interesting article, interesting site

[Jocaflo]

Please check this out

http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/...en-vs-i-am-gay

English is not my first language, so I may not understand everything on here, but I sense this site is worth investigating... Most of the articles are intringuing and challenging, to say the least.

I think I could say - after reading one of the pieces - that I like men (and muscled men in particular) rather than I am gay.

[Proteus]

I don't think the author recognizes that there is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. And the way he(?) talks about "anti-man" forces in multiple articles suggests some sort of us-vs-them worldview (and probably misogyny).

[raven79]

Talk about being naive. The third gender would be transgender, not effeminate like the author suggests. There are different types of gay men, masculine and feminine, but they are not a separate gender.

I also get the feeling that the author is quite conservative and tries to justify why the US, or the West as he says, should not be in a civil rights revolution right now.

[Jocaflo]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I don't think the author recognizes that there is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. And the way he(?) talks about "anti-man" forces in multiple articles suggests some sort of us-vs-them worldview (and probably misogyny).

Hi, could you please highlight the passages that make you think the author could be a misogynist?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Jocaflo

Hi, could you please highlight the passages that make you think the author could be a misogynist?

It's not a specific passage so much as the general idea that men are somehow under attack.

[ydt81]

Originally Posted by Jocaflo

Please check this out

http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/...en-vs-i-am-gay

English is not my first language, so I may not understand everything on here, but I sense this site is worth investigating... Most of the articles are intringuing and challenging, to say the least.

I think I could say - after reading one of the pieces - that I like men (and muscled men in particular) rather than I am gay.

For the record, there are many MANY men on this forum who identify as straight but who are aroused by strong men/male muscles. This isn't known to many people outside this community, but here it's sort of old news.
I think you should check out the the sticky thread called "Is it just me?"

Now for the article- I agree on his small point that the true stigma with homoesexuality is on the so-called third-gender, "effeminate men". Its why I stopped feeling passionate about the marriage equality issue years ago. Though I'm glad the law has given people their rights, years from now when same-sex marriage becomes less shocking to most people, I believe feminine men will still be ostracized. Even today, amongst gay men its somewhat looked down upon I be detectably gay.

That said, the author needs to experience a bit more of the world as he seems to have grappled only with people who've never thought deeply about this issue. His assumptions about what/why people stigmatize gays are really out of touch with reality. 'Anti-man' forces creating gay stigma?? No, I think certain men did that all on their own many generations ago. I understand his argument and agree with him about the ironic trappings of sexual orientation. But (no offense) he doesn't fully know what he's talking about.

Personally, I think a man is gay if he is consistently attracted both sexually AND romantically to men regardless of gender. If this guy is talking about anything beyond platonic attraction between men (which i agree is somewhat stigmatized) he needs to read a book. A big, fat, gay one.

Following his argument to its logical end, all masculine men, in lifelong partnerships with each other have somehow been tricked into thinking they need to love each other. Its possible, but, also crazy enough to put him in the extreme rightwing. Sigh.
Men's Rights Activism--a noble cause but they're fighting for such a *specific type of person that it'll never work.

[ydt81]

After reading a couple more of his articles, I have to correct myself and say that he's not quite a 'men's rights activist.' His articles, though quite controversial gh e a dry different perspective on hetero. vs. homosexual.

Here's two other articles that proved to be more compelling.
I must WARN they're very blunt and you should have a solid sense of yourself before reading them. He says what he says without sources (and he more or less implies -repeatedly--that (effeminate) 'gays' are failed men). BUT read it anyway--it's not quite as homophobic as it seems... I can't say I agree with it all but it's food for thought

http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/...fic-basis?lite

http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/...al-part-1?lite

[Jocaflo]

Originally Posted by Proteus

It's not a specific passage so much as the general idea that men are somehow under attack.

Ok, but I am not sure this would qualify as misogyny. If I understand what the author is saying, it is theories about men's sexuality rather than women attacking men...

By the way, the author's punctuation is very poor.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Jocaflo

Ok, but I am not sure this would qualify as misogyny. If I understand what the author is saying, it is theories about men's sexuality rather than women attacking men...

By the way, the author's punctuation is very poor.

Maybe he's not misogynous, then, and I'm wrong. But who are these "anti-man" forces, then?