Specifically, that source is my response to you, lol, which is at the top of the homepage right now: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com .

Beyond the theoretical issues, however, I’d also like to stress the complicated nature of what we’re dealing with here, which third-wave feminism, queer theory, and more lately, queer of color analysis, has brought to light. Most oppressed subjects have more ambivalent and complicated relationships with systems of power than your model allows for. For instance, while I am politically against white heteronormative capitalist patriarchy, in the sheets I like to get smacked around and forced to submit by hot white heteronormative capitalist patiarchs–indeed, I have internalized structures of power to the point where my desires have become interpellated in the hierarchy with my oppressors. Rather than viewing my own desires as a “not subversive” withdrawing that I need to fix, feminists, queer theorists, and others have argued that social change can be effected through transforming oppressive discourse from WITHIN the system. Rather than unrealistically pretending I am OUTSIDE the system of oppression (i.e., with my understanding of systems of oppression, I am now “OVER” this and ready to fight and counteridentify with, for instance, heteropatriarchy), most subjects are fully interpellated within the system. For instance, many women and gay men, for instance, may completely love being forced to submit in varied ways to empowered heteronormative men… I certainly enjoy it. This is not to speak to some monolithic entity of minoritized subjects, but there are a great many of them who display this interpellation. Despite being disempowered by a power hierarchy, having my interpellated little space in it (in the clearest and most concrete, condensed, example, e.g., having a white straight male aggressively make me give him head, for instance) brings about power in it of itself, as it is a space (relative to a non-space) within a system of power. Though I am oppressed, minoritized subjects find ambivalent and contradictory relationships with the structures that tyrannize them. This precludes strategies to overthrow these systems of oppression by reductive counteridentifactory tactics, that you suggest. Instead, recently, many have argued that in order to transform such tyrannical discourses, such minoritized subjects take on “disidentificatory” tactics which decode high and mass cultural fields (typically oppressive ones) from the stance of a disempowered space *within* those very fields.. this is typically brought to light in performative politics through recycling and transfiguring raw material from these fields in novel and unpredictable ways, resulting in realistic subversion of powerful systems of regulation like gender.

Sorry, I have been kind of spewing. Last quick point is that by making a “men’s movement” to address “men’s” complicitness in patriarchy, you are forcing people who do not identify with a gender, e.g., some transgenderists in particular, the ability to join a group. To sum up my issues: 1) you brutalize feminism as some homogeneous “women’s movement” that has effectively failed to overthrow patriarchy—go read a book or take a course or something..jesus!, 2) “manism” stabilizes regimes of oppression by assenting to gender’s constitution of “males” and “females,” and essentializes these categories as truth-telling unproblematic identities—this is an issue, as has been throughly discussed for at least 3 decades now, 3) your project is tunnel-visioned, focusing too much on reducing social inequities rather than looking at social structures—this perspective would make you realize that we are ALL under the same tyrannical discourses of gender and thus we stand to benefit from working together in solidarity to overthrow this powerful regime, not work in a debilitating separatist and identitarian politics that calls for “men’s” groups for “men’s takes” and “women’s” groups for “women’s takes”—these categories have no coherence without oppressive discourse, and most feminists have realized this for, again, decades now…thus, feminism does not need a counterpart–that makes no sense whatsoever.. feminism is not about women, it is, in its various forms, typically about gender, among so many other things… and 4) you negate the complicated relationships between minoritized subjects and the structures that tyrannize them—for more on this, look to Jose Munoz’s Disidentifications, for instance… this renders such a reductive model you employ as blatantly unhelpful…

And, lastly, if you are going to be talking about gender, where the hell is your citation to sexuality? Given that the regulation of sexuality is complicit in the regulation of gender, as almost any feminist or queer theorist could tell you, I was apalled to see sexuality go unmentioned in your call to arms for MEN… it exhudes the smell of heteropatriarchy to me… by “MEN,” you are calling for a bunch of straight men who paternalistically want to “help” women “out of” their disenfranchised minority subject space, highlighting “men’s” own empowered status, probably to make yourselves feel good by abiding to (uncritical) mainstream liberal democratic egaliatarian “progressive” rhetoric.

I suggest you take a heavy dive into developments of feminisms (in particular, radical second-wave, and third-wave), gender studies, queer theory, and much much more… but, in its state right now, I find “manism” to not only be an unhelpful attempt at presumably overthrowing patriarchy, but also going in the opposite direction and re-stabilizing tyrannical discourses, under the guise of mainstream democratic rhetoric that wants to surface-level “reduce” social inequities… note that my critique has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that majoritarian subjects like yourselves want to “help out” in the fights—i completely welcome that… this has to do with your model… hope that helps.
Jon

A few people have talked to me about how implicit in my argument are certain sexist assumptions, namely, that men somehow need their own movement in order to understand/appreciate the goals of feminism.

I don’t think they do. I mean, I certainly don’t. I’m a proud male feminist, but I do know that as a male feminist, it’s very hard to reach men. As an activist on a college campus, I find it extremely difficult to reach men, and the many women I talk to who are also involved in activist work also find it very difficult. My goal here is not to create a movement for men that has separate goals from the feminist movement, but to somehow create a movement that does reach men.

Another critique I’ve been told, verbally, is that the name “manism” is sexist in and of itself. I’ll own up to that. I really don’t know what to call a male movement that is the counterpart to feminism (in terms of expressing the same philosophy repackaged differently to reach their respective audiences more effectively). Masculinism doesn’t really roll off the tongue. I’m certainly open to any suggestions as to what to call it. I think it’s important that it does have a name, just at a very practical level so that adherents to a movement can describe their movement in a word, and have some sort of ownership over the ideas, as well as find information about it.