Radio host speaking

Why is NPR so Sexist?

Note: This article was written by NCFM Member Ray Licht

The media seem to be very biased against men nowadays.  This is especially true of advertising media.  There is a very simple reason for this: women are largely or exclusively the deciders concerning most product choices.  Some have estimated that women make 80% of all consumer product decisions.  Naturally, in a situation like this, advertisers are going to tend to aim their ads at women.  As a result, advertising media are also going to aim at women in order to attract more advertising revenue, which is, of course, their main goal.  In this situation, advertising media certainly do not want to offend women.  However, the advertising media can largely ignore or even offend men with little consequence.  Some women may even be more likely to buy advertisers’ products if they and their media do insult and belittle men.  There is little chance for men to receive a fair deal in any advertising media—e.g., television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the internet.  For example, check out another article on this website ( that shows that 95% of all negative portrayals in TV ads are of men.

I am not happy about this situation.  Of course, I wish that all media were totally fair and unbiased at all times.  But this is not happening.  I do not like it, but I do understand it.  Of course, women could correct this problem immediately by refusing to buy products that portray men negatively in their advertising  I do not see this happening anytime soon.  (But women should keep in mind that it was primarily men who passed women’s suffrage, Title IX, the Violence Against Women Act, and all other pro-woman legislation.  Men may have been slow, but they finally righted some past wrongs.  Now it is women’s turn to help men.)

But certainly men should get a fairer deal in media that are not funded by advertising.  In the U.S., advertisers’ effect on National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service should be much less, and therefore NPR and PBS should not be as biased against men as other media.  Also, since NPRand PBS receive some governmental support and oversight, they should contain no sexism.  However, this does not appear to be true.  Public broadcasting seems to be even more pro-female and anti-male than advertising media.

To explore this situation with public broadcasting, I examined the reporting for NPR‘s news program, “All Things Considered,” during February, 2014.  I found the bias favoring women and against men staggering.  It seems unlikely that all this negative focus on men and positive focus on women is by accident.  It appears to be intentional.  I found many of the effects of the sexism found in advertising media in ATC as well.

Positive portrayals of women and their activities are everywhere in the media.  ATC’s Olympic coverage followed this pattern.  When “All Things Considered” was not giving results of events, but giving human-interest reports, ATC focused mostly on women.  Examples included hockey player Kacey Bellamy (2/5) explaining how much her parents and little sister sacrificed so she could play hockey, slopestyle skier Devin Logan (2/10) also focusing on how much her family helped support her, Noelle Pikus-Pace (2/14) discussing how hard it was to balance motherhood and training for skeleton, and one report on the fitness of curlers (2/18) even mentioned that the men’s Canadian team put out a beefcake calendar of shirtless team members.  This non-advertising medium is falling over backwards to pander to women.

Most media today have a strong feminist bias.  This bias often appears as promoting all rights for women but all responsibility for men.  Public broadcasting and ATC probably have a stronger feminist bias than most.  For example, on 2/7, ATC gave a mostly fair report on accusations of child sexual abuse against Woody Allen.  However, the report did contain a quite feminist quote from a woman demanding that we automatically believe women and girls who claim sexual abuse.  This, of course, assumes that women never lie, and would negate the fundamental legal concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”

ATC gave two very feminist reports on American women’s ski-jumping team members who fought to get the event into the Olympics.  The reports contained the usual feminist accusations of discrimination and embarrassing excuses for not allowing women to compete (e.g., a woman’s uterus might fall out).  Of course, the official reasoning for not allowing women’s ski-jumping was that it was too dangerous and the women were not competitive enough.  These reasons were discounted in the reports.

This brings up another common effect of bias in the media: spinning situations hypocritically to either glorify women or portray them as victims—whichever benefits women the most.  Often one situation can be spun in both ways.  ATC’s reporting on the American women’s ski-jumping team did both.  Women sued to get the event into this year’s Winter Olympics.  In the first segment (2/2) the women were portrayed as victims of the Olympic Committee who were unfairly denying women participation for spurious reasons—fear of injuries and lack of competition.  However, in the second segment (2/11) we learn something conveniently left out of the first report—that our best female ski-jumper, Sarah Hendrickson, had a major knee injury six months before the Olympics.  Instead of using this fact to imply that the Olympic Committee may have had a point about injuries, it was used in the story to explain Hendrickson’s poor showing in the competition.  ATC returned to portraying women as victims in a 2/12 segment on the physics of ski-jumping, where they expressed sympathy for another American ski-jumper, Lindsey Van, who also injured a knee—” jammed her leg bones together and her knee cartilage essentially exploded.”  Although not mentioned in any ATC program, Jessica Jerome, the final member of the American women’s ski-jumping team, also has suffered a major knee injury.

There is a controversy currently in explaining why women seem to suffer more knee injuries than men for the same abuse (especially in basketball.)  Some argue that women’s knees are structurally different from men’s, which leads to more injuries.  Others counter that women have the same knee structure, but generally do not play sports as much, especially as youngsters.  As a result, women have weaker leg muscles and do not learn how to cut and land in a way to avoid injury.  But the ATC reports seemed to imply that the Olympic Committee was just a group of male chauvinist pigs unjustly victimizing women.

One does not need to be an expert to see that the Olympic Committee’s point about lack of competitiveness may also be valid.  There is a vast difference in the showings of men and women in many events, e.g., slope-style skiing, slope-style snowboarding, and moguls.  This is something we all see, but we are not allowed to say out loud: the performances of the men are far more complex and dangerous.  And the women’s events are often on easier courses.  Yet, women suffer more injuries—the women’s rate of injury for all events was over 40% higher than men’s during the 2010 Winter Olympics.  It may be paternalistic, or it may be responsible for the Olympic Committee to take these issues into account.  But the Olympic Committee did not deserve the treatment it got from ATC.  After suing to be let into the Olympics in ski-jumping, I fear now that women will sue the Olympic Committee for being injured.

ATC’s hypocrisy and spinning can also be seen in other Olympic coverage.  As I mentioned earlier, skeleton athlete Noelle Pikus-Pace was portrayed as a victim when she complained of the difficulty of being a mother and training for the Olympics in a 2/14 ATC report.  The segment left the impression that women have a much more difficult time participating in the Olympics than men.  However, in a separate interview of Pikus-Pace airing on 2/24 (I guess women are important enough to highlight twice), we find that her husband took a leave of absence from his job in order to take care of their kids while she trained and competed.  Why was this information not included in the earlier report.

Another example of bias found in advertising media as well as ATC is ignoring men and their activities, or highlighting negative aspects.  Sports are not exclusively male activities anymore, but still, they are a major focus for most men.  One of the major sporting events of the year is football’s Super Bowl.  ATC barely covered the game at all.  However, the program did highlight several negative aspects of football.  The ATC shows on the Friday and Saturday before the Sunday Super Bowl both carried reports on concussions in the NFL.  The 2/14 program contained a report on Congresspeople demanding a name change for the Washington Redskins.  A segment on bullying on the Miami Dolphins team also appeared on 2/14.

But ATC highlighted more positively features of the Super Bowl of more interest to women.  The show on the day before the Super Bowl contained a segment on how advertisers were aiming at women during the game.  The show on the day after the game contained a report on how entertainers benefited from performing during halftime.

Another common practice by the media is to purposely find women to highlight, and present them either as victims or as success stories.  (A recent example of this in the general media is that all of the victims I have seen highlighted in news reports of GM’s faulty ignition switch have been young women.)  Women are often highlighted even if they are not direct victims.  An example of this occurred in one of the segments on concussions in football mentioned above—a wife of an affected player revealed the effects of the concussions on her and her three daughters.

It appears ATC also purposely went looking for women to highlight in success stories.  In a 2/5 story on the drought in California, ATC found a female mayor to interview.  I found that about 25% of the mayors of California are female.  So it is not unreasonable to assume that they picked a woman by chance.  But still, it is 3 times more likely for ATC to have selected a male mayor, if the selection were made randomly.  However, consider a segment on 2/13 concerning The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s 50 top charity donors.  The magazine’s list contained 29 men, 18 couples and 3 women—Millicent Atkins being the only self-made woman on the list.  Guess who ATC selected to highlight in it’s report.  That’s right, ATC picked Atkins, even though she was listed 50th (ATC did not reveal this fact) and she died in 2012.  It is unlikely that Adkins was chosen by chance.  I also would think ATC would have picked a donor still alive so the segment could have included an interview.  Instead, ATC instilled the story with feminist ideology by telling us how smart, frugal, and hard-working Atkins was, while working in a man’s world.

Of course, in a negative story the media will find men to hold responsible.  On 2/4, ATC presented a report on the insincerity of public apologies.  ATC gave five examples in the report: Lance Armstrong, Chris Christie, Rob Ford, Sean Phillips (Denver Broncos), and Reed Hastings (Netflix.)  All are men.  I guess women never do anything that requires an apology.

A related strategy of the media is to hide male victimization.  Instead of referring to male victims as “men,” media often use words like “workers,” “miners,” or “people” to hide the gender of male victims or to imply that women are also victims.  However, the media will almost always explicitly tell us of any female victims.  On 2/5, ATC presented a segment on a report by the United Nations on child sexual abuse by Catholic priests.  The transcript of the ATC story contained 12 uses of the words “child” or “children” even though the vast majority of victims have been boys—over 80%.  The word “boys” did not appear in the report.  Another example of this occurred on 2/26 in a report about the excessiveness of zero-tolerance programs in schools.  The report mentioned blacks and Hispanics are punished more often for violations but neglected to mention that the vast majority of punished students are boys.

This effort to hide male victimization can be extreme.  In another 2/26 report, female reporters discussed the murder of at least 59 “students” in a school in Nigeria by a militant group.  The students were locked in a building which was set on fire.  Any students who escaped were shot and their throats cut.  It wasn’t until halfway through the report that we learned that all of the students killed were boys.  The girls in the school were told to go home.  If only girls had been killed, I suspect ATC would have portrayed it as a horrific hate crime.  But there was none of that for the boys.  Instead, the reporter focused much of the report on the fact that a nearby girls’ school had been closed in order to protect the girls.  This resulted in a fear in the reporter that girls in this school and others would not receive needed education.  But the reporter showed no concern for the education or lives of the boys who had been killed or the boys who also may refuse an education for fear for their own lives.  This report not only minimized male victimization, but focused on a relatively minor victimization of girls.  I find it incomprehensible that a journalist feels the education of girls is more important than the horrible slaughter of boys.

Another inclination of the media is to highlight the first woman to accomplish something.   This is quite common.  Oddly, we rarely hear about the first African-American, man, or other minority to achieve.  ATC highlighted that Janet Yellen was the first female Chair of the Federal Reserve during its 2/11 show.  Other media had mentioned this fact over and over, but it was odd that ATC was still mentioning this after Yellen had started her new position.  Will ATC keep mentioning this forever?  When will Yellen just be the “Chair of the Fed?”

This tendency was taken to an extreme on 2/27 when Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the current President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, was described as “only the third female president” of the organization.  The segment even mentioned the names of the first two female presidents.  (To be fair, the segment also mentioned that Isaacs was also the first black president of the Academy.)  How high will the numbers need to go before ATC does not need to mention this aspect of women’s achievement?  It must also be noted that the main point of the report was to expose the white-male makeup of the Academy and possible bias in the Academy Awards.

The media also seem to concentrate much attention on breast cancer.  Any new medical development obtains national attention.  I think it is safe to say that breast cancer is the most media-covered disease in the country.  One would think that the most-covered disease would not predominately be restricted to half of the population.  On 2/12, ATC covered the release of a Canadian study concerning the value of mammograms.  The study found that mammograms do little to save lives.  This is a controversial topic and receives much debate.  There is a similar debate in the medical field concerning men and prostate cancer, but it receives little media attention.

Violence against women, especially sexual violence, also seems to get more attention than the statistics would lead one to expect.  After all, men are the victims of violence far more often than women.  Yet, the focus in the media is on violence against women.  On 2/11, ATC had a segment on a conference on sexual assault on campus.  The report gave as fact a controversial statistic that 25% of college women report being sexually assaulted. (The reporter attributed the statistic to a Center for Disease Control study, but it appears to be from an almost 20-year-old Department of Justice survey with fundamental credibility problems.  The survey concluded 25% of women in college were victims of rape OR attempted rape.)  The segment also quotes a student who states that we should focus primarily on abusers and not on alcohol, drugs, hooking up, or other contributing factors.  (In other words, women can do whatever they want even though feminism will continue to blame men–all men–with the inventions of “rape culture” and the “patriarchy.”)  But the segment had little discussion of new rules and standards implemented by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.  Universities must now use the lower evidence standard of “preponderance of evidence” instead of “clear and convincing evidence,” and can deny lawyers, witnesses, or any cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings.  This allows universities to punish men for sexual abuse with little more than an accusation—something that cannot happen in the criminal justice system.  It undermines the concept of due process and turns our colleges into kangaroo courts.

Book reviews are a frequent feature on ATC.  Most of these during the month were slanted toward women, promoting female authors or books about women and their interests.  Segments included reviews of books highlighting the history of perfumes, one woman’s World War I story, a woman’s childhood expressed in poetry, short stories about relationships, a woman’s adventures after being kicked out of a conservative sect, an historical romance in China, and a singer disappointed in her partner and life.  There was even a segment on a beginning writer winning a contest to have her romance novel published.  And strangely, An Unnecessary Woman was reviewed twice.

ATC focused on women in many other reports during the month.  These segments included reports on the lack of contestants for agricultural queen contests (2/3), a presidential debate in Afghanistan which discussed how to preserve women’s rights (2/7), romance novels (2/9), getting more women into NASCAR (2/15), focusing on girls getting vaccinated against HPV (2/19), Native-American women and domestic violence (2/20), how the American Bar Association underrates women (2/26), and how managers refuse to let women telework (2/27).  The focus was on women throughout the month.

On those rare occasions where men as men were mentioned, it was usually in a negative context.  For example, a segment on 2/16 was entitled “Fumbling Through Fatherhood.”  In a 2/25 segment on dating for older singles, a woman stated that even if the men she dates are older, that does not mean they are mature.  This same woman said she had no luck meeting a man at work.  Of course, a man trying to meet a woman at work probably would have turned into a segment on sexual harassment.

Even a report on President Obama’s Program, “My Brother’s Keeper,” on 2/27, could not let stand that young minority men have disadvantages and are victims.  The report included a quote that these men should not receive special treatment.  It also contained an admonition from the President that even though the program was there to help them, the men have a great responsibility to help themselves.  Wow!  I do not remember seeing anything like that in any of the many reports about women’s victimizations.  Again, women have rights, men have responsibilities.

Here is one final shameful and odd example of bias on NPR.  It appears the quiz show “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” has been guilty of cheating in order to give women a better chance to win.  (It is difficult to know for sure, since it appears many questions and answers are edited out of the show—an absolutely odd thing to do on a quiz show.)  Men on the show have often suffered the disadvantage of fewer questions.  This resulted in women being only 42% of the contestants in 2013, but 63% of the winners.  The cheating appears to have stopped, but please check out past shows at  Observe the number of questions for each player during the Lightning Fill-In-The-Blank section at the end of the show.

PBS’s problems are similar to those at NPR.  The network has aired many programs just for women with nothing comparable for men: “Women and Money,” “Menopause and Beyond,” “Living Courageously: the Spirit of Women,” “Powder and Glory” (women and cosmetics), “On the Contrary,” “Unleash the Power of the Female Brain,” Apollo Wives on “American Experience,” “Women War and Peace,” “Makers: Women Who Make America,” “Women Who Rock,” “Breaking the Silence,” and “Telling Amy’s Story.”

Regular programming such as “Bill Moyers,” “Nova,” “Need To Know,” “POV,” “News Hour” and “Frontline” also often have had shows from a very pro-woman and anti-male perspective.  Examples include speculation that Shakespeare was a woman and that Einstein stole his ideas from his first wife.  Interviews have included Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women, Gloria Steinem, Leymah Gbowee of the Liberian women’s peace movement, and Billie Jean King. Subjects have included the women’s movement, nerdy women ignored for being too smart, women balancing life and work, powerful women and other feminist ideology.  The day before the Super Bowl, the “News Hour” had a segment on sex trafficking near the game.  Wordgirl is a superhero who usually defeats bad men.  Even “Sesame Street” has angelic female characters but mean, grumpy, stupid, and obnoxious male characters.

It is evident that public broadcasting is heavily biased for women and against men—and it appears to be intentional.  This is surprising given that NPR and PBS do not have the advertising pressures that many other media have.  Also public broadcasting has governmental overview.  Public broadcasting should be fairer than most other media.  But this does not appear to be the case.

Do not take my word for it.  Transcripts and audio recordings of the ATC programs mentioned above are online at  Please see and hear for yourself.  I assume NPR will not delete or change them in response to this article.

This constant positivity toward women and negativity toward men in advertising media as well as public broadcasting must have an effect on our children.  Girls must grow up believing they are superior as well as constant victims.  Boys must see themselves as worthless dregs.  This needs to stop, especially in public broadcasting.

I used to donate to my local NPR and PBS stations.  I will not contribute again until the bias stops.  Perhaps Congress could encourage public broadcasting to stop the sexism.

  • OldandNavy

    I, too stopped donating to NPR and PBSa few years back. I stopped SPECIFICALLY because I noted the same things illustrated in this article.

    Further, I noted the distinctly left leanings of the whole thing and decided that this wasn’t public radio, after all. It had become “liberal feminist urbanite radio”.

    It’s bull Shit so I voted with my wallet.

    • crydiego

      I stopped donating about five years ago. NPR is almost completely feminist in viewpoint. PBS is where I used to get my news everyday along with the Nightly Business Report. Now I never watch the news and I rarely watch the Business Report.

    • Xbillion

      Ya, Terry Gross and co. are smug feminists, confident in their more enlightened and compassionate views. No more support from me either!

    • earth one

      I too got sick of the fake, academic ‘sensitivity’ of NPR, where everything seemed to be about lifting up women and girls, blah blah blah – a bunch of elitist liberals sitting around on their asses, cranking out feel good stories that promoted whatever agenda would secure their perceived audience, and funded by corporations. And I never, ever donated! :)

  • ExpatMatt

    Why is NPR so sexist? Follow the money. As always.

    • Bewildered

      You missed the crucial point :

      This is surprising given that NPR and PBS do not have the advertising
      pressures that many other media have. Also public broadcasting has
      governmental overview. Public broadcasting should be fairer than most
      other media. But this does not appear to be the case.

      which begs the question—–can these stations be sued for discrimination?

      • Tallwheel

        They have individual “supporters” and “sponsors”. That’s who they’re trying to please.

        • Bewildered

          Yeah! that’s obvious. But the point is they can’t operate like a fully private radio station. A private entity has the right to discriminate,no matter how morally repugnant the discrimination is, but the government must not and should not discriminate because it represents all people not just the bigots.
          The bigots are entitled to their free spaces as long as they don’t usurp public space,which is supposed to be governed by the government.

        • Steve

          It’s probably various Foundations. Ford, Rockefeller, Pew, Tides maybe. As I’ve said before, feminism is one of the traditional “black ops” of foundations, which have always had their espionage/saboteur aspects. Right from the beginning. Under the guise of humanitarian activity, they work to destabilize countries. The US and Canada are to them no different than Liberia or the Congo.

          For example, so-called social work in the US was set up by agents of the British Fabians. Jane Addams went to England and was a card carrying dupe of the Webbs. She then colluded with the spy Emma Goldman in arranging for the assassination of Pres.McKinley. The “lone shooter” they got to do it had been smuggled in via the Settlement House system in NYC and Chicago that Addams and her colleagues set up. To this day, schools of social work are cesspools of Fabian ideology, specifically designed to tear down the fabric of society (though they sometimes have useful classes here and there.)

          • earth one
          • Steve

            Interesting pie chart. But 1] it’s probably not accurate and 2] some of those other things are fronts for the oligarchs who established the foundations originally.

          • earth one

            Good points. It’s interesting how much corporations, universities and the government put together add up to.

          • Steve

            Yes. The foundation oligarchs always try to hide the extent of their influence. What they publicly acknowledge is just the top of the iceberg generally. If people knew how few people actually fund the majority of the social actions sponsored by foundations, they would view it all more sceptically. So they hide a lot of their tentacles and put out disinformation like this pie chart, in order to create the impression that the thing is much more democratic, “diverse” or representative.
            Their pose is that they are benevolently facilitating what is bubbling up spontaneously in the population. But often they are leading from behind the scenes.

      • ExpatMatt

        No, I read that bit, and understood it, actually.

        I think that, facing something like this, cui bono is always a useful place to start. In this case,the cui is obvious; from there we look outwards and the unde becomes our focus.

        I assume you know that PBS and NPR don’t advertise for companies, they solicit from audience members and others? That funding drives are a staple of both organizations, government money notwithstanding? The Pledge Drives may only take 1 to 4 weeks…but they accept donations 365 days per.

        More precisely, per earth one’s handy link: NPR’s financing breaks down like this: 39% individuals; 17% corporations ; 8% universities; 15% gov’t/CPB. (Thanks, earth one!) 79% of it, then, is at least potentially subject to gender-based ideological pressure.

        Also, politics and government oversight should indeed mean greater fairness. Yet…this is politics. Women are the majority voters.

        Probably should have been clearer, but I was walking out the door when I typed my earlier comment.

        • earth one

          You are most welcome :)

      • Jason Willame

        No but they get donations….and when I was with the psycho…err feminist..eerr ex girlfriend all she listened to was NPR. I would imagine it is feminist heaven radio tbh

  • Susie Parker

    I know I shied away from listening to any Olympic personal stories concerning women. I just left the room once the melodramatic music cued up, unable to stomach the thought they might introduce someone’s rape story, or vomiting a I Was Molested By My Uncle story during the Olympics. Yikes! You can’t trust them not to slip one in at every opportunity. Don’t even know if it happened or not, once “That Music” started, it was over and out for me. It’s bad enough they do those sympathy ads for the military, with men describing the horrors of war, the injured or killed buddies, the bleeding children… then some woman chiming in with her rape story. Enough, already!

    • Bewildered

      LMFAO! You truly belong to a rare breed of women,that I wish was not so rare.

      • Dean Esmay

        I think a lot of them have been waiting for men to collectively decide to stand up for themselves.

        I really do think that.

        • mike gibbs

          Why should they wait on us? Is it because it is to their better advantage to keep things as they are? Like Bewildered said; ENOUGH ALREADY!

          • Susie Parker

            ” Is it because it is to their better advantage to keep things as they are?” Not at all. I joined the military thinking it was unfair men were drafted and women weren’t. It was three years of scorn, mockery and full out hatred, while the women who stayed home cheating one them and sending them Dear John letters while they were in combat zones were spoken of as angels in heaven.

            I once spoke up in a college class room, and not one man would even make eye contact with me, much less show agreement or support. Most will look to the woman they’re with, get that miserable “wish she’d just shut up” look and remain silent, I’m sure to take a castigation later from whatever women heard me.

            I don’t want or expect men to be appreciative – I want fairness and equality for the men I love and care about, which means supporting men who hate women.

          • OldandNavy

            I’m still grateful for the hard Shit shoveling your service provided. You folks minded the ship so that people like my father could go to college.

            You sound like a nice, hard bean and I for one would have been proud to serve with you.

          • Bewildered

            Alas! they don’t make like them anymore.

          • Bewildered

            I once spoke up in a college class room, and not one man would even make
            eye contact with me, much less show agreement or support. Most will
            look to the woman they’re with, get that miserable “wish she’d just shut
            up” look and remain silent, I’m sure they later take a castigation from
            whatever women heard me.

            Then the same bitches would probably have the audacity to complain about “The Evil Patriarchy”. Oh! the irony !
            Just how deluded you need to be to imagine domesticated cats as ferocious killer tigers !
            Wish we truly had “The Evil Patriarchy “, at the very least we would have been rid of this human garbage.

          • Kimski

            /goes looking for his Evil Patriarchy Repairman-costume in the garage.

          • Graham Strouse

            I’ve long been of a mindset that the best way to shut up hysterics with their mad allegations is to carefully make a list of all the things they falsely accuse you of and then, y’know, start doing them. 😉

            “Well, I wasn’t planning on oppressing anyone today but I’ve got the next couple days off. I mean, if that’s what y’all really want…”.

            Be careful what you ask for and all that. Now, someone find me a ‘ho in a French maid outfit. I could really go for a sandwich right about now.

          • Bewildered

            LOL! I can empathize with you . Their malicious dumbfuckery is astounding!

          • Aimee McGee

            Hi Susie, same motivations, different journey here. I’m a committed pacifist, being a Quaker. I’ve been motivated to work for Mens Human Rights because of the creeping insidious misandry I see permiating even my own faith community which has upheld equality as a religious testimony for 350 years. Like you I’ve spoken up and been a lone voice.
            Often I get quiet agreement later, but the men fear the women’s reactions too much to speak out publicly. Currently in international Quaker circles I can only rely on 1 man to publicly support my stances and I often support his actions too. He is an old man who got his first mug shot as part of the civil rights protest movement aged 19, and he’s unafraid of anything, even hospital food (he’s been in hospital using his iPad in our last round of debates on a matter of misandry). I’ve asked him to make sure I get copies of his 11 civil disobedience mugshots in his will, as I want to honour his legacy.
            I don’t do this stuff for my own gain. I do it because of the men I love and admire and who have been instrumental in making who I am

          • earth one


        • Allan

          I’ve been having that thought a lot. It’s like straight men need their own Stonewall or something, lol.

          It’s very weird. I came out as gay in my 20’s in the late 70’s, and that’s gone from completely absent in public media (gay pride happened without a single article on radio to newspapers) to now, i.e. my state passing gay marriage.

          I remember a common “type” of gay man, a lot of closeted gay men, who’d transform in public into “straight acting and appearing” (it’s a well known “type”) and even talk about girlfriends, sports or guns to display being straight. They’d easily talk about fags and queers and be homophobic/hostile to “them”. Poor self-image, internalized self-hated.

          I say this, because I’m recognizing men today as the same type of man. Internalized self-hate, poor self image. Trying to hide maleness (instead of gayness), playing up on their sensitivity to women, pandering to women’s concerns, constantly talking out how oppressed women are by men, and how men are responsible, hang their heads. Same thing, different words.

          I quickly learned back then to be proud of myself, open and not hide or apologize to anyone. And how you do yourself no favors by trying to get people to care about you who hate on you and just don’t give a shit. Just ignore them.

          Self-respect is very good to have, and in this environment, the MHRM may be what men need to find it.

          • earth one

            And how you do yourself no favors by trying to get people to care about you who hate on you and just don’t give a shit. Just ignore them.

            My reaction when feminists invaded the Gay Rights movement, then moved themselves to the front, changing GLBT to LGBT, and started labeling and separating everyone by gender, race and “privilege.”

          • Bewildered

            I say this, because I’m recognizing men today as the same type of man.
            Internalized self-hate, poor self image. Trying to hide maleness
            (instead of gayness), playing up on their sensitivity to women,
            pandering to women’s concerns, constantly talking out how oppressed
            women are by men, and how men are responsible, hang their heads. Same
            thing, different words.

            This must be one of the more serious man made tragedies of our age.
            It’s also a kind of revelation as to why a full blown matriarchy is not a viable societal system.

          • Seele

            Allan, here’s what I suspect. Since we’re little we’re brought up to believe that we are not alright unless we are chasing the next goalpost, even at tremendous costs to ourselves: to be tough, big boys don’t cry, grin and bear it, etc. This could have fostered the deep-seated mentality that by being male we are not alright. Unless we can banish this mentality, our progress would remain hamstrung.

          • Allan

            Hmmm… Steele, how old are you? I’m 55, and frankly, I remember well how is was definitely not like this. At. All. “Men were good”, respected, no need to even say that. “Bad men” were the unusual exception. What you speak of….there is a certain harshness to the standards that men try to live up to. It’s a high standard that creates some exceptional men. Not all men attain this, soon, or ever, which is ok. To temper this, I think we used to have, … all lot of things, without all the isolation of males today. Male spaces, where men mentor men. I’ve never known that, but I suspect it used to be much more common place. Men seem so, so isolated today.

            Today, there is just a sea of constant negative views of men, and no positives, without anything to temper it. We’re a sick society. It’s obvious and foreign to me.

          • Seele

            Allan, I am practically the same age as you, but it was certainly my own experience growing up, and how I see the current fledging generation is experiencing now, and that’s my original point. We are, by and large, progressively getting more gynocentric and misandric.

          • Allan

            I heard the don’t cry, be tough, business as the “man code”, “boy code” that get’s spelled out in the “Masks we wear”, Michael Kimmel, et al in only a critical, men are damaged and flawed kind of way. I agree it’s harsh and can be limiting, but I think there is a certain benefit to society, a certain wisdom to it as well. Perhaps what’s missing today is some balancing factors, like fathers, male spaces, idk, balance I don’t find in Michael Kimmel types who are only harming men by pointing that nature and characteristics of masculinity in only a one-sided female centric way, that frankly, misses the way masculinity AND femininity can both be unbalanced when taken entirely without other perspectives.

          • AttilaTheHun

            Hi Allan, I think you’ve nailed it. The proper response is to hold our heads up high and tell the rest of the world to f*ck itself. Thanks for an insightful comment.

        • earth one

          A lot of very cool women (like Susie Parker) in this movement!

          • Bewildered

            They are blazing hot, highly directional lasers needed to cut through an incredible amount of layers of BS to reach the truth.

        • jbantifem

          And it won’t happen. Why? Look at the division amongst us men in our comments. We divide our gender by sexual orientation, race, social economic class and anything else we can think of.

          Personally speaking, I don’t care what sexual orientation or race another man is. More often than not he’s in the same boat that I am because we share the same sexual organs.

          We have to pull together guys, before it’s too late. Really. Drop the social class bullshit, homo and hetero-phobia, poor/rich, skin color divisions and pull together as men. Our lives depend on it. Literally. If we don’t soon it will be too late. It’s already gone way way too far. As this great article lays out.

        • OldandNavy

          Agreed, Dean.

  • Perseus

    NPR is a platform for victim-masquerading bourgeois, privileged bitches to have pissing contests on who can over-enunciate the most. Who can tune the mic to capture the most female oral-mucus sounds and exaggerated fricatives while indulging in self-important inanities.. what a bunch of fucking lying cunts…

    • Jack LaBear

      Speaking of female oral sounds,
      something that especially bothers me on NPR is the epidemic of
      growling speech that speech pathologists call vocal fry. It seems
      like most young female announcers on NPR read the last half of every
      sentence in a croaking voice. It grates on my ears like nails on a
      chalkboard. A search for “vocal fry” brings up
      documentation of the phenomenon.

      I figured that these women
      must be imitating ‘women’s studies’ professors that try to talk like
      men. That assault on my ears alone is enough to keep me from donating
      to NPR again. Unfortunately, I know of no better non-commercial in
      depth news source.

      • Graham Strouse

        You said female oral sounds. Heh heh!

        • Bewildered

          You just can’t resist silencing women’s voices ,can you?
          It’s because of people like you &Jack LaBear they have got to pretend they are men just to get their wise messages across.

          • Jack LaBear

            That croaking speech is about the feminists giving us the finger.
            It’s along the same lines as building a mosque on ground zero.

            There is a myth in liberalism about the moral superiority of the (formerly) oppressed.
            The guilty white liberals are hell-bent on committing cultural suicide.
            What they will eventually realize is that the myth about the moral superiority of the (formerly) oppressed is just that: a myth. By then it will be too late.

            Most likely the runaway feminism in the West will end with the takeover by the Muslims. Although they are guilty of some serious excesses in controlling women, at least they know better than to let their women run wild. Controlling tendencies towards unbridled hypergamy, combined with giving the majority betas an incentive to be productive, is the basis for civilization.

          • Bewildered

            There is a myth in liberalism about the moral superiority of the (formerly) oppressed.

            Don’t insult true liberalism by calling these idiots liberal.A true liberal is a person with an open mind about everything and bases his judgments on empirical evidence.He is not dogmatic and doesn’t propagate myths.

  • Perseus

    In other news… females are oppressed !!! Have you heard?
    81% of Americans 100 or Older Are Women…

    And the biggest concern that all these soulless fake victims have is that poor “oppressed” females might run out of retirement money one day because they live such looong luxurious lives. ‘What? But the men are dead you say? Who the fuck cares, this is about us and our vaginas.’ Hey lying fucking females, I got news for you- go fuck yourselves. Yeah, that’s right, to hell ya bunch of sick fucking fucks

    81% of Americans 100 or Older Are Women…

    Women are oppressed
    81% of Americans 100 or Older Are Women…

    Women are oppressed
    81% of Americans 100 or Older Are Women…

    Women are oppressed

    • Dean Esmay

      I recently saw a documentary called “Happy” that was examining the issue of what it means to be happy and who the world’s happiest people were. Now they had many provocative and interesting points to make about it, but one thing I noticed that they were apparently oblivious to: how many old people were happy, and all the happy old people were old women.

    • Bewildered

      But they are depressed by the delusions created by the media ! Just replace ‘de’ with ‘op’ and voila we get the super magical OPPRESSION.

  • Tom Golden

    Well said Ray. Such an important article. i only wish it would be read in the mainstream where people are basically asleep to these ideas and even though there is a huge bias, people don’t even notice. Many thanks for putting this together,

    I would add a couple of things. Exactly right about ad companies and women. They want to kiss women’s butts in order to make sales…but they also have a vested interest in making men look stupid. Who is it that may argue with her and say there is no need to make this purchase? The man. By making him look stupid they grease the wheel for her to over-purchase since this gives her more reason to ignore his side of things….why should she listen to him? He’s an imbecile! She’s seen it on tv hundreds of times. BUY!! BUY!! BUY!!

    I think we should simply make the olympics unisex. No more special olympics except for the handicapped which is held at a different time and different venue. Have one skiing category and let all men and all women participate and let the best skier win. Have one swimming category and let all men and women participate. Have one running category and let both men and women participate. If we are truly equal this is the only fair path. lol

    The issue of women apologizing is of interest to me. Of my male friends nearly all of them have said in confidence that their wives have a very hard time apologizing and that they are expected to apologize on a regular basis. I have seen this same dynamic in the couples therapy I do. I may have a biased sample but is sure appears to be a trend…..

    • Allan

      I was quite surprised to see an article in our local paper on male .vs. female athletic abilities that told the truth. Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

      Fit but unequal: the biological differences between male and female athletes


      Testosterone and other hormones give him a greater percentage of lean muscle,
      particularly in his upper body. Because more muscle means more
      power, men’s top performances in jumping and sprinting sports — and
      especially in throwing sports — greatly exceed women’s.

      The man’s heart, because of its larger size, can send more blood per beat
      to working muscles than hers can. That translates to greater performance in
      endurance sports.

      Thanks to anatomical differences, some of her joints have a greater range of
      motion, giving her the edge in sports like gymnastics and figure
      skating. Hormones may also play a part in making joints more lax.

      Her total body fat is 16 percent of her weight; his is half that. Her body
      needs more “essential fat” just to keep all systems running smoothly.

      Her extra fat is vital but doesn’t boost
      performance, so he is stronger, pound for pound.

      Her wider pelvis means her femurs meet her tibias at a greater angle. The
      higher this “Q angle,” the more stress is put on the knee joints. This
      is one reason female soccer players, for example, are five to six times
      as susceptible to knee injuries as male players are.

      • Graham Strouse

        Generally speaking when it comes to sports performance the elite women will usually be the first to admit that they can’t compete with elite men. Mia Hamm, the all-time women’s soccer great was once asked by a reporter in the middle ’90s if she thought the US women could beat the US men. She basically laughed off the question. The US women’s team scrimmaged against the boys developmental teams all the time, she explained. According to Hamm, the elite women’s squad could generally hold her own with the boy’s 14-15 year olds but they were regularly beaten–and beaten convincingly, by the 16-17 year boy’s developmental squad.

  • Seele

    My reading of Ray’s article gives me a somewhat different way of looking at it. Unlike him, I did not ask why the NPR/PBS (and similar broadcasters internationally) are still sexist towards men without the dependency on advertising revenue as in mainstream media: it is to the advertisers’ advantage to promote sexism in the mainstream. Instead I get the feeling that the NPR etc are reflecting society’s mentality without significant influence by commercial interests, the mainstream media merely exploit the pre-existing gynocentric and misandric attitudes. I might be totally wrong about this, but for what it’s worth it’s something of a remote possibility nonetheless.

    • ExpatMatt

      You raise a good point, my earlier comment about following the money stench notwithstanding. Once you incline a culture a certain way, people follow of their own accord, cuz that’s where the crowd is going. Why should NPR–or any for-profit media conglomerate–not also have this influence affecting them?

      • Seele

        What I described was a logical extreme, to say the truth is between here and there. It is more feasible to say that these two things are symbiotic and feed each other.

        • ExpatMatt

          Absolutely. I think we should always understand or define the extremes, but yeah, truth is usually in the middle somewhere.

    • Graham Strouse

      I’m guessing it’s a smaller percentage of the populace than you might think. NPR/PBS have kind of turned into an echo chamber. Look what happens when something #banbossy & #cancelcolbert got enough traction to attract national attention. They’ve been widely ridiculed. Even HuffPost Live’s Zepps thought Suey Park was a nitwit.

  • travis perez

    Brilliant article in saving this one

  • Drawing Butts

    Wish you could’ve heard this one radio lab piece on NPR where they literally described the male sex as a mutation. Fucking, Valeria Solanas all over again!
    Basically, our single-cell primordial ancestors originally reproduced asexually (but for some reason the guest “scientist” on the show labeled these cells as “female”), then a new cell EVOLVED that would reproduce by passing its DNA on to the asexual cells (they labeled this new cell as “male”). They likened this form of reproduction to viruses… yeah, good one there.
    Then the piece changed its focus from deliberately misrepresenting science, to accepting the strawman and asking “so, what is the male sex good for”? They concluded that we’re good for genetic variance, and we’re possibly the reason species’ with two sexes are so adaptable. They went on saying that asexual species’ are found in unchanging environments like desserts or barren wastelands because of their inability to adapt. The piece ended by suggesting that, in the future, if the human race can create some unchanging environment to live in, the male sex will be rendered defunct. Yaaaaay!

    • John Narayan

      “The piece ended by suggesting that, in the future, if the human race can
      create some unchanging environment to live in, the male sex will be
      rendered defunct. Yaaaaay”

      They are correct, for the wrong reasons. If men disappeared the environment would be unchanging, well the built environment. The clowns that remain are not going to pick up the slack!

      • earth one

        Nothing but feminists and robots left, locked in civilization’s final battle for supremacy…

        Makes me laugh.

        • John Narayan

          Don’t be that robot.

  • Matthew Chapman

    Just yesterday I was listening to Morning Edition on the way into work, and the topic was “student loan debt”. They interviewed three college graduates, each with debt at different levels and plans (or lack thereof) for how to deal with it.

    All three college graduates that they interviewed were female.

    Another story: a few years ago, I was listening to To The Best Of Our Knowledge on NPR, on Father’s Day. I remember that all the stories they offered on that show that day, none of them were about fathers, none of them were about men, I think there was even a story talking about bad stuff this one guy did, but most were about women and how strong they were. I wrote to the show and complained, saying “it’s Father’s Day, for chrissakes, you couldn’t put pro-father or pro-male stories on JUST THIS ONE DAY?” The response I got back, from the host himself, Jim Fleming, was basically “we thought this show was great and if you didn’t like it, well, too bad”.

    • Graham Strouse

      I was just thinking about the student debt issue this weekend. Given that 1) more than 60% of college degrees are now earned by women & 2) 9 of the 10 most remunerative degree degree tracks are STILL dominated by men while 9 of the least 10 remunerative degree tracks are still dominated by women aren’t women just screwing themselves over more? We’ve always had a plentiful supply of (mostly) psych & elementary education majors. Now we’ve got EVEN MORE OF THEM. This creates a glut in already overloaded fields and this just drives down wages even more as student debt loads continues to soar.

      Whose fault is that?

      • Bewildered

        The Men’s !
        No one mentors(!) these poor,clueless, “STRONG AND INDEPENDENT” wimminz properly !
        Not until we destroy all the men’s,boy’s,cigar smoking old boy’s,horny boy’s,crazy boy’s,molester’s,rapist’s,misogynist’s,macho men’s,cat-caller’s,fornicator’s CLUBS will the poor wimminz be able to achieve their true potential.

        According to the all time greatest American President:

        ” Women can do everything a man can and they can do it better walking backwards in high heels ! ”
        Heck ! they don’t even need those frikkin high heels to prove their point in the ” Whining &Whinging Olympics” where they are clear winners and perpetual champions.

  • Allan

    Yes, please comment about other countries and cultures. That would be very interesting to me (in USA).

    • Kimski

      Danish state controlled TV has 4 different channels. Not a single day goes by without a program on at least one of those about the front figures of feminism, the historical development of feminism, or the historical oppression of women.
      I got rid of my TV some 4 or 5 years ago, and I used to think it was bad enough back then. Now they’re just hammering this propaganda into people on a daily basis.

      • RubberPunch

        Confirming this from a fellow dane. I haven’t watched T.V. for years, but I am from time to time subjected to it from family. It’s quite amazing how awful it is when you’ve been away from it for a while.

      • RubberPunch

        Confirming this from a fellow dane. I haven’t watched T.V. for years, but I am from time to time subjected to it from family. It’s quite amazing how awful it is when you’ve been away from it for a while.

        • Kimski

          Oh, thank god, I’m not alone anymore!!
          You won’t believe the things they make me do in this place!

          Velkommen til. Jeg har smidt dig på min follow liste, og undrede mig godt nok også over at du havde inkluderet mig på din. :)

          • RubberPunch

            Thanks! I’ve followed the manosphere for years, been reading avfm from the beginning. I haven’t commented or written anything substantial before though. I also know about you from danish sites, I think you may have been active on years ago? I have done some commentary on danish sites from time to time.

            I haven’t said much, cause my background is theoretical marxism. I’m not a political marxist though, to me there’s a rather large difference. I for instance believe that the most interesting political group in the last decade has been libertarians. I share many of their goals, but don’t believe in their suggested methods.

            Just as with feminism, some may suggest I stop calling myself a marxist, but then again people like Shapin would then claim I’m trying to hide my theoretical background. But in the end that’s just politics, I support MHRM and AVFM because I want better lives for men and boys, and also women and girls for that matter.

  • Jason Stowers

    Most television programming is now really difficult to look at. Almost every news reporter and anchor is a female with a squealing high voice. I used to watch old movies on TCM, but the feminists have commandeered the channel and nearly every movie shown now must include in the title, either a woman’s name, the word woman, girl, sister, daughter, she or her and prominently feature a woman. Look for yourself, it’s just unbelievable……..

  • John Narayan

    Meh, if ya don’t like it, either put the TV on the footpath, or delete the channel in the setup menu. In my case I don’t have an antenna connection.

    • Kimski

      Actually, I threw mine out of the window. True story.
      I just wanted to see what it would feel like, and I’ll highly recommend it any day!
      Just remember to have good explanation at hand, ’cause the neighbors are going to come asking what happened. Nobody seemed to get why you would intentionally destroy a cultural semi-deity this way.

      • John Narayan

        Yep a waste of time and space.

      • earth one

        Mine got hauled off to…somewhere. When they converted everything to digital, I thought, screw this, I haven’t watched it for years, I don’t need an upgrade. A guy picked it up and hauled it off with a bunch of other junk.

        Yes, that’s right folks, I called a MAN with a TRUCK to come and pick up my stuff and haul it off. Apparently there aren’t too many women interested in that kind of work – just sayin’…

  • John Narayan

    MGTOW TV collection?

  • Seele

    I even separate GLB from T: being transsexual is about one’s identity, being male or female. It’s more fundamental as you would have to get this established before you can say you are G, L, or Straight.

  • Bewildered

    Today, there is just a sea of constant negative views of men, and no positives, without anything to temper it. We’re a SICK SOCIETY. It’s obvious and foreign to me. —– Allan

    We are, by and large, progressively getting more gynocentric and misandric. —-Seele

    This is clear as daylight on a bright sunny day but what’s absolutely astounding is the state of denial the whole culture is in.Systemic misandry [right here the spell checker doesn’t recognize this word!] is invisible whereas systemic misogyny is supposed to be everywhere despite evidence to the contrary !
    Women behave in a manner that would embarrass even the most disgusting category of pigs but yet men are called chauvinistic pigs.
    On and on it goes the merry carousel of egregious double standards.
    If this isn’t sickness,like Allan commented,what is?
    To say that feminism is not complicit in this, is the travesty of the truth.
    But what really takes the cake[and boils my blood] is the absolute deification of feminism.
    It has managed to become the de facto arbitrator of all human affairs.
    Probably it’s condescending to say that the culture is dumbed down,but I don’t see how this could have been possible otherwise.

  • Grant

    If that’s who is donating and listening, then it’s great that NPR has managed to do such good market research. I’m of the mind that sports coverage that is “in demand” is probably best left to private media. NPR can’t effectively cover football like NBC can. Likewise with unsuccessful Olympians. The victim narrative is getting old, but I can’t force myself to think it’s deliberate in all cases. Either way as long as it’s not vitriolic I think it’s fine, we should all just vote with our ears and encourage others to do the same… Well you all should, I’ll be busy ignoring and recommending against the cbc. Thanks for pointing this out with evidence for what we all strongly suspected.

  • John Narayan

    We are the mainstream media! The media is afraid of us because we do not take from Government or corporate. Sorry mate you are asking us to sell out. If you want to play Johnny at the crossroads fine, but you can meet the devil there yourself the MHRA is not going with you. We are not going to become the SPLC in a whores uniform standing on the street corner thanks.


    ************OUR INDEPENDENCE************

    caps lock off.

  • Sarah D. Smith

    Men have been talking for thousands of years, chill out and let someone else have the spot light for at least the next 100, k?

    • driversuz

      For thousands of years men have been talking about how to make the world safer and more comfortable for women, at the behest of women. Not only have they talked, they have produced what they talked about.

      As the entitled pampered child you obviously are, you take all their work for granted. Shut the fuck up and show a little humility, Your Majesty.

    • driversuz

      You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (trolling). [Ref: 3343]

      Additional remarks:

      Royal seagull

  • brs

    Men are portrayed as buffoons in some media. OK. Ya know what tho? Suck it up kid. I’ll keep the deal as is. I can go running at midnight and not worry about getting raped, live w/o street harassment, get encouraged to take math and science at a young age, etc, etc. Don’t worry boys, we’re still on the plus side the ledger, so STFU, stop crying, and get to f*cking work. You’re probably angry at women because you don’t get laid much and trust me: you don’t get laid because you’re all so whiny.

    • Grumpy Old Man

      You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 3906]

      Additional remarks:

      My name is BS with a little r in between. I troll.

    • driversuz

      Where’s your diatribe exhorting women to “suck it up” and stop whining about “Eye rape,” the imaginary wage gap, “Where have all the good men gone?” “Manspreading…”

      Go ahead and tell women to grow up. I dare you.