Kimmel & Bits, Kimmel & Bits

I was cruisin my etheric consciousness recently to see what’s new in the world of men, my world. I like to see if there is any new logic orbs added to the survival satchel, or possibly new dangers crossing the frontier of the post hypnotic victim gulag. It’s always good to keep up to date on charges pending against your existence.  My last run in with the gender police, one of the orifice-hers came undone and they cuffed me for resisting a breast.

Once they charge you it’s open season to search the rest of your cardboard box for evidence.  I knew I was screwed. Sure enough, they found it. This was not good …….a copy of architectural digest.  State policy did not sanction the viewing of material that objectified shape and form. I tried to explain that the open spaces gave me a sense of freedom.

Freedom is it! You fucking pervert!

Well you can tell that to the drudge. We’re charging you with linear arousal, but if you want to stick to that freedom story we can up the charge to sedition.  That should get you a nice little term down on the hygiene retraining farm. That’s right, you’ll be rolling tampons for the sisterhood.  You know what they like to do with architectural perverts like you on the farm don’t ya? That’s right, you get to test the tampons.

Seriously, I was reading an article at Misandry Review offering more insight on the plight of masculinity from the big penis guru, Michelle Kimmel. For those wondering, yes I thought I would give him a head start on his own personal sex change. Hopefully he won’t gag on it. This is “the” guy struggling for so many years to release men from the bonds of masculinity and introduce them to a new way of self-actualising called fetish feminism. Let it not be said that there is a lack of selection in his product offering. My last count rendered 27 different flavours, made from all natural, 100% pure home grown feminists. Thaaats rite! Not all women are like that, and you can be too!!

Sorry only one sex change per customer, children not included, 100% restocking fee on all returned penises- give yours today!

Sorry, no really I’m sorry but mostly because I’m a man. You see every time I read this guy’s stuff I feel like I’m in the middle of some tacky game show with some obnoxious host and all the prizes are upholstered in paisley except for the penis shaped rape whistles. I think at some time in the not too distant future Mr. Kimmel’s book “Guyland” will make a great comic book or cartoon series, not unlike The Jettson’s vs Predator.

While I may be venting somewhat, a much more cogent review by Peter Allemano of the book can be seen here and I highly recommend it.

What Kimmel fails to grasp in his concepts is that men’s “idea of masculinity” has been socially criminalized and legislated as such. It is a street level experience that is less political and much more personal. Men no longer possess a concept of themselves that would offer a safe place to start or belong in the social equation. Men in fact are found guilty before a crime is ever committed. That guilt is assigned to masculinity only in the proximity of women, only in a social construct that includes women. It is less about a zero sum game than a negative sum prosecution for being a man. While many men may support doctrines such as Kimmel’s and support a feminist cause, they are only one finger point away from the truth. The role they play in their own lives is leased to them by women and requires no notice, evidence or reason under the law to terminate that agreement.

It would be equally true to identify that the “idea of femininity” has not changed in the female mind. Where it may have served the female cause for equality to rail for shared custody of children, they are steadfast in denying it, arguing their cause by criminalizing fathers. Such a paradigm as fathering may well represent a strong role model for change in male consciousness it is however not supported by women or their lick spittle legislators. This is the societal privilege for which Mr. Kimmel speaks that ultimately renders men invisible, particularly to their children. It is increasingly the case that young men are simply opting out of the social collaboration with women in an effort to hedge risk. It is specifically the area of risk in which maleness and masculinity reside and in this area where equality is silent. It is against issues such as these that evidence the real strides made are in fact not by women but by ministries of government, their funding and your tax dollars.

It is within these ministries that government is defining masculinity with legislation and law. It is there that the term male is changed to rapist, husband to primary aggressor and father into deadbeat. Against these identities awaiting our young men, an issue such as equality becomes a bad joke to further mock them. This is no longer about laundry hampers, walks in the park and who shovels snow, it’s about managing risk for a future. Although a future without a partner or children may not be ideal for most men it is still a future. Matrimony today for a young man is about marrying a police state that will evict you from your life with a point of the finger and chase you to your grave relentlessly. It is feminism by proxy and the egalitarian answer to a surreal ideological equality, another great stride by women.

To say “men define themselves in relation to women, so therefore masculinity can only be characterized as non-femininity” as Mr. Kimmel does, is to ignore a societal precondition of purpose. IT IS THE SOCIAL MESSAGE. It would better serve the integrity of intellectual honesty to state that “men are defined in relation to women”.  Let’s face the obvious, if the latter wasn’t true, you, Michelle, would have no market to sell your candy store consciousness. The majority of men still able to differentiate between the primordial echo of their hormones and the prosthetic attachment of their genitals have heard this spiel in “men’s studies” programs for years. The ultimate value of your message is evidenced by well, who’s buying it and the tenure of that discipline. Young and old men alike are currently reviewing the significance of their “essence” based on experiences endured. Many are unimpressed and many more are pissed.

Mr. Kimmel seems to be living squarely in the past and rehashing the ideals of gender roles better understood in 1975 or 80. In an age where men are prosecuted first in the media and then in courtrooms on nothing more than accusation, sex and marriage, without recording devices are better defined as pure risk. Because of the lack of birth control options for men, there is clearly no such thing as safe sex for any man. Risk in engaging in sex can be calculated against accusations of rape, STD’s, false paternity, child support accompanied by estrangement from children, jail, a criminal record, economic marginalization and servitude, alimony and social isolation. That’s if you used a condom.

Kimmel goes on to describe women’s advances in sexual agency to result in discord for “the last tenant of masculinity”. I can’t help but think he meant “tenancy” as I am ushered out the door of my home in handcuffs and served a restraining order. If we hold this to be true, the shape of intimacy may change into a ghost of recollection. We are functioning in a consumer society on the brink of economic implosion men are relegated to the status of rapist, murderer, deadbeat and criminal. The value of a woman’s sexual agency may well exceed the male economy’s ability to barter an exchange. Many men have read the legislation on the wall and choose to invest in longer dividends and a more stable portfolio than can be found in junk relationship futures.

However a woman can achieve her bodily integrity and comfort by simply accepting the polygamous wedding to big government. We have handily achieved the destruction of marriage, family and any purpose that it may have served. The final bait and switch tactic Mr. Kimmel is serving is the notion that “men can have the type of relationships they desire with women and with their families”. Since men are stripped of such equalities as parenting and fatherhood, it should be understood that as progenitor sperm donor, the “families” he refers to are not yours they are hers. The message is clear in that all things being equal, you are as replaceable to her children as you are to her.

All of us, men, women and particularly children have been reduced to a statistical inventory of tax fodder to feed a gluttonous layer of tenured bureaucratic entitlement and corporate corruption. It would do well for young men to recognise that within the script of marriage, your partner is much more likely to be a financial predator. Although she may have “settled” for the likes of you that compromise can be corrected no questions asked. While many may see this as a harsh definition and prompt me to recognise that not all women are like that, I can only say all women are like that. The law says so.

About J Galt

John is a father, writer, social commentator and mentor to young men. He is a regular contributor to A Voice for men focusing mainly on gender politics and pervasive social illusions.

View All Posts
  • Richard

    Dang. Normally, I do not stop by here – but this article caught my eye – and – awesome.

    It had me rolling for a while – I gotta remember those phrases:

    police orifice-hers.
    resisting abreast.

  • TDOM

    “To say “men define themselves in relation to women, so therefore masculinity can only be characterized as non-femininity” as Mr. Kimmel does, is to ignore a societal precondition of purpose. IT IS THE SOCIAL MESSAGE. It would better serve the integrity of intellectual honesty to state that “men are defined in relation to women”.”

    In a nutshell, this is the problem with Kimmel and feminism and the reason why men cannot be studied froma feminist perspective. Masculinity should be able to be defined independent of women. It should stand on its own. Kimmel and feminists relagate men to second class status by defining men in relation to women. Masculinity is much more than the non-feminine.

    Very funny article, btw.


  • David M. Green

    I and I alone define myself and what masculinity means to me and as far as I’m concerned anyone be they male or female who has a problem with that can go to hell in a hand basket for all I care…

  • Paul Elam

    Amen, Mr. Green.

  • keith

    Totally agree, but for many it’s an unwarranted price to pay for an individual to struggle within what is described as a lepers colony wet with testosterone, while the dry lepers are supplied lubricants.

  • Paul Elam

    @ Keith,

    That would accurately portray our struggle, IMO. In the end, ALL of this is about the hazards of finding our masculinity outside the dictates of the world around us.

    Recently I got a PM on facebook from one of my readers, a right minded woman who posed some questions, all roughly boiling down to what will all this look like when and if the MRM is successful?

    The question actually boils down to “What will manhood be like.”

    She posed the question with support and respect. Answering her is turning into a complicated and hard to write article. It is tough because I am, by default, averse to defining masculinity for anyone but myself. Still, I am going to give it a stab because I think it is an important subject.

    And because leaving this stuff to the likes of Kimmel, et al, is unthinkable.

    Please be gentle when I am done. :)

  • Snark

    “Answering her is turning into a complicated and hard to write article”

    Paul, I would be careful of answering this claim AT ALL.

    To put it in Fidelbogian terms, by addressing the question at all, you are offering up the most enormous of all ‘grappling points’!

    Even entertaining the question shifts the discourse to that in which we defend our vision of ‘what is to come’ – when the discourse SHOULD put feminists on the back foot to defend what they have done.

    In other words, it’s not on US to justify any particular ‘alternative’ to feminism – or even to assert that there needs BE an ‘alternative’!

    We could, simply, do without feminism.

    And that could be all we say on the matter.

    It’s all we NEED to say! It’s up to the peddlers of hatred of abuse to try to justify their righteousness. Nobody would say, for instance, that we must come up with a detailed plan for what will ‘replace’ child abuse.

    We can simply assert that we can do without child abuse altogether, and the world shall be improved for a number of people.

    Given that feminism is, morally speaking, in the same ball park, I SEE NO REASON TO CONSIDER THE STATUS QUO AS A REASONABLE OPTION AMONG ALTERNATIVES. Does this make sense?

    I do not doubt that the question was asked in good faith.

    BUT, it is a question which has also been asked by others in bad faith, with the intention of placing anti-feminists on the defensive. To put it another way, the RESPONSIBILITY for all the abuses feminism has wrought should be on the feminists: we needn’t take responsibility for clearing up their mess, so to speak.

    So, I think the best response to such a question – what will all this look like? is not to answer it in any detailed way at all.

    And I am sure you have realised why this is – the problem with any utopian vision is that it relies on the consent of a large population, which cannot be assured. Hence utopias fail or the utopians resort to violence. And hence your corollary that manhood can only be defined by you, for you. But if this is the case, then we have only the roughest sketches of what everybody else might decide – and maybe not even that!

    Feminism is all about using force to get people to do things they don’t want to do.

    In the absence of this, who can say what the world (at least, relations between the sexes) would look like?

    Leaving such questions to Kimmel and his ilk might even be our best bet, because experience of the real world shows them up as the harlequinns that they are. Nothing they say reflects reality, and this is well recognised. More to the point, the onus is on them when promises FAIL. I say we let them jabber away as they will, only to be laughed off the stage!

    I have a notebook that I scribble down things which come to mind. Here’s a recent extract:

    “They want to silence us, because with our words, we will hang them.
    We want them to keep talking, because with their words they will hang themselves.”

    I say we give Kimmel et al enough rope! And perhaps their names will someday enter the historical hall of shame alongside Andrea Dworkin etc.

    Of course, what you propose to do could be an interesting thought experiment. In fact, with you writing it, I expect it to be engaging and INSPIRING – since it’s by and large ground untrodden by the MRM. This site in particular has been pushing the envelope of late, after all.

  • David M. Green

    The following poem was written a little over fourteen years ago upon my return home and the result of an argument I had with my wife in the car that began as we were leaving Cumberland Mall just outside of Atlanta Ga. Since then I have successfully fought my wife to a standstill so that she no longer tries to control me like she used too and as a result we are much happier and very much still married. Indeed today is our 29th wedding anniversary…

    A Box With My Name Upon It

    When I was born many long years ago
    upon a little box my parents wrote my name
    filled with their dreams of who they wanted me to be
    inside this small box they then placed me

    Over the years the larger I grew the smaller the box became
    until the day I could no longer remain inside
    for the world I wanted to explore and experience
    the person who was me I needed to discover on my own

    Afraid that I would fail to fulfill their plans for me
    my world they attempted to constrict
    thinking they could control me in this manor
    even as they were attacking and destroying one another

    When I was a teenager my Grandparents took me in
    forever grateful for the home they gave me
    the love and the help they poured out upon me without measure
    still they had their own little box with my name written upon it

    Disappointed their hearts saddened and burdened
    they watched me walk away on my own
    though they did what they thought was best for my own good
    yet the person that I was to become was for me to decide

    Now that I’ve been married for almost fifteen years
    a small box into which my wife seeks to confine
    the person who she thinks I ought to be
    for she refuses to listen and keeps insisting on changing me

    When a man imposes his will upon his girlfriend or wife
    abusive and controlling is what women call him
    yet when a woman does the same to the man she claims to love
    it is said that she is only trying to better him

    I often pause to consider and wonder
    why others think that I would be happier
    when confined within the small box of their expectations
    that they mistakenly think is who I am

    When all I ask of them is to leave me alone
    let me decide for myself -to chose who I want to be
    truly I can not live my life within someone else’s small box
    for then I would be living someone else’s life and not my own!

    Copyright David M. Green November 22, 2010

  • Carlos

    Great article.

    The abduction of my son to my wife’s home country and indifference bordering on (if not equal to) hostility that I frequently encountered in my efforts to bring him home was the defining tear in the veil of lies through which I had viewed the world. Since then I’ve been trying to tear down the whole damn pink lace curtain that has constrained my understanding of the world I live in and the world which my son will inherit.

    Early on in my search I came upon the works of Michelle Kimmel aka “Mangina-in-chief” and the men’s rights “Milli Vanilli singing the songs feminists like to sing.” Men need Kimmel like we need genital warts. As far as I’m concerned it’s time he pack his shit and and move back to Uncle Gina’s Cabin.

    The days when men were defined in feminst terms are coming to an end …and good fucking riddance.

    Your last line really nailed it “all women are like that. The law says so.” I know and care for many women but I’ve been avoiding serious relationships like the plague. Power corrupts and when relationships break down (regardless of whose at fault) I don’t trust any of them to not abuse the power to accuse and impose guilt that’s been vested in them by the state (especially when that power’s been incentivized with huge financial awards and the promise of more power.)

  • Paul Elam

    @ Snark,

    I am compelled to write this piece, but you can rest assured your last post won’t be far from my mind as I do so.


  • Paul Elam

    Oh, and PS

    Keith, this piece is splendid. Thanks for sharing it here.

  • Denis

    I’ve experienced many of the traditional notions of “masculinity” and I consider myself better for my experiences. I have also made many personal decisions to reject things that I was taught about traditional masculinity.

    It’s not unreasonable to discuss and critique the various pros and cons of traditional masculinity, but Michaelle Kimmel goes off the deep end by exaggerating negatives and ignoring positives. (S)he’s a man-hater.

    Kimmel and his followers want to turn men into docile man-slaves for women.

  • rebtus

    Ironically it was a state judge who was convicted for violatin “bodily integrity” of women by federal court. When he was released during the appeal, he fled to Mexico but was brought back. Link : United States v. Lanier;
    520 US 259 United States v. W Lanier | OpenJurist 520 US 259117 S.Ct. 1219137 L.Ed.2d 432 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v. … the] Fourteenth Amendment is the concept of personal bodily integrity and the right …

  • keith

    @ Paul
    The idea of a “successful” MRM really depends on the personal destination. I believe that for masculinity to exist at all, it must be removed from the chattel of women. Repossess our own utility.

    Asking “What will manhood be like.” really depends on who is asking. I think on an individual basis it will be much more fulfilling. It will be what its always been, but much more personal. I could go on for pages myself and actually I intend to.

    Guys like Kimmel is a subset of a feminine perception that may be more representative of his mother in a business suit, doting over a well behaved boy. He’s a used appliance saleman shouting appliance modify thyself.

  • keith

    @ David M.

    That’s the whole problem in a box!!

    We are much more apt to be scripted to a definition of utility, than experienced as an existence and entity.

    And hence your corollary that manhood can only be defined by you, for you.

    If we as masculine are an unscripted process discovering definition, males will seek themselves out in other males.

  • David M. Green

    Thank-you Keith…

    There are all kinds of men…Some like Paul are counselors, some are warriors while others are scientists, intellectuals and writers {poets} ect. And of course there are the useful idiots who refuse to think for themselves…Yet we are all men each with our own unique talents which complement each other if only we will work together instead of fighting against each other…

  • Thomas


    I love the poem; we are constantly being moulded by others, particularly by the women in our lives.

    I saw a government anti abuse poster inside a courthouse a few weeks ago that said:

    You can know your partner is abusive when:

    -He controls what you wear

    -controls where you go

    -controls how much you spend

    -checks your text message and email inbox

    And there was a picture of a battered woman implying that this was the typical behaviour of an abusive male.
    I found this ridiculous when I know from experience that almost every woman ticks all the boxes in their relationships! It’s just something that has to stop!

  • Carlos

    Meh.. rather embarrasing, but I went to look for the book I had had of Kimmels and realized it wasn’t by Kimmel at all. Different male feminist sociologist focused on masculinities named Michael. Michael Flood. I do have a book I picked up at used bookstore by Kimmel but it sits on my shelf unread.

    Michael Flood is the author of some fine masculinities papers like:

    Flood, M., and B. Pease “Undoing Men’s Privilege and Advancing Gender Equality in Public Sector Institutions.” Policy and Society 24 (2006).

    Flood, M. “Changing Men: Best practice in sexual violence education.” Women Against Violence 18 (2005-2006).

    Flood, M. “The Myth of Women’s False Accusations of Domestic Violence and Misuse of Protection Orders.” Women Against Violence 16 (2004-2005).

    Flood, M. “The Myth of False Accusations of Child Abuse.” Women Against Violence 16 (2004-2005).

    McInnes, E., G. Orkin, K. Swinbourne, and M. Flood “What’s Wrong With a Presumption of Joint Custody?” Family Matters 55 (2003).

    On the one hand I’m inclined to apologize to Kimmel for confusing him with an AssHat like Flood, but seeing that they collaborated to write the book “Men and Masculinities” together I’m not so sure the comparison was not an accurate one after all.

  • pj1

    Wow Keith excellent article!

    The reality today is that most (young) men realize that the government is designed to oppress them in countless ways, but there is no collective voice to get the message out.

    Men today can not see the forest due to all the trees. Big brother really is Big sister, Orwell almost got it right.

  • TDOM

    @ David
    Excellent poem. I am glad to see that I’m not the only one willing to occasionally respond poetically to a post. Paul had talked about posting some poetry on the site. I hope he follows through with it.


  • David M. Green

    Thank-you TDOM… :)

  • keith

    @pj1 – thank you sir

    Orwell is pretty spot on, maybe it’s better to believe it’s big brother
    (busy trying to please and placate big sister)

  • Paul Elam

    @ TDOM

    I will indeed follow through. The submission box is open, by the way, and I will be offering some of my own stuff. But what I would like to do is have three or four pieces from different writers to put into one post.

  • Keyster

    Kimmel’s life partner:

    Amy Beth Aronson is a Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Fordham University. She has also written a Sociology book with her spouse, Michael Kimmel called “Sociology Now”. Some other books she has written are the two-volume ‘Encyclopedia of Masculinities’ with Kimmel and ‘Taking Liberties,’ a history of early American women’s magazines. She has also served as an editor of several magazines, including ‘Working Woman’ and ‘Ms.,’ and has published work in such places as BusinessWeek, Global Journalist, and the Sunday supplement of the ‘Boston Globe.’

    He’s the quintessential male feminist/liberal academic/Manhattan elitist.

  • keith

    @ Keyster

    Thanks for the heads up on the partners profile. Should contribute to some interesting research.

  • Nergal

    I like your style,it’s very rythmical, almost lyrical. A bit difficult to follow sometimes,but in a good way, like classical music that carries you along rather than being interpreted in tiny bits as you go along.

    It’s very unique,difficult to pin down,and of course,many of your metaphors are spot on. Good job.

    Correct me if I’m wrong,but didn’t you do at least one piece on MND?

  • Ed Stephens, MD

    I am surprised that so many electrons are being expended on the “F” word and that the attention has not shifted to “Male Studies” aka. Foundation for Male Studies.

    As chaiman, rather than person, I reflected that there really is a place for the study of the male, as male, e.g.: in anthropology, “The Decline of the Male”, Lionel Tiger; in literature, “What Stories Does My Son Need, Michael Gurien; in psychology, “The Inner Lives of Boys”, Malina Saval; in law, “Legalizing Misandry”, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, and so forth for every academic discipline.

    This is what we will be addressing in the 2nd International Symposium of Scholars, Male Studies: Looking Forward to Solutions, at the NY Academy of Medicine in April 2011.

    It is not enough to comment on the problem. All of you are invited to be part of the solution, in whatever way that you are able, with whatever resources you have at your command.

    Ed Stephens, M.D.

  • Paul Elam

    @ Dr. Stephens,

    Good to see you here in the comments. Be assured that AVfM is at your disposal to help promote this important event.

  • Peter Allemano

    Dear Paul,

    Here again, I’m very favorably impressed with your writing: its intelligence, its insights, and its cleverness make me feel sad AND make me chuckle.

    Thanks for referring readers to my review of GUYLAND on, where it has now accumulated quite a lot support, both through votes and comments! (The review has gotten some blasting, too, but that’s to be expected, and it’s actually a bit amusing to note that the review’s detractors basically confirm — directly or indirectly — the review’s negative assessment of the foolishness that calls itself “gender studies.”)

    I recently became a customer of the Canadian version of — called — so I’m now entitled to post post product reviews there too. So I posted my review of GUYLAND on Interestingly, at present it is the only review posted of the book. Here is a link:

    Only registered customers of can vote or post comments on the review, but if you — or anyone you know — is a registered customer of, I’d be delighted to see the review start getting some support.

    Best wishes,


  • Peter Allemano

    Oops, I apologize for erroneously crediting this piece to Paul. But — hey, Keith — I sincerely meant what I wrote about my reaction to your article, and because you know how well Paul writes, I hope that, in a way, you might see that a compliment inheres in my mistake. Best wishes to both of you, gents!