Gay Men and Feminism

July 26th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

Feminism often positions itself as the ideology that cares about the rights of GLBT people. If you take a class on Women’s Studies or Gender Studies, you’ll learn about the concept of intersectionality, which claims that all kinds of oppression – whether based on gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, class, etc – interact.

This means that if you as a gay man want to accept the recognition you get from feminism (i.e. recognition and understanding that discrimination against gays exist), then you also need to accept that men are an oppressive class, and as a gay man you are part of that oppressive class. In other words, feminisms extends one helping hand, and uses the other hand to accusatorily point out gay men as oppressors.

My view on gender roles is that it is far from easy to determine which gender role is “better”, since there are so many downsides to both of them. Therefore I don’t believe in comparing the gender roles; instead, it makes more sense to try to improve both gender roles in tandem. From the position I take on gender roles, I don’t see why gay men should have to put up with being called oppressors (however indirectly), when there is an alternative that accepts their sexuality fully, without slapping the oppressor label on them.

IMO, the natural place for gays to fight for their rights is in a men’s rights movement or a gender liberation movement beyond feminism. As men, gay men experience many of the downsides of the male gender role, except for the downsides that are directly connected to heterosexual marriage and relationships.

Straight men and gay men have more things in common when discussing gender issues than do gays and feminist women.

Tags:

41 Responses to “Gay Men and Feminism”

  1. Danny Says:

    Interesting. Gay men and straight men both do have the common issue of going against the gender roles what men are “supposed to do”. I think this bond between feminism and gay men may be the result of their respective movements getting under way much much earlier than MRAs. This has allowed for them to grow individually and to recognize their similarities. I know I’ve brought this up time difference up before but I think its one of the biggest crippling factors MRAs have to make up for.

    While I think intentionality is worth talking about I can imagine people reading this and accusing you of attempting to split hairs and drive a wedge between feminism and gay men. Tread carefully.

  2. Pelle Billing Says:

    My post was a bit pointed on purpose. But I also believe that gay men could for a bridge between feminists and MRAs. Both camps will likely listen to gay men, while the two camps may not listen to each other.

  3. unomi Says:

    Gay men have had little to do with feminism in most countries I know of, and the relationship between straight and lesbian feminists has been an uneasy one, to say the least.

  4. Jim Says:

    “Gay men have had little to do with feminism in most countries I know of,…”

    I think this is right. Threr has been some kind of alliance in gender studies departments, but I don’t see how much that extends beyond academic circles.

    “…and the relationship between straight and lesbian feminists has been an uneasy one, to say the least.”

    Delightfully understated. Lesbian feminsts have vilified straight feminists as sleeping with the enemy, and I have seen some really pathological things on the internet about giving birth and heterosexuality in general. I think some of the apparent paradox is created rather than real, and has to do with lumping radical feminists in with feminists and then marvelling at the contradictions.

  5. Jim Says:

    “As men, gay men experience many of the downsides of the male gender role, except for the downsides that are directly connected to heterosexual marriage and relationships.”

    Not so fast. A huge number of gay men, maybe even a majority of the actual population, marry women in their younger years, and they face all the same bigotry in the family court system as straight men do. They face all the same instituitonal bigotry with regard to domestic violence enforcement that straight men do.

    But there are advantages. My son is straight. I don’t think a straight father would give him quite the same advice I do about women, and that is because my experience of a realtionship with a woman was fundamentally different.

  6. Pelle Billing Says:

    “A huge number of gay men, maybe even a majority of the actual population, marry women in their younger years, and they face all the same bigotry in the family court system as straight men do.”

    Good point.

  7. Deva Ariza Says:

    “This means that if you as a gay man want to accept the recognition you get from feminism (i.e. recognition and understanding that discrimination against gays exist), then you also need to accept that men are an oppressive class, and as a gay man you are part of that oppressive class. In other words, feminisms extends one helping hand, and uses the other hand to accusatorily point out gay men as oppressors.”

    I’m hearing that you are uncomfortable with taking responsibility for, or even acknowledging that men have historically, and continue to in many contemporary societies, oppress women. After reading your excellent post in which you explain to a woman that she needs to be responsible for the abuse she suffered, I am wondering how that sense of responsibility pertains to men. Is responsibility something we can only discuss as individuals? Is it that, in your personal experience, you never consciously chose to oppress a woman and therefore you feel uncomfortable accepting blame for actions that are not of your choosing? I’m trying to square things up here.

    It’s simply dishonest to claim that men never have, or never do, oppress women, as it is likewise dishonest to say that women never benefited under patriarchy in any way. In my view, what is necessary if we are to reconcile and transcend gender is that we must all be honest about where we are and where we’ve been.

    Pretending that men were helping women out by denying them voting rights is simply dishonest. Pretending that women are empowered by using men as sperm donors and wallets is equally dishonest. Women and men have been wounded by a system that has for millennia denied our full humanity. Patriarchy did, in fact, remove far more female agency than it removed male agency, though there were consolation prizes for females and prices to pay for males. Admitting that patriarchy benefits/benefited males does not mean that you must agree that women never benefited and men never lost out. All are true.

  8. Danny Says:

    Is responsibility something we can only discuss as individuals? Is it that, in your personal experience, you never consciously chose to oppress a woman and therefore you feel uncomfortable accepting blame for actions that are not of your choosing? I’m trying to square things up here.
    Honestly yes I think it is something that can only be discussed as individuals. I’m not sure about the others but I only take blame and responsibility for the things that I do or don’t do. I take blame and responsibility for the times in my life that I have disrespected women but I am not going to do the same for actions that were carried out by other people when the only thing I have in common with them is gender just as I don’t expect all women to take responsibility for the actions of Mary Winkler, Andrea Yates, and Cara Harris. Speaking of why stop at gender? Why not do the same for race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc….

    It’s simply dishonest to claim that men never have, or never do, oppress women, as it is likewise dishonest to say that women never benefited under patriarchy in any way.
    While this is mostly true I note your selective wording to keep from saying women have ever oppressed men.

  9. Pelle Billing Says:

    My general take on this is that both men and women have been oppressed by their gender roles. Who got the worst deal? I don’t know. But stating it this way is much closer to the truth IMO, than saying that men as a group have oppressed women as a group.

    Concerning responsibility I think it needs to be individual. How can I be responsible for what other people do? I cannot control their actions so how can I be responsible? This is exactly what I wrote concerning the abused women. She can only be responsible for her own actions, not for the actions of the abuser.

  10. Jim Says:

    “In my view, what is necessary if we are to reconcile and transcend gender is that we must all be honest about where we are and where we’ve been. ”

    Exactly. And that’s the problem with feminism’s discourse on gender.

  11. Deva Ariza Says:

    “Who got the worst deal? I don’t know.” This is either dishonest or uneducated. If you studied history you would know that women in this country had no rights, were not citizens, could not own property, WERE property… until quite recently. I assume, given your erudite approach, that you have studied history but that you cannot bring yourself to honestly admit that men, as a class, have and do oppress women, as a class. Until most people can admit this, no healing is going to happen because wounded people need to hear that those who wounded them understand and recognize that fact, and that they will discontinue the wounding behavior. Pretending that you “don’t know” doesn’t cut it.

    Feminism is a philosophy which has helped many women (and men) to heal from heinous levels of abuse. It has it’s angry adherents. In fact, healthy healing processes entail anger, which is why I can excuse some degree of feminist bashing, but to continue to blame feminist/feminism forever is no different than women continuing to blame men forever. There are a lot of really aware and evolved feminists who would be more than happy to reconcile and heal gender wounds right along side you. I am one of them. But sly dishonesty does not promote your cause. If I can admit that some feminists are angry and say hurtful things about males, as a class, can you admit that some men hate woman and have perpetuated the oppression of women as a class?

  12. Danny Says:

    What I find interesting is that when the conversation is about something in which women do have it the worst feminists want everyone to admit and shout it from the mountain yet whenever the situation is about some other group having it the worst feminists like to cry “Oppression Olympics”. And I say specifically feminists because they invoke that argument more than any other group I’ve seen. For some reason figuring out who has it the worst only matters when its women but otherwise its Oppression Olympics and such bickering gets in the way of progress.

    …you cannot bring yourself to honestly admit that men, as a class, have and do oppress women, as a class.
    That is because men as a class have not done so. The precious “patriarchy” that feminists go on about was started and is perpetuated by a subset of men but as usual they hold the entire class to the actions of some of its members.

    Until most people can admit this, no healing is going to happen because wounded people need to hear that those who wounded them understand and recognize that fact, and that they will discontinue the wounding behavior.
    I agree but the thing is a large portion of the people being held to the oppression of women are not doing the oppressing. Women are raped and abused by men and all of a sudden the entire male gender is responsible for stopping rape. This piece of advice you offer here would be much more effective if the people that have been wounded would actually go after the ones that wounded then instead of everyone that shares a trait with the one(s) that wounded them.

    If I can admit that some feminists are angry and say hurtful things about males, as a class, can you admit that some men hate woman and have perpetuated the oppression of women as a class?
    You admit angry words but want an admission of oppression in return? Let me ask if you are willing to admit that some WOMEN (not to be confused with feminists) have perpetuated the oppression of men as a class?

  13. unomi Says:

    Deva,

    Your idea of “responsibility” seems more akin to “collective guilt and punishment”.

    Do you also think that all straight people, including women, should be “taking responsibility” for the stoning of gay people in Iran, even if they don’t agree with it?

    And why all the talk about the past? Let’s focus on what is happening here and now.

  14. Paddan Says:

    Yeah, there’s something fishy going on here when we want people today to take responsability for what happened yesterday (Let’s blame all Germans for what Hitler did… forever.)

    If shit happens today that my race, gender, or whatever is responsible for, I don’t think I should feel any guilt, because that is, as Unomi said, what this discussion tends to lead to. It’s not that constructive.

    On the other hand, you could argue that Pelle is downplaying certain aspects or perspectives. We could imagine, because it’s hard to really know, that there has been tens of thousands of women who all wanted public power but weren’t allowed to (laws) and they were discriminated against, oppressed. But then again, I think Pelle is hesitant here because he really doesn’t wanna play the blame game. And as he said, aren’t we suppose to look at the downsides of men as well? And if we really do, then what picture does emerge? Let’s say, just for sake of argument, that women have had it far worse (I doubt it, and how the hell do you measure it). Then what good does it do for the men of today to stand up and say “I’m sorry”, other than to make the women “feel good”. That’s dishonest and weak if you ask me. And it’s not respectful to women.

    This whole “you need to take responsibility” is misguided. But still understandable. If you read a lot of history, and gender courses (which you almost can’t escape), you’re trained to spot the unbalance between the sexes. And when someone, (Pelle), doesn’t talk about the oppression of women when they talk about history, one feels that they are either uneducated, lying or just plain stupid. Because that’s the way WE are TRAINED to read history. Imagine a history book that has footnotes or facts about biology/psychology alongside the text. That would be a different way to read history, and it would transform our view of ourselves as well. But the way we write history today is with our social constructionist glasses on. The consequenses are huge.

  15. Pelle Billing Says:

    @unomi
    “Deva,

    Your idea of “responsibility” seems more akin to “collective guilt and punishment”.

    Do you also think that all straight people, including women, should be “taking responsibility” for the stoning of gay people in Iran, even if they don’t agree with it?

    And why all the talk about the past? Let’s focus on what is happening here and now.”

    Very well put, unomi.

    @Paddan

    That’s a very balanced take on things. We need more perspectives that’s for sure. A main problem with postmodern feminists is that they absolutize their own perspective. If they were open to the whole range of perspectives, then I think that people would be more willing to take a look at the partial truth that they are bringing to the table.

  16. Thomas Says:

    I’ve always thought, that gay men were at least theoretically the ulitimate anti-feminist group. It is a group that literally has no need for women or to interact with them in any way.

  17. Jim Says:

    “It is a group that literally has no need for women or to interact with them in any way.’

    The ultimate MGTOWs. I once saw – it must have been ten or more years ago – an article in a major women’s magazine in the US – Cosmo? – in which the writer “wondered” if all this gay stuff was just a misogynist ploy on the part of men to evade women’s rightful sexual power. I am sure this writer thought of herself as a feminist and equally sure that masses of feminists would have flayed her alive for such a heretical or maybe just impolitic contention – good for them.

  18. Matt Boradben Says:

    Please don’t call me an oppressor… The male gender isn’t the culprit, the culprit is what the male gender has installed, as values in society. It’s like calling me an oppressive racist just because I’m white. So I’m therefore also oppressing jews…
    Oh and you’re wrong. Gay men shouldn’t be feminists. Every fucking one should be a feminist, no specifics.
    I consider myself a feminist, a vehement one at that, and I’m gay but I always wondered whether I would be one if I were straight… Oh and you got it wrong people, gay men, on average are more feminist than straight men. 1) They are more open minded. 2) They know about gender roles. 3) Our relationship to women is more equal, friend-like.

  19. Elias Says:

    Pelle:

    You bring VERY GOOD POINTS :)

    I am VERY AMAZED that a man has the guts to speak like this :)

    My question is:

    Do you think that the OVERSEXUALIZATION OF WOMEN this era are due to homosexual commands????

    Do you understand my point?????

    I just watched “Sex and The City 2″ and it is just PARANOIC to see how Mr. Big gives Carrie a ring for cheating on him :00000000

    Thank you Pelle :)

    E.

  20. Pelle Billing Says:

    Hi Elias,

    Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad you like my work.

    However, I don’t think “homosexual commands” are the reason for oversexualization of women. I don’t even know what “homosexual commands” are.

    To the extent that women are oversexualized in modern societies, I think it is related to not being allowed to express your inner femininity, and thus you exaggerate your outer attributes instead. But this is far from all women…

  21. Anti-Feminist Says:

    I am a gay and I am quite strongly an anti-feminist, because I support true equality instead of female privileges. I also feel sympathy towards straight males who are oppressed by divorce and custody laws etc.

    Most of the gays I personally know, are at least somewhat critical towards feminism or neutral towards it, but I know that some other gays are positive towards feminism. I cannot provide any statistics – and I am not even sure if anti-feminists or feminists are more common among gays. And I think this is also somewhat “context dependent”. On some issues gays and many anti-feminists might agree with (some) feminists, but disagree on many others issues.

  22. Pelle Billing Says:

    Anti-Feminist,

    Your assessment of where gay men stand is similar to mine.

    I would urge you though to reconsider dividing the field into feminists and anti-feminists. There are feminists and then there are people who care equally about what’s best for both sexes. Feminists may say that they care about both sexes but they only implement reforms for women.

  23. Jypz Says:

    Just because gay men have a female perspective does not mean that we enlarge our images towards women!… We are different and can only be seen as “gay men” nothing other!.. Point being!. We suffer more than woman! (Not by choice) yet we are associated as being feminist???…. I think the colatteral damage has been done by homophobia!… A subject with more consequences!!!

  24. IceGiant Says:

    This blog is retarded. Feminism doesn’t label men as oppressors. The system we live in doesn’t give women much options with its limiting mental conditioning. What does that have to do with homosexuality? Homosexual males don’t suffer being called “oppressors.” They suffer being called “FAGGOT.” And it’s usually by OTHER males who are heterosexuals. Cause, as we all know, only “REAL” men are heterosexuals. According to the media (which is catered to white hetero-males) Homosexual males are (somehow) women! And since women are “not much” compared to the chauvinistic male, then gay men are MORE useless cause hetero-males can’t stick them! Wow! Such “lovely logic”!!

    I should write my own blog, since clearly this one is lacking in information, logic and most importantly, common sense.

  25. Karl Says:

    “Straight men and gay men have more things in common when discussing gender issues than do gays and feminist women.”
    This last sentence does not sit well with me. In our society, gay men are not considered “real men.” Homophobia is no more than an extension of fear and hatred of women. In this way, homophobia parallels sexism in numerous ways. If I am not considered a man by the society I live in, what parallels exist between me and a straight man?

  26. Karl Says:

    Continuing . . .
    The bond between gay men and women is immensely powerfull. We serve as allies for one another and this symbiotic relationship has deeply nurtured both civil rights movements. No one is looking for a badge of honor but please do not call us oppressors. Driving a wedge between such an amazingly strong and beautiful relationship is illogical and aprehensable. We already live in a disgusting meritocracy and I personally feel as though ideas like this only embolden our meritocracy’s death grip. I am a feminist because I say I am and I owe explanation and justification to no one. If any one group of people, beside women, understands sexism more closely than gay men please advise me. Again no one is looking for notoriety, but please do not insult us, our bond is far to important.

  27. Pelle Billing Says:

    Karl,

    I hear you. And I’m not trying to sever any kind of bond. I’m simply saying that politically speaking gay and straight men have a lot in common. More than women and gay men do.

  28. Karl Says:

    I simply do not understand your logic. Again, I am not considered a man by our society, so what do I have in common politically or socially for that matter with a straight man? Please explain what you mean in more detail.

  29. Karl Says:

    I

  30. sam Says:

    Wow Karl is right on…..I always wondered why I was a femenist and now I know. As a gay man I know exactly what Karl is stating gay men and females are essential allies. Were being discriminated by the same exact thing. That’s why I believe it’s important for us to stick together.

  31. Wil Says:

    As a gay man I want to be left out of the femiist movement, what state or federal rights are they lacking any way ? LGBTs are lacking 1700 and the most beaten killed and discriminated minority in America and women go through ?

  32. Hassan Says:

    Homophobia against gay men is largely an extension of misogyny,in my opinion.

    The reason gay men are more hated than lesbians,in general,by society is because they are thought to be betraying men by taking on the (supposed) role of inferior beings (women).

    The MRA movement has a significant number of male members who are rabidly against gay rights and even gay visibility.Many want society to go back to the pre-Sexual Revolution type of social set-up wherein there is NO ROOM for LGBT individuals in the picture.

    Feminism teaches me there is nothing wrong with having ‘feminine’ characteristics (such as my attraction to men) regardless of what uber-macho men say simply because being a woman is not (or,at least,SHOULD NOT) be an insult and that I do not need to follow a gender based script imposed on me by society just because I was born with a penis.

    Feminism offers me freedom to be myself and not feel bad about it.

    Please do tell me what the MRA movement offers me better than feminism?
    Mainstream feminism nowadays doesn’t target the gay man-it supports him.

    The common enemy of both feminists and gay rights activists is a class of heterosexual males pumped up on machismo and holding anachronistic definitions of what it means to be ‘male’ or ‘female’.

    The MRA movement,however,seems to have a significant representation of this class within its ranks and is therefor largely useless to gay men (except perhaps those who married women and suffered under the tyranny of biased courts or got unfairly accused of harassment,but such gay men are anomalies).

  33. Pelle Billing Says:

    Hassan,

    Feminism is better for gay men than a traditional society. But gender equality beyond feminism, is even better.

    Feminism includes gay men when it complains about male privilege, and ignores men’s issues. The kind of gender equality I represent means that gay men are completely free to be themselves, while also not having to but up with the feminist view of men.

  34. Jason Walling Says:

    I have to dissent with both Hassan and Pelle Billing on the gay issue.

    Gay men face more abuse than do lesbians not because they are gay but, because they are MEN.
    Men that serve no purpose for women.
    I cite the all too common ad hominens used by feminists in attacking not just MRA’s but any man that disagrees with them. Basement dweller, cannot get laid, boy, GAY, and racist. Those are the insults these men and women hurl instead of countering the point raised by someone with a different opinion.
    What does that tell us of their true feelings regarding homosexual men where being like them is something they consider to be an insult?

    Avoiceformen has a fairly high percentage of gay followers and contributors (B.R. Merrick is an “out” gay author and follower on that site and you will be hard pressed to find anyone insult him and a long list of straight guys, women and gay guys lining up to correct any such fool)

    The only part that I have trouble with from Pelle is, “Feminism is better for gay men than a traditional society.”
    Feminism from my perspective is toxic to all men, all children and in the long-term to all women. The only way this cannot be is if one accepts at face value the claim that feminism has anything at all to do with “equality” rather than what its’ actions show to be its’ true goals.

    P.S. Hassan I guarantee you will be treated fairly at avoiceformen.com, most of the MGTOW sites and would suggest reviewing this article before throwing support behind feminism.
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/912/misandry-feminist-gay-bashing-edited/

  35. Welcome to HomoQueer Thursday ~ 4th October 2012 | feminaust ~ for australian feminism Says:

    [...] Gay men should fight for gender equality through a men’s rights agenda…. quite frankly I think this is bollocks. In my view, feminism as a concept serves men who live outside of the gender binary or traditional gender or sexuality spectrum as much as it serves women… but I guess I understand if this is sometimes a challenging idea to get your head around. Either way, I think this premise needs challenging and expanding upon….. any takers??? [...]

  36. Petre Norman Says:

    At one level, there is an obvious sense in which gay men and feminists should be allies. If the root of societal oppression (predating capitalism, feudalism, whatever) is patriarchy, understood most simply as the domination of women by men, then gay men, in a society where they have or claim a separate identity not assimilable to either gender-class, are pretty much bound to be the object of negative discrimination or worse: we are traitors to patriarchy, deserters from the male army of occupation.

    This is not to say that gay men can expect a “free ride” within feminist debate. Gay or not, there are ways in which ALL MEN, at least in the short term, benefit from women’s oppression; likewise, there are ways in which ALL HETEROSEXUALS, even if they are women, are advantaged by gay oppression. That is precisely what the gender studies people are talking about with the term “intersectionality”.

    If we are to progress in understanding and (hopefully) social change, we need to try to see what the view looks like from other places on the multidimensional “oppression map” (economic class, ethnicity, etc also have to be factored in). “Gut instinct” is important, but not enough: it requires both study (or at least listening) and imagination. As other posters have pointed out, both the feminist and the gay movements have a poor record in this regard, but let us live in hope!

  37. IceGiant Says:

    The thing is, feminism deals with GENDER issues. But the word “FEMINist” is too “feminine” for our hetero-male centered media to register as logical or true.

    The homosexual issue is a GENDER issue.

    Why can’t you be with a man if you’re a man?

    Because they’re the same GENDER.

    So what? What’s gender got to do with it?

    Uhh… (enter Patriarchal verse here about how a male deity created a male human and a female person for him to mate with — strictly)

    What if I don’t believe in that?

    Then you’re an UNBELIEVER AND WILL GO TO HELL! etc

    A more calmer dispute would probably ask you “if men and men get together.. who will be the head of the house if they’re both males??” (vice verse for homosexual females)

    This should clearly explain how limited we perceive the human race (based on our legends and childhood teachings). If two people are having sex.. one of them MUST be female.. even if they’re just ACTING the part. It’s a gender issue. Feminism actually covers this with no bias. (True feminism, not the crazy activists out there who just want to RAGE or troll).

    You should check out Zinnia Jones on YouTube.. Very educated transsexual in regards to gender issues, homosexuality, and secular understanding of gender limitations along with a whole bunch of other interesting or comical things! (Like the explanation of the video Miracles lol)

  38. Jordan Says:

    The notion that homophobia is either partly or entirely rooted in misogyny is an absolute. Heteronormativity is here to seek out the ‘other’. Within the dichotomy of gender(not biological) masculine/feminine- there is always the oppressor. Being the ‘feminine’ or the ‘other’ homosexual men and heterosexual women are onwardly devalorised. Homosexual women however are not a threat to the heterosexual man-partly because they are women, and the fantasy of two women becomes a form of commodity within male heterosexuality. There are mnay texts discussing the invibility of homosexual women. Homosexual men have a lot in common with women. Most homosexual men will exaggerate their sexuality:act camp, effeminate-in ways this is conscious or sometimes unconscious-but a challenge-a political statement to the idea of gender identity, sexuality and sex that is fluid. Most of our language is rooted within phallocentric terms so writing, thinking and even talking about such subjects can be difficult.

  39. Jordan Says:

    I usually end up yammering about gender. I apologize. But there is a connection. But to state that all men are oppressors of women is a ridiculous, ignorant and a scarcely poor argument. It umbrellas all men, whether explicitly feminist , neutral, anti feminist into one field. I believe that any intelligent person is a feminist.

    Gay men are represented to many heterosexual men as like ‘women’. The ‘women’ within semiotics as something less than normal, something devalorised to the valiant valorised male. The ‘other’ The rib from adam.(not religious, just ironic) the ‘other’ will always be oppressed. And thats why women and gay men have A LOT IN POLITICAL COMMON.

  40. Phillip Says:

    I had a recent discussion online with a group of self described feminists. It was on a forum which is supposed to be about our individual experiences with psychopaths and sociopaths. Instead, a couple of people are constantly posting about “the patriarchy” because it appears that they view all men as sociopaths and psychopaths. And I now find it suspect that they have ever truly had an experience with a true psychopath as I have.
    I am a gay male with my own experiences of “unfairness” but the feeling I got was being lumped in with the group that hate which is all men. It was such a draining conversation when I confronted them. I was the second male to have done this. Regrettably I took their side against the first male (a straight male) who came across as a tyrant due to his overreaction. I now see his point.
    In my discussion, I mentioned the fact that most abuse of children comes about through their mothers not through their fathers. Never was their an accountability for even the slightest point I mentioned. Instead what they were looking for was 100% accountability for all men’s foibles. They even quoted Ken Wilber “all men due to testosterone will either kill or fuck… paraphrase.”
    Because I didn’t agree with their arguements, I was according to them in denial. It sounds like to me, they are in denial about being in denial. Also, I feel a person can fight the world while in the process losing their own soul.

    “Anger has nothing on which to stand; it springs from nothing that is stable and lasting, but is a puffed-up, empty thing, as far removed from greatness of soul as foolhardiness is from bravery, arrogance from confidence, sullenness from austerity, or cruelness from sternness. The difference between a lofty and a haughty soul, I say, is great. Anger aims at nothing splendid or beautiful.”

    — Seneca, from On Anger, book I

    After this heated online discussion, one of the girls changed her profile photo to one where she is angelically smiling. It felt narcissistic and like an attempt to hide her real agenda.
    Anyways, what the heck are people with this ideology/agenda doing on a forum about psychopaths?…It is very obvious by the posts that they equate psychopathic with patriarchy and patriarchy with all men. I felt like a truth cannon firing at people only armed with hate. I’m not sure that the psycopaths I encountered are that filled with hatred.

  41. Pelle Billing Says:

    “Anyways, what the heck are people with this ideology/agenda doing on a forum about psychopaths?”

    Perhaps they have some psychopathic traits themselves, and are looking to project those traits on the outside world.

    Or they could just be plain mean, and want to project that trait onto men.


Google