I have seen a few cases of what I call "False Shepherds" when it comes to providing men guidance in how to be a good man. A couple of examples I have seen recently are thegoodmenproject.com and fatherly.com, cites that claim to be there for men but have an not so subtle feminist leaning. They claim that following the principles of feminism is the best way to be a good man. But feminism does not have men's best interests at heart, so taking their advice would only lead you astray from achieving a fully positive experience as a man. It especially fails men in the regards to being attractive to other women. While that should not be a goal solely focused on by men, I would argue that it should not be ignored completely, as there are many men who desire sexual intimacy with women. When it comes to giving men guidance, it is not in any man's interest to follow the lead of one that would lead them to a genetic dead end, which is why find these sources to be false shepherds for men looking for answers in all facets of being a man.
I had the same exact feeling with a new site that was made known to many recently. With the quarantining of a select number of subreddits, you may be aware of the following site:
https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/csmm/index.php
This site in particular was chosen as an example of "positive masculinity" to counter the "negative masculinity" or "toxic masculinity" of the subreddits that are deemed hateful towards women. Yet, one look at the page would not give you the impression that this is supposed to be good and helpful to men who are looking for an example of positive masculinity. Rather, it delivers a warped and narrow view on what they want to define as positive masculinity, where forms of masculinity outside of their limited view is seen as unacceptable forms of masculinity.
For example, here is one of the links currently on the home page:
Guys Who Get It: The Men of the Women’s Movement including Michael Kimmel - one of the Male Champions of Change
So if you are a part of the women's movement, you are one of the men who "get it," since you are on board with feminism. Apparently, that is an example of positive masculinity. Being a feminist. And you will see Michael Kimmel's name pop up many times, as he appears to be this cites champion of their ideas. I would go as far as saying that him individually would be a prime example of a false shepherd.
Another example demonstrates their political leanings, which imply that anything right-leaning is toxic masculinity:
Conservatives find out that women are studying toxic masculinity, meltdowns ensue
The linked article itself seems to think that opposing an idea is what equates to a meltdown. Also, any use of the term "toxic masculinity" should immediately set off warning lights for someone who does not have men's best interests in mind.
I would advise all men to be cautious of these false shepherds, as they are not acting in your best interests. They are acting in the interests of feminists, who do not have men's best interests at heart. They may not outright state to have contempt for masculinity, but they certainly claim that their way is the only proper way to express masculinity in a positive way.
P.S.
Based on one of my earlier comments from a fatherly.com article, I used the term "false shepherd" to describe this source. While I understand a comment in reponse discussing the idea of "controlled opposition" being a proper label, I would have to disagree. When seeing these false shepherds, they do not give off the vibe that they are on my side and going against the opposition, as they are in lock step with the feminists. So while they certainly are controlled by the actual feminist opposition, they do not even claim to have opposition in the first place.
Rick_OShay1 5y ago
So we must join them? Or did you mean to type, "a part"?
houseoftolstoy Mod 5y ago
I meant "a part," but I must have typed it wrong. This will be corrected.
Rick_OShay1 5y ago
Indeed; given they mean opposite things. :)
Rick_OShay1 5y ago
I remember that one Star Trek-like episode of Black Mirror, and how The Mary Sue turned that episode into a "grand example of toxic masculinity". The article made me want to puke.
Charles_The_Grate 5y ago
Thegoodmenproject is still around? Imagine that. I wonder how many out of all of us men they have successfully stopped from raping so far...
nitramy 5y ago
More like "Thegoonybeardmenproject", if you ask me...
[deleted] 5y ago
They are talking social conservative. Not political conservatives. I’m left AF, but socially conservative. We exist. Don’t smear the political left. RP isn’t a moment to score a win for a political tribe.
SirKolbath 5y ago
It is virtually impossible to be a leftist, believing the government should take care of you, and reconcile that with the regimen of personal improvement that The Red Pill demands. Of course, the left is famous for its cognitive dissonance, so...
[deleted] 5y ago
Only a cucked liberal would claim to have been smeared in this way.
houseoftolstoy Mod 5y ago
I looked over my post again, and I am wondering where I "smeared" the political left. I will say that I am very much on the right side with my political leanings, so maybe it bleed through in context. But as far as I am aware, I mainly railed against feminism. I don't see how that would smear your socially conservative and politically left viewpoints.
Many who are supposedly on the right side of the aisle in politics (specifically Republican politicians) also fail to serve the interests of men, as alimony and divorce laws have not been curtailed by many of those politicians. In fact, they are often complicit in keeping those laws. I argue that it does not help their supposed cause of social conservativism since those laws provide an incentive for a woman to divorce a man (which if you are for family values, you should be against incentivizing bad actions). Another debate altogether is the supposed conservatism of Republicans who hold office (fiscal, social), but that's not something I will get into at this time.
I do not know how well being politically left goes well with social conservativism, as I see some points where they would clash. For example, much policy on the left supports a major government prescense when it comes to issues in people's lives. I see this prescense as an overreach, as I do not see the government as a very effective means to tackle issues in people's lives. Rather, I see self determinism as a better means to solve problems. Even if well meaning, the government spending tax dollars often results in enabling people to not solve problems on their own.
The War on Poverty, for example, started in the 60s in the US, and has not helped poverty rates at all. Thanks to those types of policies, we have seen fatherless homes rise greatly. This to me does not mix well with social conservativism, as to my knowledge, social conservatives are not for broken homes.
Maybe not you, but many on the left believe that the government should take the role of the family unit, and some even seek to destroy the family unit itself. Perhaps I would need clarification for what views you have. I will say that my railings on the "false shepherds" were that they had a very narrow view of what was considered an acceptable form of masculinity. I do not see feminism having any place dictating what masculinity should be, as I hold it responsible for pushing for policies that weaken the family. Feminists (speaking about the ones who actually influence policy and hold some sort of sway and power) do not act in the best interests of men. I don't know what you think of feminists, but I do not think highly of them.
[deleted] 5y ago
It wasn’t you per se, but the article that attacked the left. I wasn’t sure how much of the article you agreed with personally but thanks for your thorough response.
As for being politically left and socially conservative, there isn’t much conflict. Socially conservative has little to do with the presence or size of government, but more to do with its function. Four example, I believe our current taxation system is fucked up. The wealthy pay too little and the poor pay too much. Looking historically, the sorts of defunding of social programs pairs with the baby boomers no longer needing them. They were demonized by The politically right baby boomers after they had ripped the benefit themselves in the 60s.
The Laffer curve is correct, however the political right has convinced people that we are on the wrong side of the curve. Lower taxes have not brought in more revenue. This was painfully obvious from left “the Kansas experiment” where they instituted aggressive conservative fiscal policies and went bankrupt.
The only left policies that are garbage were justified on social grounds. No-fault divorce as an example is trash. Personally, I would like to see greater welfare. As someone who takes entrepreneurial risks I have been forced to take lesser risks because there is not a safety net for me to try and innovate and potential he fell or have a long break even point.
If my business can’t break even within six months I won’t do it. The only other option, is for me to sell part of my business to a rich person. Which is trash. The wealthy once again are collecting rent based off of conservative tax policy. I don’t need a rich person’s help, but I need their money to lower my risk.
We have seen unprecedented slowing of entrepreneurial activities amongst the millennial generation and I believe that the defunding of safety nets is directly responsible. If you want to see more American innovators and entrepreneurs, then supporting conservative fiscal policy is irresponsible.
kevin32 Mod 5y ago
u/houseoftolstoy, feel free to crosspost this to r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen if you'd like. Use the Crosspost option instead of directly linking to the post. If the post gets auto-removed, we'll approve it.
cc: u/where_muh_good_mens, text posts are temporarily enabled on the parent sub.
Edit: The parent sub is back to link posts only. OP, PM the mods if you want to crosspost your essay.