The Fraud of Feminism part one

If you have done any reading over at The Unknown History of Misandry, or if you have been part of these discussions for any length of time you have been made aware that opposition to feminism, as well as the idea that it is a fraudulent ideology based on lies and distortions is not new. In fact, as we draw closer to the end of 2012, we find ourselves on the eve of the centennial anniversary of the publication of the first major work of anti-feminist literature. The Fraud of Feminism, by E. Belfort Bax was published in 1913. 

It is a fascinating piece of work. Perhaps most remarkable about it is that as you read, you will not find yourself so much transformed back to a different age with different modes of thought. But rather you will read observations and conclusions that will, word by word and line by line, be largely indistinguishable from what what you would see today from any critical thinker when offering a candid review of the essence of feminism. You will see repeated references to the same shaming tactics, lies, distortions, revisions of history, use of proxy violence and methods of manipulating the blue pill masses we continually find ourselves discussing today. 

The only difference that a hundred years time has made is that it allows us to bring you this fine work in its entirety on the pages of this site. We begin with the Preface and Introduction. PE




The present volume aims at furnishing a succinct exposure of the pretensions of the Modern Feminist Movement. It aims at presenting the case against it with an especial view to tracking down and gibbetting the infamous falsehoods, the conventional statements, which are not merely perversions of the truth, but which are directly and categorically contrary to the truth, but which pass muster by sheer force of uncontradicted repetition. It is by this kind of bluff that the claims of Feminism are sustained. The following is a fair example of the statements of Feminist writers: — “As for accusing the world at large of fatuous indulgence for womanhood in general, the idea is too preposterous for words.

The true ‘legends of the Old Bailey’ tell, not of women absurdly acquitted, but of miserable girls sent to the gallows for murders committed in half delirious dread of the ruthlessness of hypocritical Society.” Now it is this sort of legend that it is one of the chief objects of the following pages to explode. Of course the “fatuous indulgence” for “womanhood in general,” practiced by the “world at large,” is precisely one of the most conspicuous features of our time, and the person who denies it, if he is not deliberately prevaricating, must be a veritable Rip van Winkle awakening out of a sleep lasting at least two generations. Similarly the story of the “miserable girls sent to the gallows,” etc., is, as far as living memory is concerned, a pure legend.

It is well known that in the cases referred to of the murder of their new-born children by girls, at the very outside a year or two’s tight imprisonment is the only penalty actually inflicted. The acquittal of women on the most serious charges, especially where the victims are men, in the teeth of the strongest evidence, is, on the other hand, an everyday occurrence. Now it is statements like the above on which, as already said, the Feminist Movement thrives; its most powerful argumentative weapon with the man in the street is the legend that woman is oppressed by man. It is rarely that anyone takes the trouble to refute the legend in general, or any specific case adduced as an illustration of it.

When, however, the bluff is exposed, when the real facts of the case are laid bare to public notice, and woman is shown, not only as not oppressed but as privileged, up to the top of her bent, then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.

For the rest, it must not be supposed that this little book makes any claim to exhaust the subject or to be a scientific treatise. It is, and is meant to be, a popular refutation of the current arguments in favor of Feminism, and a brief statement of the case against Feminism. Sir Almroth Wright’s short treatise, “The Unexpurgated Case against Woman’s Suffrage,” which deals with the question from a somewhat different standpoint, may be consulted with advantage by the reader.

An acknowledgment should be made to the editor of The New Age for the plucky stand made by that journal in the attempt to dam the onrush of sentimental slush set free by the self-constituted champions of womanhood. I have also to thank two eminent medical authorities for reading the proofs of my second chapter.



In the following pages it is not intended to furnish a treatise on the evolution of woman generally or of her place in society, but simply to offer a criticism on the theory and practice of what is known as Modern Feminism.

By Modern Feminism I understand a certain attitude of mind towards the female sex. This attitude of mind is often self-contradictory and illogical. While on the one hand it will claim, on the ground of the intellectual and moral equality of women with men, the concession of female suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the admission of women to all professions, offices and functions of public life; on the other it will strenuously champion the preservation and intensification of the privileges and immunities before the law, criminal and civil, in favour of women, which have grown up in the course of the nineteenth century.

Ernest B. Bax

The above attitude, with all its inconsistencies, has at its back a strong sex-conscious party, or sex union, as we may term it, among women, and a floating mass of inconsequent, slushy sentiment among men. There is more than one popular prejudice which obscures the meaning and significance of Modern Feminism with many people. There is a common theory, for instance, based upon what really obtained to some extent before the prevalence of Modern Feminism, that in any case of antagonism between the two sexes, women always take the man’s side against the woman. Now this theory, if it ever represented the true state of the case, has long ceased to do so.

The powerful female sex union spoken of, in the present day, exercises such a strong pressure in the formation of public opinion among women, that it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in the most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, to get any woman to acknowledge that another woman has committed a wrong. On the other hand it may be noted, that the entire absence of any consciousness of sex antagonism in the attitude of men towards women, combined with an intensification of the old-world chivalry prescribed by tradition towards the so-called weaker sex, exercises, if anything, an increasing sway over male public opinion. Hence the terrific force Feminism has obtained in the world of the early twentieth century.

It is again often supposed, and this is also a mistake, that in individual cases of dispute between the sexes, the verdict, let us say of a jury of men, in favour of the female prisoner or the female litigant is solely or even mainly determined by the fact of the latter’s good looks. This may indeed play a part; but it is easy to show from records of cases that it is a subordinate one—that, whatever her looks or her age may be, the verdict is given her not so much because she is a pretty woman as because she is a woman. Here again the question of attractiveness may have played a more potent part in determining male verdicts in the days before Feminist sentiment and Feminist views had reached their present dominance. But now the question of sex alone, of being a woman, is sufficient to determine judgment in her favour.

There is a trick with which votaries of Feminism seek to prejudice the public mind against its critics, and that is the “fake” that any man who ventures to criticize the pretensions of Feminism, is actuated by motives of personal rancour against the female sex, owing to real or imaginary wrongs suffered by him at the hands of some member or members of the sex. I suppose it may be possible that there are persons, not precisely microcephalous idiots, who could be made to believe such stuff as this in disparagement of him who ventures an independent judgment on these questions; otherwise the conduct of Feminists in adopting this line of argument would be incomprehensible. But we would fain believe that the number of these feeble-minded persons, who believe there is any connection between a man having independent judgment enough to refuse to bend the knee to Modern Feminist dogma, and his having quarreled with any or all of his female friends or relations, cannot be very numerous.

As a matter of fact there is not one single prominent exponent of views hostile to the pretensions of what is called the “Woman’s Movement” of the present day, respecting whom there is a tittle of evidence of his not having lived all his life on the best of terms with his womankind. There is only one case known of indirectly by the present writer, and that not of a prominent writer or speaker on the subject, that would afford any plausible excuse whatever for alleging anti-Feminist views to have been influenced by personal motives of this kind. I am aware, of course, that Feminists, with their usual mendacity, have made lying statements to this effect respecting well-nigh every prominent writer on the anti-Feminist side, in the hope of influencing the aforesaid feeble-minded members of the public against their opponents.

But a very little investigation suffices to show in every case the impudent baselessness of their allegations. The contemptible silliness of this method of controversy should render it unworthy of serious remark, and my only excuse for alluding to it is the significant sidelight it casts upon the intellectual calibre of those who resort to it, and of the confidence or want of confidence they have in the inherent justice of their cause and the logical strength of their case.

About Ernest Belfort Bax

Ernest Belfort Bax (1854 – 1926) holds a special place in the history of men’s rights advocacy, being the first to mount a sustained public campaign soliciting compassion for men and boys, while denouncing gynocentric chivalry and cultural misandry that was common in his time. As the first major spokesman on these issues Bax is often considered the father of the first wave of the men’s rights movement.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • JJ

    Let this be a reminder to us all; movements come and go but people stay the same. The same as in easily corrupted when offered an “incentive” whatever it is that entices us to destroy our neigbhor, family, and friends. The feminist movement knew of this literature; and went and fulfilled it? Geniuses all of them.

    Before I go into my tirade let me just say that while we are destroying the myths lets keep in mind not to make any of our own! Feminism is bad, making a version of masculinism that is just as bad is not good either. We have the moral and intellectual high ground; unfortuantely, thats it right now. Because we have too many government, and private institutions willingly colluding against us. It will be easy when the pressure gets hot to cave in and “do as the Romans do.” It sucks, Lord knows I want to strangle my ex sometimes. However, then I am no better than she is, and then my kid is without both of us. One of the reasons I read this site; for all the dark tongue in cheek humour aimed at feminists I know the editors here maintain a sense of neutrality between men and women; and for whatever they suffered they have a big picture perspective. May we screen all of our future leaders for the same.

    In the end, no one truly wins a gender war. We either kill off our species, or fraternize with the enemy too much.

    On to my point, women today are truly clueless. I don’t entirely blame them because the same pogrom that brainwashed them, brainwashed me also with a low level stockholm syndrome of self hatred for being male. Not too much, just enough to question myself as I was only allowed feminist approved literature in public schools run by feminists themselves. Both men and women. The sad thing is, I knew something was wrong but could not articulate it. I’m damn near incensed at all my teachers for their blatant disregard towards their male students.

    That is one of many reasons why the internet is soo important! Sites like this where men can do what they are good at; educate themselves. Also, where we can find the “lost law” in the temple where our forefathers failed us in worshipping at the house of the feminine genitalia; and dropped the mantle of leadership they should have kept. Where we are now is not good; yet it is great that we may still have a chance to collect ourselves, and the pices that are left; by reconnecting with our spiritual forefathers of a hundred years ago. Or more ancient-I’m game either way at this point.

    It is paramount in what is happening here; a collection of writings that the fascists have spent the past hundred years trying to burn has been found.

    Burn it into your souls boys, it is the inner character we were intentionally deprived of so we would fall to women; thereby giving government the slavemaster’s grip on our production and families; our strength, our legacies. In the words of Tolstoy-“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

    • Roderick1268

      AVFM saves lives.
      An important way forward is to know MRAs in real-time too. Being part of a group of people who physically meet on a regular basis, and having a list of phone numbers and contact details of MRAs you’ve met for support.

      Most importantly!!! a fact most MRAs don’t know. Almost all fathers groups, and men’s groups will not, on the pain of death – entertain the concept of misandry.

      They blame the courts. They blame the culture, they blame anything they can see. (I spy with my little eye)
      They will blame anything and everything, except the female adults responsible.
      And will never discuss feminism, – and will quickly attack you, defending Feminism and all woman from you.
      You will waste your time – Big time, with white knights and manginas. Who will not see the elephant in the room even tho it’s half murdered them and is crushing you. They will not lend you a hand, only pretend too. They will stay – ‘Good Men’
      And they will watch.
      Red Pill. Men and woman in our group are red pill only.

      • Sasha

        It’s absolutely astonishing to me that men will talk for hours about how the government, immigrants, the rich, the poor, the Chinese, the courts, the ‘establishment’, Islam, atheism, the church etc. ad nauseam are somehow, collectively or individually, responsible for a) the shocking state of the economy b) fucked up state of the country c) buggering up their life; without ever once simply looking at the men and women (because feminism’s ruined most men as you say too) around them and wondering what’s motivating them.

        It’s amazing that men can watch the anquish of fathers separated from their children and not just act like it’s nothing to do with them, but taunt and attack them.

        • Roderick1268

          Some of our London group thought ‘Take the red Pill’ as a bit outdated, because The Matrix films are a few years old and people won’t know what were on about.
          The conclusion we came to again is there is no better term. Only Red Pill MRAs don’t piss about avoiding the obvious elephant in the room.
          Seeing life through the Feminist lens is the opposite to Take the Red Pill.
          I call the Feminist Lens, The Big Blame Theory which is a fantastic tool for justifying all the prejudice you are active in. Against men&boys to favor yourself and your kind. – Rod.

    • siderealspace

      “and dropped the mantle of leadership they should have kept.” This is the origin of male disposability.

      Men should be the leaders, because they are stronger than women and children. If they are stronger that them, it means they can not defend themselves. Which means that men have to defend them. With their lives, even. This is why you are being sent to fight stupid, pointless wars. This is why men are the last ones to leave a sinking boat. Because you are supposed to be the leaders, because, apparently “biology” is something you can not fight. People like you harm men much more than any women can. Because you think men should be fighting for their rights, because they shouldn’t have lost the leadership in the first place.

      I thought MRA was about liberating men from oppression based on socially constructed stereotypes.
      And who constructed them? Women? Men? We all did. Saying that the leadership belongs to men is perpetuating patriarchy, which is a survival method, of course, but it’s also the source of all oppression both men and women suffer every day.

      We all have privileges; men have privileges women don’t, women have privileges men don’t. Feminism, as a human movement, it is likely to have flaws. MRA is exactly the same. You are a perfect example of this.

      You should fight against and destroy the patriarchal stereotypes that oppress you, that’s what feminists had to do in the first place. We couldn’t fight for your right to vote, you already had it.

      Saying that feminism is a fraud, because people with distorted views of equality joined the movement, is like saying that because of people like you, MRA is bullshit.

      If you fail to recognize patriarchy (created and preservated by men and women) as a perverted institution, you will not get very far. Because no one is going to fight for your rights. Calling feminists “cunts” is not going to stop men from being drafted. Speaking out against authority will.

      No one fought for our right to vote, no one is going to stop you from being oppressed if you find feminism as the main enemy.

      • Paul Elam

        Once and for all, what privilege to men have that women do not? It is a remarkably simple question. You should answer it.

  • Lysander Spooner

    I just ordered three copies of “The fraud of feminism” from, one for me and one for each of my twin sons.

    Also ordered three copies of ” The Legal Subjection of Men”.

  • Tawil

    Reading this is chilling… it provides evidence that we today are precisely where men were 100 yrs ago in regards to feminist hegemony. And that realization should motivate all current MRAs to redouble their efforts so that society in another 100 yrs does not arrive at the same starting point we are at right now… or that Ernest B. Bax was at 100 yrs ago.

    Here in Bax’s words is the barrier that has allowed the feminism to flourish, a barrier we today can bust through:

    “When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.”

    The barrier is feminist control of the media. And that’s where we with our internet are at a crucial juncture – we have been offered this window of free expression that was not available in times past and which by all accounts will be closed to us again in five years due to increasing regulation and censorship of the internet. Free internet speech is so powerful today that it is putting traditional media out of business, but soon those same businesses will own the entire edifice and we no longer will. Our current internet freedom is akin to the Stonehenge circle that receives a shaft of light to the inner sanctum once every eon before disappearing again.

    In honour of Bax and all those who went before, lets saturate the internet with the truth about the fraud of feminism.

    • MGTOW-man

      You are right Tawil, that before long, our right to speak on the internet, if it is against women (even if it is true), will be outlawed. Even though the first admenment (and other similar protections for other nationalities) is supposed to protect us from those who want to shut us up, we are mostly males as MRA’s.

      Enough said.

      Or should have been…but I want to take some time to warn readers about the very real possibility of censorship.

      Think about it. Haven’t men caved in on every other issue that feminism is for, even if they were “staunchly against” the concepts initially?

      While men know feminism is mostly wrong in sooooo many ways, in general, men want women. Feminists have hideously exploited this natural dynamic from the outset. Manipulation is woman’s greatest power.

      Plus, boys are taught to make sure women like them. Boys now get brainwashed by feminist-minded school/political systems.

      There is the ridiculous, baseless, unrelated, speculative assumption about being gay if a man dares to see the unpopular truth about women and speaks it. Just because he isn’t drooling over vaginas, to allow the orifices to dominate his person, intellect (or lack thereof), future, and sociality, because his brain is the strongest part of his body instead of the “hardwiring” scapegoat (his penis), he is seen as less manly and is suspected of being gay. His manhood attainment isn’t complete until he verifies it by getting a woman to like like him and stay with him to have kid(s).

      Of course, the above is not true, but the myth gets perpetuated not only by feminists but by ordinary men and women—even if the man/men have never had a single fleeting thought of secret sexual pleasure with other men.

      What I call the unbridled free-for-all pass that women have extended to them by society, and by men as a group, (special, preferential treatment) will allow them to have their way on eventual censorship too. ‘”Bad” talk about women ‘hurts’ women” will become the popular concept and unofficial or official reason to ban men and women from being honest about the flaws of women and radical feminists-minded people.

      There are other ways too that men will allow themselves to be herded and coralled even to the point of not only their own rights getting obliterated, but also, shamefully and traitorously, that of their boys’.

      So anyone out there who thinks the first admendment of the USA will forever keep the internet open for dissenting men is living in delusion-land. The “had sucker” branding iron is postioned.

      Virtually every other unthinkable, unspeakable, abominable thing going against the grain of truth, commonsense, and reason that feminism pushed for has come to pass. Why wouldn’t this one follow suit?

      Feminism is not successful because it is right. Nope!

      Thus, our time is limited. No one knows how long before men become “good customers” with this issue as well…but it will happen….

      UNLESS, men start acting like men again, daring to save masculinity, the male perspective. However they can’t succeed here unless they willfully break the tethers that bind them, making them foolishly spin their wheels in stagnancy…be “had suckers” over and over and over….

      Men are clinging to losing. They do this with stubborn and stupid tenacity. It is this problem that will couple with chivalry and with male expectations which will erase mens right to speak if it isn’t what women want to hear.

      Thus, one of our main focuses as MRA’s should be to promote and preserve the concept of male independence and other life choices males can make that ensure there is no requirement of males, be it social, moral, financial, or whatever, that make us manditorily tethered to women.

      Don’t hate women. Just look before we leap. Have the guts to scrutinize half the world’s population. Take a good look at what you, as a “man” is expected to do with your life. Be man enough to tell the truth to women. If it results in being unpopular with women, then men should have options—supportive options—for them to honor themselves and preserve their own dignity, instead of becoming life-long liars and inner-cowards, in order to keep women liking them.

      Mark it down. Censorship for dissenting males will come to pass. The wimpering, sniveling, conniving minds of those kinds of women will decend upon this issue just like what is so with just about everything else.

      That is why we must act quickly and thoroughly.

      One thing we can do right now is vote conservative in our elections. Conservatives are not “haters of women” (indeed many ARE women). They just love order, peace, responsibility, wholesomeness, prudence, self-discipline, personal restraint, less government, free enterprise, and other “virtues”…and all because some of those institutions are not what feminists want does not imply hatred of women.

      Remember, the president of the US gets to appoint new incomming supreme court judges. That is reason enough for us to make sure that every new president is conservative. It may be our only chance to block any infringment on our rights as males.

      I am voting conservative. I hope all MRA’s will as well Even if you have problems with conservatives too, this choice will at least preserve your right to speak.

      Think I am crazy? Do nothing, men…you’ll see..and eat your very words. You will be gagged!

      The boys will thank us if we stand like men are supposed to do.

  • Roderick1268

    Please view my three White Feather Campaign Collage’s I recently made.
    Historical Misandry in Pictures
    Who Are the Real Victims?
    (Scroll down just a bit)
    Also kindly put on
    Something that was in the back of my mind for years and I finally got around to and done.

  • Augen

    Rollo Tomassi over at Rationalmale writes at great length about what he calls the “feminine imperative”. I’m not sure he’s ever specifically defined it, but as you pick up what he’s writing you start to form your own understanding from the examples he uses, of the more general idea that he’s getting at.

    GWW also says a lot about her concerns that what we’re up against with this isn’t just an ideology, that it goes deeper than that.

    And I know Paul himself has said at times that while feminism makes for a good target of ire, the fact is we seem to be dealing with something more basic and biological at work.

    It’s all given me a lot to think about. This last weekend with my children at their mom’s, I unloaded 23 pages single spaced describing in my own writing how a picture of this seems to be forming in my own mind these last six months.

    So to read this article, is fascinating first of all, but I have to say, on the balance beam between encouraging say because of camraderie felt across generations, and chilling, because the precise same arguments, obviously got this guy and his cohorts nowhere at all, … that seems to weigh more on the chilling side.

    I think I take some encouragement in knowing that in 1912, … the ladies and their male supporters had a point. All of his more general arguments may have been true, but the actual hope that I can take from reading this is that anyone in 1912 could have read this, accepted everything he said, and still basically came down on a few indisputable facts, i.e.: … “hey, look, you can be write about everything you say but … women can’t even vote, … they are excluded from whole occupations, for why?”

    So actually, in a way, by this fellows failure to concede the occasional point, you can see how someone might say “yeah, you are right about everything, but I still see through you.” A key marker of intellectual honesty is the ability to concede a point, especially a good one, and in 1912, there were some good points.

    May be hard to understand, but that encourages me.

    Because otherwise … to the degree that nothing has really changed in the basic attitudes we have: that men are bad, that women are good, that men have always oppressed women and that everyone but especially women have always known this, and most of all, to the degree that rational argument and reasonable critique will be met with blackout and boycott and censure and that even worse … that the SUCCESS of such boycotts and censure serves as object lessons to discourage people for an entire generation so they stiffle their own thoughts until they are 40 years old, divorced and watching their own children being subject to Kafkaeque torture of a feminized court system that is perfectly happy to see the kids’ father left to the stockyards and eaten by pigs … and even then requiring a whole manosphere to smack them out of the fog to see clearly … I just get to “wow”, mostly it looks like what we are up against.

    I worry that this is much more than an ideology. Some people say feminism is Marxist. I always thought that was piddle. I still do think that’s piddle, but now I worry that Marxism, that took hold of 2 billion souls in its time and probably ended the lives of 100 million, that isn’t even in the same catagory of survival threats that feminism and its hydrahead in conservative traditionalism represents.

  • tallwheel

    I find it most telling that Bax talks of a supposed history of women’s oppression, whereas in the “present time” for him much of that has been supposedly rectified. This is the same story we are told today. ‘Women were cruelly oppressed and persecuted in the past, but thanks to feminism’s efforts, women now have it much better today, though there is still much work to be done.’ (my paraphrasing of the ‘story’)

    We may never get past this point. No matter how many roles traditionally filled by men are now also largely performed by women, we may never be able to change the prevailing attitudes that people of both sex have in regard to gender relations. Much of it will likely prove to be biological in origin, and very hard or near impossible to reprogram.

    Personally, I think that future technology is the best hope for erasing traditional sex roles. Physical/genetic modification, cybernetics, and virtual reality may gradually make one’s born sex largely irrelevant. I know it sounds like science fiction, but much of this technology could be only decades away. Prevailing cultural attitudes probably won’t change before technology forces us to.

    • http://none universe

      Personally, I think that future technology is the best hope for erasing traditional sex roles. Physical/genetic modification, cybernetics, and virtual reality may gradually make one’s born sex largely irrelevant.”
      – Think it possible, Tallwheel, that very wealthy and/or capable effective powerful people are already leading humanity in this direction?

  • Ethical

    Judging from the article the combination of feminism and white knight enablers was just as overwhelming one hundred years ago as it is now. I fear that as an infectious condition it may prove too strong. We may just have to wait till it consumes everything in its path so we can try to rise again from whatever it leaves behind as indigestible.

  • Sting Chameleon

    Feminism feeds on our very own biological programming and turns it against us. Even if we vanquish it, our ancient programming will prevent us from achieving true equality, for male disposability is a biological condition.

    We might vanquish the corrupt, misandric legal system, but we will still be the workhorses and cannon fodder for centuries to come, as our rulers and women cannot afford this to change.

  • Tawil

    What is it about the snow white uniforms worn by bigots? It appears to be a statement of “I’m pure” in contrast to the impurity of their nominated enemies. Compare the image of suffragettes at the top of this page with the image of white supremacists pictured at the top of this page:

    white all the way to the hats

  • Sheldonshells

    What’s with the lame defeatism on this thread? Listen to some of the quotes from people above.

    “Feminism feeds on our very own biological programming and turns it against us. Even if we vanquish it, our ancient programming will prevent us from achieving true equality, for male disposability is a biological condition.
    We might vanquish the corrupt, misandric legal system, but we will still be the workhorses and cannon fodder for centuries to come, as our rulers and women cannot afford this to change.”

    “I fear that as an infectious condition it may prove too strong. We may just have to wait till it consumes everything in its path so we can try to rise again from whatever it leaves behind as indigestible.”

    “We may never get past this point. No matter how many roles traditionally filled by men are now also largely performed by women, we may never be able to change the prevailing attitudes that people of both sex have in regard to gender relations. Much of it will likely prove to be biological in origin, and very hard or near impossible to reprogram.”

    Bonkers to all that. If all this is so hardwired and therefore ostensibly hopeless, then how does that explain how many women themselves have proved they can move beyond the once presumed immovable barrier of their own gender/sex into male dominated terrains? Dissidents of feminism used to say that very thing about women 100+ years ago, that women couldn’t perform certain jobs or professions or couldn’t do this and that simply because they’re doomed by their hardwired biology to be incapable of doing these things, but obviously that proved wrong. The same can be true for men, in fact many men are already proving that this is the case (the increasing number of men who consciously make a decision to stay at home and raise their kids full-time for instance, or at least the increasing number of men who say they would want to do that if they were at all given the opportunity). Given enough time and social, cultural, and technological change, nothing is actually “hardwired” in the sense that it is absolutely inexorable; a sex change is even a relatively non-complicated operation to make — you can’t make a white person black or vice versa anywhere near as easy as that for example, if you can do it at all. “Hardwiring” is way overrated. Nothing, Nothing, is etched in stone except that which is actually etched in stone – and people are not stones. Keep that in mind, and please show a little more hope. No need to be such a doomer, what good does that do for anyone or our movement? Especially if it just isn’t true…

    • yinyangbalance

      I agree with this. How can anyone complain about Feminism’s Sexism against men yet commit the same crime against by spewing sexism against women. It isn’t fair to anyone. This is exactly what Feminism does, pay attention. Feminism goes around crying misogyny left and right then they turn around and spew their misandric diarrhea of the mouth on everyone. Not All Feminists Are Like That (NAFALT) but hey, NO FEMINIST is fighting Misandry withing Feminism, they aren’t doing anything about it. How about the Men’s Movement show that its different from Feminism in that we actually correct our supporters on such matters and enforce sex/gender fairness (instead of prejudice). Misogony SHOULD NOT be the solution to Misandry and vice versa (for you FEMINISTS our there).