Sometimes I rant about things.

So I’m procrastinating by reading an article some dude wrote about attending a porn lecture by Robert Jensen on The Good Men Project (NEVER ENOUGH SIDE-EYE FOR THIS ENTIRE WEBSITE). After complaining about the lecturer’s personal anecdote of men walking out of his lectures when he declares he won’t actually be showing any pornography while the women in the audience seem relieved, the author actually says “After a brief disclaimer about why a man is talking about feminism, explaining that he’s using a feminist critique rather than a religious critique (an especially useful distinction to make at a Catholic university), and situating himself in the lineage of Dworkin and Dines, Jensen further built cohesion among the women at the cost of the men’s safety.”

The men’s safety. 

The men’s safety. 

What the fucking fuck is it with men? Why do words hurt them so much? Women, who are subjected to acts of violence and hatred within pornography on the regular aren’t going to be forced to look at images of those acts and that somehow make men less safe

What is going to happen to them?

Is someone going to harm them? Jiz on their face? Disembody them? Shove a dick in their ass? Rape them? Objectify them? Punch them? Slap them? Spit on them? Hit them with their genitals? Call them a bitch, a slut, a whore, a cunt? Call them any gender-based epithet? 

Oh wait. Don’t worry. The fear is described later. The lecturer asked men to stand up and explain what the last pornography that they masturbated to was like. When there were no volunteers, the lecturer stated that was the point. The author of the article took issue with that. Here’s why:

As an educator, I can see how an exercise like this might be really useful, if enough safety has been built into a class. But this was a lecture, without any ground rules, expectations of confidentiality, or anything else that skilled teachers often do when exploring challenging topics. There also wasn’t any information given to the women about how to respond—were they going to tut tut us? Shame us? Laugh at us?”

There’s a Margaret Atwood quote for this. It has to do with men’s greatest fear being that women will laugh at them while women’s greatest fear is men committing physical violence against us. 

Sound familiar, douchecanoe article author? 

I would really hate it if women laughed at or shamed men for watching and wanking off to what often amounts to sexualized misogyny. 

Men have a right to feel safe and secure in their pornography use, tho, right? It’s part of the code of society that men get to use women and images of them in any way they see fit, so why would you make that an unsafe space for men? Mean old feminism, taking away all of men’s entitlements and shit.

Also, apparently pointing out that men masturbate to porn is “demonizing” them. 

Oh. my. god.

Really. What is this. Why is this one a website called “The Good Men Project” there is nothing good about this. This is why women don’t want dudes calling themselves feminists. Because they call themselves feminists and then they think they have carte blanche to start policing the movement and the women, lecturers, and ideas within it and feminism is not a men’s movement even if it benefits them in the end.

They start claiming women’s space as space that they need to feel safe in. Sorry dude, but you have the rest of society for that. You have your pornography for that.

Come into one of the plastic pussies they sell in porn shops if you need to feel safe. Don’t fucking come into my feminism. 


Note: No, I sure didn’t read the rest of the article. I just fucking couldn’t. I just had to write out this rant and post it on here, especially since I’ve been getting so many asshole anons in my askbox asking about why women don’t want men to be included in feminism or to call themselves feminists. Here’s your fucking answer. 

This doesn’t mean that a “good man” is always in the wrong when he’s arguing with a woman. It does mean that when men and women argue about gender justice, women are more likely to have insights that men have missed. Here’s the basic axiom: power conceals itself from those who possess it. And the corollary is that privilege is revealed more clearly to those who don’t have it. When a man and a woman are arguing about feminism – and the women involved happen to be feminists and the man happens to be an affluent white dude – the chances that he’s the one from whom the truth is more obscured is very high indeed. That’s as true for me as it is for Tom Matlack.

- Hugo Schwyzer, in a blog post regarding his resignation from the Good Men Project following founder Tom Matlack’s revelation that he’s not so good

This is just one part of a very good article. I recommend reading it, and if you can stomach the defensiveness of a fauxminist dude, the entire debacle. I mean, Tom Matlack seriously thought it would be a good idea to compare feminist criticism (or as he puts it, the “wrath of feminists”) to the asshole-ish, often violent, and entitled ravings of MRA types. I’ve cast a leery eye at the GMP plenty of times before, but now I think I’m pretty much done. I deal with sexism from enough men. I’m not gonna deal with it from men who think they’re so “good”.