Book Review

Review: The Masculinity Conspiracy

Note: This article is also available in Romanian.

 “What if the biggest conspiracy in human history had gone completely unnoticed? What if that conspiracy was responsible for some of the biggest problems the world faces today? Wouldn’t you want to know? Wouldn’t you…”

So reads the teaser for a booklet by feminist Joseph Gelfer, which claims to have solved the problem of men and masculinity buy uncovering a conspiracy that culturally indoctrinates men to covet “power and domination,” traits that he argues are “neither natural or inevitable.”

Rather than the claimed academic rigor, Gelfer’s treatise is an exercise in intellectual shoddiness. It reads like a collection of book reviews admixed with a synopsis of a 1980’s Women’s Studies 101 course.  As best I can figure the premise of the work, which Gelfer considers one of “research” is that he selected a number of books he considered representative of contemporary masculinity (lets call that the Gelfer bias although others will recognise it as selection bias or choosing straw men), he then “unpacks” and “deconstructs” said works through a “feminist lens,” intertwines his critique with feminist and gender “theory” and hey presto the conspiracy is revealed.

Gefler has a grandiose perception of his own worth. He repeatedly mentions that he has a “PhD” (in religious studies); his doctoral dissertation was “well received” presumably by the like-minded gender ideologues that assessed it. He is an “adjunct research associate” at Monash University (Feminist HQ), Melbourne, in the School of Political and Social Inquiry.  He describes himself as a “visionary” compares the magnitude his theory with the discovery that the earth is not flat, nor is it the centre of the universe.

He combines this appeal to his authority with ad hominem attacks against those he critiques.  For example he delights in pointing out that the author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, John Grey, received his PhD via a “correspondence course from a non accredited institution” and that another writer didn’t have “a PhD or routinely publish with academic journals” presumably of the type Gelfer himself edits “The Journal of Men Masculinities and Spirituality.” One can only wonder why he did not devote that space in his brief work to actually countering their arguments?

Gelfer kicks off by asserting that masculinity is “not what men do”, that “sex is biological and gender is socially constructed.” But one paragraph later states “gender is a spectrum of codes that can be applied to and describe men’s and women’s behaviour.”  It is not explained how “what men do” and “men’s behaviour” are different things. He continues, “Gender is not as obviously connected to sex as you might imagine.” No shit Captain Obvious! You mean men and women can have traits, characteristics, codes (or whatever you choose to call them) more commonly associated with the opposite sex! Who would have guessed?

He continues:


We are generally born either male or female (even if the percentage of people born with ambiguous sexual organs – hermaphrodites, now more accurately referred to as intersex is surprisingly high.)

Stating that the percentage of persons born, with “intersex” is “surprisingly high” is astonishing for a supposed expert in “gender,” when the percentage is neither quantified nor any explanation given as to why its prevalence should be considered “surprising.”

The most common cause of “ambiguous genitalia” in newborns is congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) a condition in which a chromosomal female 46XX is exposed to excessive amounts of androgens (male hormones) in utero and develops masculinisation of the genitalia, this occurs at a rate of approximately 1:15,000 births and the rate for all causes of intersex is no more than 2:10,000. One should consider these rates surprisingly low given the complexity of embryonic sexual development. Furthermore the pathophysiology of these disorders of sexual development (DSD) as they are now termed, is well understood. They are precisely that, disorders of normal development into the binary of either a male or female.

Gelfer seems to be asserting that even where we know that there is a binary distinction between male and female sex in humans, this may not really be the case. This deceitful implication is then used to augment his contention that sexual (or gender) identity occurs as a continuum rather than a dichotomy, and that cultural norms of masculinity and femininity are a toxic conspiracy, rather than appropriate adaptations to the time and place in which they arose.

Sexual (gender) identify should be seen in Gelfer’s view as a fluid concept with infinite possibilities.  He argues that traits should no longer be considered masculine or feminine but as androgynous human ones and language should change to reflect this. The subtext however is that it will be to societies advantage for men to relinquish traditional “harmful” masculine characteristics in favour of the traditionally feminine ones. Relative to the cultural norms of the times there have always been individuals who showed a more than average number of traits usually associated with the opposite sex, diversity really is a wonderful thing.

But celebrating diversity does not mean we should encourage a situation of sexual (gender) identity homogeneity rather than ideals of masculinity and femininity, especially as those ideals evolve and adapt over time.  After all the number of persons who question their sexual (gender) identity is small with estimates between 0.0001% and 3%.  They do indeed deserve to have a discourse around their unique situation but is should not dominate the discourse for the vast majority who are happy to identify as simply man or woman.

Manhood at $700.00 a session.

Manhood at $700.00 a session.

The same approach is applies to sexual orientation; Gelfer would have us believe that this too forms a continuum, rather then the more distinct categories most of us understand. People are either a) opposite sex attracted, that is identify as heterosexual overwhelming the norm and likely in excess of 95% of the Australian population, b) same sex attracted, that is identify as homosexual, or c) some combination of both that is identify as bi-sexual.

Personally I don’t see any benefit in dividing the bisexual group into 50 shades of grey, or trying to have a few from either side question their sexual orientation over something they once felt or did in adolescence or might do if exposed to abnormal circumstances such as a protracted absence of the opposite sex.  Still gender ideologues like Gelfer seem to delight in arguing that the concerns of a few precent of individuals should dominate the discourse for the near total majority.

On the one hand he decries “binary thinking” about sexuality and gender (identity) but on the other quite happily rejects biology in favour of social constructionism (except of course where biology may help his argument.)

In concluding his first chapter Gelfer offers this advice to readers who may not wish to continue reading.

“- never accept being told what masculinity should be about.”

“- always question why you are being told what masculinity should be about.”

Which of course begs the question as to why Gelfer is trying to tell us what masculinity should or should not be about!

Moving right along to Gelfer’s conclusions; It’s really quite simple you see, men are caught up in a “domination myth,” and once men begin to “own” the privilege afforded them by patriarchy and “their part in the systemic privilege that patriarchy confers upon them” they will then realise how they mobilise this to “oppress women (and atypical males).”

Citing Walter Wink the domination myth is also, Gelfer claims, seen in patriarchy, capitalism, classism and racism “power lost to men through submission to a ruling elite was compensated for by power gained over women, children, hired workers, slaves and the land.” Seems he left Feminism, off his list of ism’s based on power and domination but including it would be a little too objective and balanced for an ideologue.

Gefler also has some advice for men’s rights advocates, who he asserts must


acknowledge that patriarchy does exist, to understand the complexity that comes with owning systemic privilege ( the kind that still results in men earning more money than women for the same job) and understanding that this is different to individual privilege”

Yep you got it, blind faith in the gender pay gap being due to privilege and discrimination rather then a more nuanced analysis to be expected of an academic with a PhD! Whilst he acknowledges the oft-repeated meme that patriarchy hurts men too, there is no acknowledgement that the customs and norms described by feminists as patriarchy delivered their fair share of privilege protection and entitlement to women as well.

Having seen the light, Gelfer’s new breed of men can start to change their lives by simply withdrawing their support for the status quo. They can start “thinking differently” in specially created “thinking spaces.”

Yep you got it Joseph, that’s exactly what is happening but not I’m sure in the way you intend. Men are deserting in droves the cultural norms and institutions contaminated by years of toxic feminist ideology and governance.

Witness the grass eaters in Japan, Men Going Their Own Way, the marriage strike, the battle for inclusion of men in the world of home, family and parenting (against family law and social services corruption), the fight for reproductive rights on the same grounds as women, the fight against corrupt DV laws and false accusations or violence and rape, and on and on….

Men across the world Joseph are awakening to the true conspiracy, perpetrated on society by the feminisms, the same conspiracy that has sucked your naïve and gullible intellect so easily into itself and turned you into a prophet of its hateful and unjust ideology.

Gelfer, you really do need a course of red pills (yes the matrix analogy was invoked by AVFM long before you decided to use it in your monograph) Your umbilical lifeline to feminism needs to be cut and tied, you need to take your first gasps of the fresh air of actuality and open your eyes to the real world. And guess what, Joseph? We can help you if you are game.

But I fear Joseph will not be frequenting AVFM to debate issues with such men and women as collect in this space. He would prefer to charge $400 ($700 with personalized coaching sessions) for his online Future Masculinity course instructing other poor deluded souls in the much sort after art of being a male feminist.

About Greg Canning

Greg is father, Family Physician and medical educator located in North Queensland, with interests in mens rights and exposing the corrupt domestic abuse industry. He is also the News Director for AVfM Australia.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Mike Buchanan

    Greg, great critique. 10/10.

    People like Gelfer appal me. Anyone who’s tempted to believe the claptrap spewed out by people like this should be locked in a padded cell and not allowed out until they’ve read and demonstrated they understand the following books:

    Steven Pinker, ‘The Blank Slate’
    Simon Baron-Cohen, ‘The Essential Difference’
    Louann Brizendine, ‘The Female Brain’
    Steve Moxon, ‘The Woman Racket’

    I believe one of the drivers of militant feminism is that people who hold opinions like Gelfer’s themselves have brains which are intermediate between male-typical and female-typical – possibly acounting for the number of lesbians and gay men in this area? I think they’re trying to make men more like women, and women more like men, so as to make the world more comfortable for themselves. What an appalling price gender-typical men and women (the vast majority of people) are paying for this social engineering experiment…

    Mike Buchanan


    • Jay

      Good books there Mike. But if one prefers to watch a video – then check out Brainwash by Harald Eia from Norway. It resulted in many gender ideologues losing government funding:
      Joseph Gelfer = mangina to the max

      • PHX MRA

        Good Link and Video. Appreciate it.

      • JJ

        Joseph Gelfer = mangina to the max

        No, no, no, no way! There are no words to truly reflect the catastrophe this asshole is.

        His delusion is beyond words; a psychotic who drugs and cuts themselves may have more reason than this fool. Maybe PE would refute me based on his professional experience but I would not be surprised if he agrees with me.

        How a man, seeing this detriment to himself, could then go out and preach like its prophet is beyond my comprehension. He is one step, and a pubic hair away from the devil’s testicles. His manhood is My Little Ponies; and a hundred times as fictional.

        He is cancer; and he is the type who goes back into the matrix saying ignorance is bliss. We can’t save them all; he has to go.

  • dhanu

    He’s offering personalized coaching to make manginas! Those who sign up deserve that. Nothing more to say.

    • Jay

      Couldn’t agree more. This man is a mangina in every sense of the word.

  • napocapo69

    He should have spent his time in trying to understand himself instead of loosing time in catching the inner truth of the whole humanity…
    It seems to me that the only one human being catched in the “domination myth” is himself; his sense of frustration for not living up to this self generated ambition, to dominate others, has lead him to project this trait on the whole male sex.
    I urge him to have a closer look at nature and to notice how other mammals behave, he would get some insights on embedded domination features in males of other species, and many things hard to be explained with patriarchy or other myths, will become suddenly simple and clear.

  • SJThomas

    Terrific piece, and as a fellow Australian I appreciate that our neck of the woods is being given consideration here. A somewhat pedantic criticism however; the piece does need a bit of a proofreading.

  • Kukla

    I had a feminist world religions teacher who recommended some book called something like “Masculinity is homophobia”(don’t remember the author). In which those evil masculine straight males oppress homosexuals by defending their masculinity or something. I was under the impression that homophobia was homophobia instead of a natural sex characteristic. I guess I was like, you know, suuuper wrong and junk!

    In my second high school(I transferred for a final two years) they had a ‘Gender studies’ class which I never took because I wasn’t born that stupid. When I was explained what they studied in those courses a bunch of stuff came up including masculinity but no femininity. It’s funny how the big finger is always pointed at masculinity but there’s never any talk of femininity and its negative sides(whatever they may be). Doesn’t surprise me though.

    My feminist teacher would also talk about how classes like Gender Studies should be mandatory(indoctrination for all!). Cause that won’t cause an even bigger divide between people. Another thing that stood out for me in this article is the ‘number of intersex people being high’ bit, my fem-teacher said that about 1 in every 6 people was born intersex. I was shocked but then I remembered that feminists understand science and biology about as much as creationists so I let it go.

    Don’t get me wrong, she was a good teacher, the only problem was the feminist bullshit. I don’t know why they can’t hire sane people who don’t bring their political views to the class.

  • UKMan

    I’ve withdrawn from the status quo into a male ‘thinking space’, and the only thing that crops up in the dark void of my skull is,

    “Does Gelfer screw his students?”

    Metaphorically speaking, and at $700, we all know what the answer to that is.

    Credit where credit is due, his book is currently 2,900,000 in the Amazon sales chart. Take that Schwyzer – this town ain’t big enough for the both of you.

    I’d suggest the $700 is better spent contributing to AVFM, buying a new laptop, beer, or just go into a casino and put it all on red.

  • Legion

    2,900,000 sales? For writing that?

    If I had less scruples I’d be tempted by this self-flagellation racket.

    • UKMan

      No, that’s his sales rank position – lower is better. At position 2,900,000, he’s selling virtually nothing. If he wants to make real money he should set up a DV shelter.

  • Never Blue Again

    “- never accept being told what masculinity should be about.”
    “- always question why you are being told what masculinity should be about.”

    He would prefer to charge $400 ($700 with personalized coaching sessions) for his online Future Masculinity course

    WOW….!! 😯
    It just blew my mind…. !! Thank god not my entire head… !! Putting $700 dollar in smallest possible note in the fireplace would do much better then listening to him.

    He is telling us never to believe anything told about masculinity and then he is charging $400 – $700 dollar by lecturing us about masculinity. Buddy… ?? What do you drink everyday …. ? What kind of drink could make people think like this …. ?? Seriously …. ?

    • Never Blue Again

      Ahh… get it now….. !! 😉

      Masculinity now becoming a thing of business …!! People starting to create business model around it … !! Hopefully few more will follow….!! We need a competition fellas …! Where are others …. ? Get on it now…. otherwise you will left behind …!

      Who Knew “masculinity” is that important and revolutionary thing …!!
      Hay … feminist have a look at this ..!!

      Did you ever saw any business thing around any other human trait … ?? Honesty, Compassion, Empathy … etc. ….. etc. ?? And specially femininity …. ??

      You know …. business always revolve around valuable stuff… not around free stuff like air … :mrgreen:

  • knightrunner

    Wait a second. Aren’t the feminist the ones accusing us of being people who are losers, living in our mothers basement, that can’t get laid? Projection anyone?
    This guy seems to be just another beta male beggar.

    • Mark Trueblood

      Man attains position of power and mastery = Patriarch.

      Man abstains from worldly achievement = Loser.

  • DW

    Not overly surprising he is branching out into another cult using the same recycled vacuous dribble, as his ‘Mayan Apocalypse’ gravy train ground to a halt at the end of 2012.

    “Joseph Gelfer is an expert on spirituality and the Mayan Apocalypse and a researcher with the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University. He is surprised that people are apparently making jokes about the Mayan Apocalypse because he “expected it to be taken seriously right up to the final day”.

    He has developed what he calls the ‘Gelfer Prophecy’. He says people will use the date as a catalyst to make things better, to change their lives.”

    • Suz

      He says people will use the date as a catalyst to make things better, to change their lives.”

      Heh heh. The way things are shaping up around here, there just might be something to his “prophecy.”


    • malcolm

      “He has developed what he calls the ‘Gelfer Prophecy’. He says people will use the date as a catalyst to make things better, to change their lives.”

      His twattery knows no bounds.

      • JinnBottle

        “His twattery knows no bounds.”

        Boy did *that* cheer me up after having the blues over reading this vaguyna’s self-congratulatory misandric piece of shit between 2 covers – once removed tho it was, by the brave Dr Canning. (Thank you, Greg.)

        “twattery” – ROFLMAO

  • Gamerp4

    >He argues that traits should no longer be considered masculine or feminine but as androgynous human ones and language should change to reflect this.

    And the world ENDS. Lolz. Lets change the language like sweden did, Lets get rid of Him and Her, She and He, and let all use IT for every fucking thing.

  • Bev

    Thing is in Australia the fight against heterosexism is now being taken to the schools in sex education classes. Coming from Monash and Latrobe university with the backing of the usual gender feminists and supported by others with the usual anti masculine attitudes.

    Being straight no longer normal, students taught

    The pilot drew on a similar program in Victoria, the “Safe Schools Coalition” to “support sexual diversity” in schools, which holds that gender and sexuality are not fixed but fluid concepts.
    A report in the Australian Daily Telegraph today reveals that a programme teaching that it is wrong to regard heterosexuality as the norm for relationships is being piloted in 12 schools in the Australian state of New South Wales. There’s a similar programme in the state of Victoria. Academics and sexual libertarian groups such as Family Planning have had a heavy hand in them.
    The target of these programmes is not just anti-gay discrimination and bullying but something much more radical — what the theorists of the sexual diversity movement call “heteronormativity”. Training for teachers in the Proud Schools scheme advises them to “focus on the dominance of heterosexism rather than on homophobia”. Watch out for that other h-word.
    The program defines “heterosexism” as the practice of “positioning heterosexuality as the norm for human relationship,” according to the Proud Schools Consultation Report.
    “It involves ignoring, making invisible or discriminating against non-heterosexual people, their relationships and their interests. Heterosexism feeds homophobia.”

  • Suz

    Great review, Greg. Thanks for taking the time to slog through the morass. We owe you a new pair of hip waders.

  • Kimski

    I only have this comment to the drivel written by Joseph Gelfer.

    You have my deepest sympathy for what you had to endure, Mr.Canning.

    • Turbo

      ROFLMAO 😀 :-D, you are wicked mate.

  • keyster

    If the most desirable girls were attracted to feminist boys, don’t you think more men would be feminists, rather than obsessed with “power and domination”?

    Can’t an academician figure this much out?

    • Robert St. Estephe

      No. Academics are now, by and large, conformists. They are hired because they will preach “challenge authority” and “transgression” sermons, all the while serving the will of their masters in the most slavish manner. Our academics are, for the most part, the dogmatic priests of the new orthodox church of dialectical materialism.

      • Mike Buchanan

        Robert, I couldn’t agree more with your ‘conformists’ point. There are numerous academics whose studies we cite in our campaigns. With few exceptions, they haven’t even had the common courtesy to respond to the appreciative emails we’ve sent explaining how important their studies are in our campaigns (Scandinavian academics are a curious exception). You have to wonder, what do they think the damned POINT of their work is, beyond providing them with a livelihood and status? Ivory tower inhabitants, almost all of them. Exceptions, ironically, include feminist ‘academics’ who are very clear that the purpose of their work is to serve a political agenda.

        I’m also sick to death of academics intimating they’re qualified to make authoritative statements outside their narrow fields of expertise. Academics in all fields appear to believe themselves qualified to dismiss the idea of gender-typical natures being the result of gender-typical brains. Sociologists are the worst in this regard.

        Rant over. Time for a large Lagavulin…

        Mike Buchanan



        • Robert St. Estephe

          Most (“progressive”) professors agree. They should have tenure (unaccountable) and that your taxes should pay for them to insult you and spend their energies in helping to implement policies that will strip you of your civil rights.

      • gwallan

        Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.

  • Will of The People

    Thing is, there really is a conspiracy tied up in our cultural views of masculinity. Gelfer and his ilk, though, have it all wrong.

    The actual conspiracy is designed to shame men into obediency, to get us to go along with the brutal reality of being naught but an appliance to be used and thrown away when no longer profitable. The conspiracy is to make us believe that’s what manhood is all about, without ever considering what’s good for us or in our own best interest. What could be more masculine, based on the modern idea of it, than using the precious gift of your own life in service only to others, who care nothing for your own happiness or well being?

    There is a masculinity conspiracy. But it’s people like Gelfer who perpetuate it.

  • Paul Elam

    Thank you, Greg, for bearing the brunt of the stupid in this book so that others do not have to.

    His ideas are kindling, and you put a match to them good and proper.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    It takes a great deal of propaganda and coercion to convince the millions of men who have had the treasures of their heart kidnapped, manipulated, SSRI-drugged, abused and Skinnerian indoctrinated (called “educated”) that they should be quiet and inactive and just wait for their deaths to come instead of waking up and fighting against tyranny. Funny thing is that the guidebook for the fight is hiding in plain sight: the writings of the founding fathers on how to escape the lords and how to protect and preserve liberty once won.

    It is no wonder that men’s rights is vigorously and absolutely censored by the corporate/NGO/gov’t powers that be. Slaves, sharecroppers and indentured servants armed with knowledge and a commitment to liberty is a dangerous thing indeed.

  • Tawil

    I read one of his other books, ‘Numen, Old Men’ – same deal. It was riddled with cherry-picked verifications of his gender-studies propaganda, and void of any broad cultural analyses that would have painted a different picture…. as Greg Canning has so masterfully pointed out in the review of his newest book.

    I know a bit about this guy. He’s one of a tiny percentage of people regurgitating feminist stereotyping about males who actually doesn’t appear to be an instinctual man hater. He has just swallowed uncritically much that he has been taught in gender studies classes, and not bothered to look outside that square. Greg hit the nail square on the head with this conclusion, “…the same conspiracy that has sucked your naïve and gullible intellect so easily into itself and turned you into a prophet of its hateful and unjust ideology.”

    Naïve and gullible indeed.

    And that consultation service, how very, very embarrassing – for him. In future years I can imagine him looking back at his consultation service and cringing with embarrassment at his ignonce.

    Quite simply he sees himself as a freind of men, out to help them with this patently misandric theory of male experience. My advice to him is this: Joseph, take a year out from feminist discourse to read everything on AVfM and then reassess the accuracy of what you have previously assumed. Some of us have read your books, now you might consider returning that gesture by reading this website.

    • gwallan

      In hindsight I recognise that I wasn’t an adult until my mid twenties. It is only from that time that I could be described as a real man.

      I have no idea of Joseph Gelfer’s age but he has yet to reach that point. He has no understanding of what constitutes a real man because he has not yet achieved it.

    • Greg Canning

      Yes Gelfer states that “this book is not anti-man, it is anti a certain way of defining masculinity.” He also rejects adjectives used in association with masculinity such as “Real” “Authentic” “Biblical” etc – and I agree with him on that point.

      Regrettably he then introduces his own adjective “Futrue” Masculinity and procedes to define it straight out of the feminist discipline of “masculinities” ( the discipline of critiquing maleness through as feminist lens which is inherently anti – male.)

      Feminist hypocrisy simply knows no bounds.

  • JinnBottle

    “Witness the grass eaters in Japan, Men Going Their Own Way, the marriage strike, the battle for inclusion of men in the world of home, family and parenting (against family law and social services corruption), the fight for reproductive rights on the same grounds as women, the fight against corrupt DV laws and false accusations or violence and rape, and on and on….”

    Love all of em…with the exception of the “grass eaters”, about whom I am concerned. I fear the Grass Eaters, and those occidentals who get inspired by them, will end up like the hippies who stayed on the communes – the rural poor. Wiser, I would think, for a young man to train himself in *the fields men are good – and conspicuously better than women – at*, e.g. computer technology, chemistry, etc; or – if you’re more or less committed to the bluecollar – getting jobs that take muscle, or overcoming vertigo, with a view to operating a crane at $75/hr.

    I realize that those young men who are not naturally attracted to these fields would have to bite a bullet, but – believe me! – life far more often than not turns out so that you don’t much love what you do to make money, but the money makes doing what you truly love on a beta plan, *much* more available, richer, and appreciated.

  • Keith

    acknowledge that patronizing adjuncts do exist, to understand the complexity that comes with owning this systemic privilege ( the kind that still results in elitist research assistants earning more than what they are worth) and understand that this is different to individual privilege.

    I think its time to talk about the elitist pay gap and the parasitic nature of their tenure.

  • Howard Gordan

    Just paid my $700 so I can finally learn how to be a good little boy and make Emma Kadey stop thinking of me as scum. Once reformed, maybe I’ll get lucky too. Oops, oh dear, I do really need that course.

  • Turbo

    $700 per hour to teach men how to be the kind of man no woman would be caught dead with.
    Please tell me he is going broke on that venture.

    Thanks for the review Greg, thanks for sparring us the trouble. I honestly don’t know how you lasted through it all.

  • MGTOW-man

    There is no patriarchy. What the feminists are describing is the natural truth and commonsense order of things that didn’t just happen to be biased in favor of women.

    I call the “patriarchy” THEORY a metaphor for feminist hatred of the truth. —something they can cling to so that they can reorganize everything to revolve around them.

    It is simple really. Long before different groups of people learned that there were different groups of people living in various areas of the earth, each and every one of them voluntarily and necessarily had males in control (independent “testing” with great success)…and for obvious reasons, because it would be very hard for women to run everything whilst young clung to their teets.

    Having men in charge was beneficial to everyone, including men and women. However, some ungrateful women (and traitorous males) fail to recognize things such as the commonsense deeply engrained in the fact that civilizations would have failed to thrive properly if women went out and died in wars, plowed the fields, blacksmithed, indulged in politics and public forum, and the vast majority of other examples, while men stayed home pampering children. We simply would not be here if things were reversed.

    Not everything about yesteryear can be conveniently pigeonholed into one thing such as what some may think I am suggesting, but the point remains true for most people, about most things, most of the time.

    This is not a conspiracy. It is commonsense.

    Now, we have feminists and other oblivious people, coming up with elaborate elitist opinions and theories, saying that the commonsense we once clung to is the source of all oppression of all women everywhere.

    They will get by with this as long as men let them.

    Thank you for your excellent and scholarly article that exposes the real truth that I will always say is the number one enemy of feminists. That is why they are so driven against it.

    The truth!!! They hate it, mock it, redefine it, and demonize it. Their efforts are so incredibly transparent. But our task is not to only recognize this but to motivate males to say something about it so that we can stop the tyrannical plethora of lies called feminism that has hijacked commonsense survival techniques.

    No, for sure, not everything in yesteryear was perfect, but it sure was a whole lot better than the mayhem filled with synthetic replacement scheming that we call “progress” now.

    The truth is not hatred, but the truth sure is hated!