose only thoughts on men and masculinity are envy driven resentment and bile, and whose primary commitment is denying us what they don’t have themselves.

What can we say? Is ‘manhood’ supposed to be, e.g. willingness to marry a shrew whose only value to the relationship–so-to-speak–is regarding her mate as a walking ATM and perhaps a household servant to boot? That she has a “choice” in motherhood, he MUST support her and HER children in the way she has become accustomed, or she may leave him with naught but ‘child-support” financial slavery for a substantial fraction of his remaining life? That (in most States and in Canada) she even will have a right of corporal punishment slapping, pushing, or punching him, while any reciprocal action on his part is called “Violence against Women” and the full force of the law is on the side of the female? Is being a man, Mr. (or is it miss?) Kimmel, tolerating the unrelenting brainwashing wives do to alienate their growing children against them, while silently continuing to support people who HATE him? Is being a man supposed to be having to read a worthless, defamatory, and FEMINIST piece of tripe from the likes of one more over-educated yahoo who no doubt passed his ‘womyn’s studies’ courses with flying colors, but who wouldn’t know how to tie his shoelaces, much less design a automobile engine, clean and assemble an AK-47, repair a malfunctioning computer, or even know the difference in chess between a Kings Gambit and the Ruy Lopez openings!

Tell us about manhood, Comrade Kimmel! With “men” like you, who needs the likes of Gloria Allred, Barbara Walters, or Hillary Clinton?

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

PS-I could go on, I suppose, but I am getting so angry discussing your screed–as a MAN–that I would no doubt resort to language I don’t like to see in print, and I could do without libel suits! DKM

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
lushfun December 7, 2010 at 09:57

a bit sobering and to some degree upsetting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) December 8, 2010 at 08:29

David K. Meller December 5, 2010 at 12:14

David. Brilliant comment. You made my ‘best ever posts on spearhead’ list.

http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/62/threadid/647/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Furywhip December 17, 2010 at 16:56

‘Guyland’. I was kinda hoping this would be an article about a cool new amusement park for guys. It would be the greatest place on Earth. I’m sure you can imagine the cool rides and attractions. Someday, someday….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 7 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: