mask gas mask toxic environment

Masculinity is more than a mask

Editorial note: a recent popular documentary has been getting a lot of press lately. Just seeing the trailer for this film, we suspect most AVfM readers will spot things they agree with in this trailer but will probably also see huge problems with what look like major problems with the filmmaker’s premises. Here is the trailer for that movie:

Dr. Hoff Sommers had some things to say about it which confirm we’re not alone in our suspicions. –DE

Are school shooters and mass murderers born out of an aggressive emphasis on masculinity in our society? The trailer for filmmaker and feminist activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s new documentary, The Mask You Live In, would have us think so.

The recently released trailer has attracted 1 million views on YouTube. It argues that American boys are captive to a rigid and harmful social code of masculinity. From the earliest age, they are told to “Be a man!” “Don’t cry!” “Stop with the emotion!” and “Man up!” This “guy code” suppresses their humanity, excites their drive for dominance and renders many of them dangerous. The trailer features adolescent men describing their isolation, despair and thoughts of suicide, artfully interspersed with terrifying images of school shooters and mass murderers.

I admire Newsom for using her considerable talent to advocate for boys. But I worry that she is less concerned with helping boys than with re-engineering their masculinity according to specifications from some out-of-date gender-studies textbook. The trailer is suffused with males-are-toxic ideology but shows little appreciation for how boys’ nature can be distinctively good. The Mask You Live In is scheduled to be released later this year. Let’s hope there is still time for edits.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. Recognize that masculinity is more than a “mask”

The title and content of the film suggest that masculinity is a cultural creation. That is only marginally true. A lot of typical boy behavior, such as rough-and-tumble play, risk taking and fascination with gadgets rather than dolls, appears to have a basis in biology. Researchers have found, for example, that female monkeys play with dolls much more than their brothers, who prefer toy cars and trucks. Are male monkeys captive to a “guy code?” A recent study on sex differences by researchers from the University of Turin, in Italy, and the University of Manchester, in England, confirms what most of us see with our eyes: with some exceptions, women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded, while men tend to be more utilitarian, objective, unsentimental and tough-minded. We do not yet fully understand the biological underpinnings of these universal tendencies, but that is no reason to deny they exist.

2. Appreciate the difference between healthy and pathological masculinity

Some boys are hypermasculine or pathologically masculine. They are bullies and worse, establishing their male bona fides through destruction, mayhem and preying on the weak and vulnerable. But most boys evince healthy masculinity. They may enjoy mayhem in games and sports, but in life they like to build, not destroy. Their instinct is not to exploit vulnerable people but to protect and defend them. Of course, all boys need guidance and discipline from the adults in their lives. I agree with Newsom that telling a boy to “man up” can be harsh and degrading. But teaching him to “be a gentleman” is another matter. It’s a tried-and-true way to bring out the best in males.

3. Acknowledge the virtue of male reserve

Newsom’s film tells us that boys in our society don’t feel safe talking about emotions and personal struggles. To do so violates the boy code and subjects them to shame and ridicule. The driving message of Newsom’s film is that we must free our young men to become emotionally expressive. Of course, parents should do all they can to improve their sons’ emotional literacy. But parents (as well as wives and girlfriends) should keep in mind that male reticence has its advantages.

A 2012 a study surveyed and observed nearly 2,000 children and adolescents and found that boys and girls have very different expectations about the value of problem talk. Girls were more likely to report that personal disclosure made them feel cared for and understood. Boys, overall, found it to be a tedious waste of time — and “weird.” Contrary to what we learn from Newsom’s film, boys did not find personal disclosure embarrassing or unmasculine. According to the study’s author, Amanda Rose: “Boys’ responses suggest they just don’t see talking about problems to be a particularly useful activity” (emphasis added).

But in girls, excessive problem talk is in fact linked to anxiety and depression. Male stoicism may be adaptive and protective. If you want a boy to be more forthcoming, Rose has good advice for parents and counselors: “You will have to persuade him that it serves a practical purpose.” Engage his male instinct for problem solving.

4. Make clear that most boys are psychologically sound and resilient

The Mask You Live In gives the impression that the average adolescent boy is severely depressed. In fact, clinical depression is rare among boys. (National Institute of Mental Health data show that the prevalence of depression among among 13- to 17-year-old boys is 4.3%; among girls of the same age group, it is 12.4%.)

Newsom’s film reports that every day in the U.S. three or more boys take their own lives. Suicide is, indeed, primarily a male disease. Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male. In 2010, a total of 3,951 young men died by their own hands. Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable. Still, in a nation of nearly 33 million boys, that means that the percentage of boys who commit suicide is close to 0.01%. Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) does appear to be an epidemic among boys, but the implications of that are ambiguous. It could be that as a society, we are pathologizing age-old male rambunctiousness. Some experts have suggested that ADHD would be significantly reduced if we allowed boys more unstructured recess and occasions for spirited rough-and-tumble play. Yet, in Newsom’s documentary, scenes of boys engaging in mock fisticuffs, playfully head-butting and chasing one another around the playground are offered as evidence of how young males are driven to “prove” their aggressive masculinity.

5. Include specific ideas on how to help boys with depression or thoughts of suicide

Some of the most promising, innovative ideas are coming out of Australia. In 2006, a report in the Medical Journal of Australia argued for a paradigm shift in the nation’s mental-health system. Rather than blaming “masculinity” or trying to “re-educate” men away from their reluctance to seek help, the author asks, “Why not provide health services that better meet the needs of men?”

The Australians are now developing male-specific mental-health protocols. A 2012 Australian study, for example, found that large majorities of young men associate the term mental health with insanity and straightjackets. Mental fitness seems to go over better with men. The Australians recently launched a mental-fitness app for guys. The focus is on acquiring “skills,” developing “strengths” and achieving “self-mastery.” But doesn’t that reinforce traditional narratives of masculinity? It certainly does — that’s the point, and the key to its promise.

The energy, competitiveness and corporal daring of normal males are responsible for much good in the world. No one denies that boys’ aggressive and risk-taking tendencies must be socialized and channeled toward constructive ends. But the de–Tom Sawyering of the American boy should not be anyone’s agenda. I am sure it is not Newsom’s. Yet her film in progress suggests otherwise.


Editor’s note: this item has been cross-posted from Time Magazine  with permission.–DE

About Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers is an American author and former philosophy professor who is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism. She is the author of "Who Stole Feminism?" and the recently-revised "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men ."

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Dean Esmay

    Thank you Christina.

    While I agree there is arguably such a thing as “toxic masculinity,” I wonder if this particular filmmaker has bothered to explore the areas where we make the culture toxic for boys by telling them there’s something wrong with them when there is nothing wrong with them. I also wonder if the filmmaker has bothered to examine the concept of “toxic femininity,” including the well-documented problems caused by girls’ relational aggression, their use of proxy violence, and the especially modern tendency to see direct violence they commit themselves as “empowerment” rather than shameful. Or the tendency to excuse girls for bad behavior, which isn’t just bad for society, it’s bad for them.

    I have a sneaking suspicion none of that has made its way into her work, although I’d like to be wrong.

    • nick

      Great points!

  • Robert St. Estephe

    (Rather than blaming “masculinity” or trying to “re-educate” men away from their reluctance to seek help, the author asks, “Why not provide health services that better meet the needs of men?”)

    An amazing intellectual leap on the behalf of those who are paid to serve us, no? The interventionist mindset is so pervasive that simple logic and common sense are frequently the last resort that one turns to when all the standard go-to “solutions” control-freak engineering of humanity cultists have thrown up their hands in despair after seeing the failure of their unsound, based-on-false-premises, efforts.

    The date 1939, placed after the title of a film, might scare away a lot of people. It screams “no color,” “suits and ties,” “nothing blows up!” All true. Yet, for every single person that has an interest in education of boys and wants to think about how to reimagine a world without the horrors of the “toxic education” that we are saddled with now, it is obligatory to become familiar with the cinema masterpiece “Good-bye Mr. Chips” (1939). Another useful tool in “Project Reawakening.”

  • Odin

    “You will have to persuade him that it serves a practical purpose.”
    My experience exactly. It can’t seriously have taken this long for people to figure out something so simple; all it took was somebody asking some dudes.
    I guess it goes to show that ideology will overwrite science in the public mind when we aren’t careful… and water is wet.

    • Mr. Sungame

      Heck, I have tried to “Talk about my feelings, and open up” to women before… they just didn’t want to “listen to my whining”. So what practical purpose does it serve?
      Hell I ad legitimate things I wanted to discuss, but they were “complicated and hard” not to mention “you can’t think like that” with the applied “man up”.

      So yeah, when women say they want you to talk about feelings, it’s just as long as those feelings are directed at her in a positive way.

      • Kimski

        “Talk about feelings, and open up” is just another scene in the extended theater play they play with eachother, also known as “Playing Nice”, and allegedly wants men to be a part of, even though they can’t handle it when we actually do it.

        “Playing Nice” is the equivalent to a bunch of random guys playing poker together:
        Everyone’s bluffing everyone else, while trying to figure out which cards the others are holding, and if they’re going to fuck up your game and take your money.

        It supposedly strengthens the bonds of the herd, but to an outsider it’s the ultimate display of hypocrisy and faked sympathy.
        Anyone who has had a partner unload on them after she’s spend ‘a night with the girls’ knows the extent of sincerety and honesty that goes into it.

        Like they say themselves, we don’t know how haaard it is to be a woman.

        Now, why the hell would I want to put myself through that?

  • Kevin Wayne

    Some may enjoy my take that I wrote on the same topic a couple of weeks ago:

  • Duke

    Honestly what do these gender feminists think boys should look like when ” When they take off their masks”???? We have to fully understand that those that want to be the ones to “Take off these boys so called masks”, want them to do so, so they came paint these ????maskless????young boys into their own self image.
    Boys need to play stickball in the street with other boys, and not have an army of bureaucrats and administration officials and quack child psychologists driving them nuts and getting them on prescription drugs.

  • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    Jennifer Siebel Newsom is the wife of Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco and present lieutenant governor of California. He has very high political aspirations. Mrs. Newsom was born to a wealthy SF family and is incredibly *P*R*I*V*I*L*E*G*E*D. Yes, another unbelievably privileged feminist who feels oppressed (insert extreme eye roll).

    A few years ago, when she was promoting her first documentary, “Miss Representation,” I saw her speak at a Tedx. She was very pregnant, didn’t seem like she had prepared at all for the event and completely ignored the rules of Tedx by rambling on and on about how women are so oppressed and under-represented in higher-up media positions for nearly twice the allotted time for Tedx speakers.

    As result, she threw the remainder of the Tedx event off schedule, which effected the other speakers who came after her. In my opinion, she was unprofessional, self-important, disorganized and colossally inconsiderate to the other speakers, the coordinators of the event and the attendees.

    She was fully aware she was running overtime and stated so while she was on stage. She said something to the effect, “I know I’m overtime, but I have more to say,” laughed (thinking she was cute or charming, I imagine) and just kept going. For those of you unfamiliar with Ted talks, their time limit for presentations is sacrosanct and something they stress in their instructions to speakers prior to the event (I know this because I have friends who have spoken at Ted events). Very poor showing.

    As for her latest foray into documentary filmmaking, she lost me the minute Kimmel appears in the trailer as an expert on masculinity. Enough said.

    • Theseus

      LOL Doc you beat me to it with your last paragraph! Yeah, anything with ‘ol Mikey in it, immediately puts me off.

      I would also add that many of us have heard “man up” shaming language largely from feminists. Oh, and I have to insert my own extreme eye roll when I hear and see an admonishment that troubled boys are not seeking psychological and professional help when they are being told that they are to blame for everything; after all they are “privileged” and don’t have any reeeal problems compared to girls anyways.

      An extension of this cultural attitude is the fact that there are little or no resources for abused men, on top of the BS lie that the only true victims of DV are women.

      In this climate of misandric societal and feminist driven apathy, is it any wonder boys and men are going to scoff at seeking help?

    • Robert Crayle

      She lost me when you said she spoke at TEDx rather than TED. TEDx has to be the sewer of thought that runs under TED street. No-one who speaks at TEDx would be touched by the main TED talks; TEDx is available for people and groups to speak if “they” want, they aren’t asked along by TED. TEDx is an independent from TED that I would pay to avoid honestly.

    • Iron John

      Dr. T, is this the event you are talking about?

      • Billybobownway

        OMG– She is an idiot.

      • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

        Yes, this is the one. And this is most likely an edited clip (sorry, not listening to her again – once was more than enough). She blathered on for nearly 30 minutes, if memory serves. I suspect the people running the event allowed her to go overtime because of who her husband is, her “Hollywood” connection and, perhaps her family.

        The other speakers were all quite good, including John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I remember feeling trapped and violated by Newsom’s abuse of the time limit and, of course, because of the drivel she was peddling.

      • Robert St. Estephe

        She picked up the wrong script when she ran out of the mansion to jump into thew limo.. She was in a hurry and grabbed one of those old “trophy wife dumb blonde” scripts.

        Jennifer Siebel Newsom quoted: “What if they started investing them (sic)?” (“invest,” from Latin investire to clothe, surround, from in- + vestis garment)

    • sammich heist

      . In my opinion, she was unprofessional, self-important, disorganized and colossally inconsiderate to the other speakers, the coordinators of the event and the attendees.

      You know, you could have shortened this whole description with just one word.
      starts with F, ends with T.

    • Mr. Sungame

      I have always been of the opinion that when there is an allotted time for you to talk they should shut off the microphone the instant they go over and then dim the lights (if it’s the end of a speech, dimming the lights would be silly at a debate)

      You are allotted a time slot, respect that. The conference/debate/etc is not there JUST for YOU!

      PS: How fun wouldn’t the presidential debates be when the mediator go “Oh, sorry mister President, times up… should have gotten to the point instead of talking empty words. Over to you mister Senator, 2 minutes, GO!”

      • Kimski

        “dimming the lights would be silly at a debate”

        Pull the fire alarm?

  • Duke

    If we keep federally pork bloating the organisations and bureaucracies that are micro-managing our young boys (breaking and dividing them from other boys)…we are well on our way to 1984. Young boys need time to play with other boys…not micro managed …”play dates”. We are really making a mess out of our young boys, just so these massive pork bloated bureaucracies can expand themselves, and get more pork bloating dollars. ………Create a sickness, and sell a cure that does not work, so you can say you need more federal pork bloating dollars.

  • Avonthalonus

    2. Appreciate the difference between healthy and pathological femininity

    Some girls are hyperfeminine or pathologically feminine. They are bullies and worse, establishing their female bona fides through manipulation, mayhem and preying on the weak and vulnerable. But most girls evince healthy femininity. They may enjoy manipulation in soaps and romance novels, but in life they like to nurture, not destroy. Their instinct is not to exploit vulnerable people but to heal and comfort them. Of course, all girls need guidance and discipline from the adults in their lives. I agree with Newsom that telling a girl that “as a girl, you can do anything you want” can be corrupting and enabling of bad behavior. But teaching her to “be a lady” is another matter. It’s a tried-and-true way to bring out the best in females.

    “The role of men has always been to civilize women; to force women to consider others aside themselves. Without that women will do what they have always done: degenerate into self-absorbed brats.” – Aaron Pizzey

    • Robert Crayle

      I may be showing my ignorance, but who is ‘Aaron’ Pizzey?

      • Laddition

        Erin’s brother?

        • Kimski

          Nope, Erin’s brother was named Daniel Carney.
          He wrote “The Wild Geese”, which was later made into a movie starring Roger Moore, Richard Burton, and Richard Harris.
          Great movie…

          ~Movie Encyclopedia Kimski.

          • Aldir Gracindo


    • Bombay

      Yes. “Some boys are hypermasculine or pathologically masculine.” did not hit me right either.

      Perhaps some women could be hypermasculine or pathologically masculine or some men could be hyperfeminine or pathologically feminine? Is there a toxic quality about a sex or maybe some people are just pathological. Perhaps pathologically white or Jewish could work too.

    • Mr. Sungame

      I wish I could +1 this multiple times, because it shows so much gold!

    • markis1
  • Duke

    I believe it was in one of Dr Farrels books that said it was statistically the white middle class ( who now run these massive pork bloated bureaucracies) who are the ones statistically breaking and micro-managing the lives of their young boys, while the poor boys play stick ball in the street with other boys after school. There are serious dangerous psychological consequences when adults try to micro-manage the lives of young boys, instead of letting them learn how to interact with other children while playing stick ball in the street after school. Some of the most psychologically broken / castrated, heavily drugged on psyche meds, guys i have ever met, are white middle class males who were so micro-managed by their mothers that they still do not know how to go out and “play stick ball in the street with other guys”. They have no understanding of basic male to male appropriate interaction. In a way, They have been psychologically mutated.

  • Duke

    I believe it was Jeffry Dalmers mother who kept the young boy in the house away from other boys for so long, that when he finally met another young boy…He felt inappropriate feelings toward the young boy, All because his mother kept him in the house away from other children for so long, …….it had devastating consequences.

  • J Galt

    Here we go again with more toxic Harlequin masculinity perspectives from the consumption sector.

  • Mark Trueblood

    Minor quibble: “But teaching him to “be a gentleman” is another matter. It’s a tried-and-true way to bring out the best in males.” – Young people should be taught to treat one another with civility and uphold human rights. Training young men to be a gentleman sounds too much like indoctrination into chivalrous behavior for my taste. “Chivalry” is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of gender equality.

    • Paul Elam

      Have to agree. Not that it takes anything away from Sommer’s work here.

      Well, maybe I should say that I agree, today. Historically I think teaching young men to be gentlemen was a practical and effective strategy for adding stability to society.

      Today, it is just dangerous to teach young men ANY gender based expectations on conduct. The problem is that all expectations for boys that are predicated on their sex, lead to their utility to girls who are being trained and encouraged to exploit and abuse it.

      And then to brag about it to their friends and parents.

      Being a gentleman in 1975. Yeah, good thing. In 2014? NO.

      Like you said, teach them to treat each other with civility and respect. 100% agreed. Teach boys to be “gentlemen”?

      Only when the culture returns to teaching young women to act like ladies.

      • Mark Trueblood

        Chivalry, “man up” shaming, and the traditional female pedestal are just as responsible for the sorry state of men and the male-female dynamic as anything that came out of a feminist’s mouth.

        This is, and will continue to be, a main bone of contention between egalitarian mra’s and conservatives sympathetic to these issues.

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          @Mark: “Minor quibble:… Training young men to be a gentleman sounds too much like indoctrination into chivalrous behavior for my taste. “Chivalry” is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of gender equality.”

          Minor quibble?

          I agree with you 100% – being a gentleman is synonymous with chivalry and is the basis for gynocentrism. Chivalry is the No.1 enabler of gynocentrism. So I cant agree with Christina that persuading men to be gentlemen was ever a good idea. In fact I detest the idea – it’s a major quibble for me.

          Coined in the 1200′s, the word “Gentil man” soon became synonymous with chivalry. According to the Oxford Dictionary gentleman came to refer by 1386 to “a man with chivalrous instincts and fine feelings”. Gentleman specifically implies chivalric behaviour and serves as a synonym for it; a meaning that has been retained to the present day.

          I’m aware that Christina has elsewhere promoted chivalry and gentlemanliness as a civilizing benefit for males, and that she holds traditionalist perspectives about maleness that she argues are rooted in biological essences. However I think -or rather I would hope- that AVfM has moved past traditionalist stereotyping of males and the need to civilize them with Ol’ fashioned chivalry.

          Other than that small but significant detail, praise for Christine’s analysis of The Mask You Live In… it’s good news that she has agreed to contribute pieces like this to AVfM.

          • MGTOW-man

            Sommers is a woman. She is one of us, but she is still a woman. Women are more alike than different. Thus, the things that females do to expect, exploit, and get from males is present in her too.

            I love her. I think she is an exception to the usual stereotypes of women… except that she is still a woman. She is a sensible woman mostly, but still a woman. Not being sexist here, but being inconveniently truthful about some things that bind women as females…directed by nature.

            As a general rule, females are going to do what gets them the most. It must be wired into most of them via evolution and reinforced by socialization. Males will too, but not in the context that women will, spoken here.

          • The Horseless Hun

            And what would be the things that bind men as males, as directed by nature? Just curious to hear YOUR opinion on the inverse

          • MGTOW-man

            Peter, I agree with you on at least she is contributing here. That is a positive step.

            I also want to use this reply to speak to “Horseless Hun” who asked me for some information below. Since I can’t respond there, thanks for allowing me to, here. Hopefully he will get it.

            Horseless Hun, MY answer is that most men, directed also by nature and coupled with socialization, will do what gets them “more” too…which unfortunately benefits women more so—AGAIN. Men will do what acquires them the most female admiration. They conflate and grossly confuse manhood with female approval (too concise?).

            The natural biological drive in males to get women to like/accept them (as it is with most all sexually reproducing species), has and will continue to overtake their rational selves too…to lose their bearings over women wanting more and more and more and more… —just as many women will allow their feelings/oblivion to hijack their otherwise rational selves, resulting in exactly the mayhem in which we are immersed.

            To be sure, the chaos we now “enjoy” is the two-pronged result of both female and male nature-socialization in which women were handed “power” (lacking responsibility/accountability) without the “changers” having taken a good internal look at the natural dynamics between the sexes.

            I have said for a very long time, “We are in the mess we are in because of the way men are and the way women are”. So far, no one has proven me wrong and instead so many of the articles we enjoy here support it.

            Some other related things males are bound by nature (coupled with societal reinforcements) to be: (0ver) competitive, copycats, ego-obsessed, just to name a few. Since socialization plays a role, even if minor, it can be changed…at least to the extent it can be. This is one of the biggest reasons I say change men, change the world.

            Thanks for asking. Cheers, brother.

      • draigoluther

        @Paul Elam:

        Teaching women, to be ladies? In what way?

        I think it would be more accurate to teach them responsibility and accountablity. Because in my opinion is that women historically have not have responsibilities and accountabilty, or at least not the same, or on the same level as men, historically or now.

        It just seems to me, that they have all the rights , but have very limited responsibility that comes with those rights …and of course feminists are just fine with that…

        I guess I’m confused on what is mean’t by teaching women to be ladies really means..


        • MGTOW-man

          Teaching girls to be ladies is offensive to feminists. We know their exaggerated “reasons” for it too. (For example, while there are some women present, there are no “ladies” in the military, for lady runs contrary to knuckle busting “grunt”. If wrong, then convince me that specifically, a “lady” will save my combat-fallen body while under fire herself. Feminists see lady as oppressive stuff straight from the patriarchy. It is true they are missing the boat, but that is still how they FEEL it.

          But feminists have no problem teaching boys to be gentlemen—whatever gets women the most, no matter the fallout to society etc. Men eat it up too, their egos being their “compass”, since they get more female admiration.

          I understand the need for civility and gentleness, but when only men have to be civil and gentle, then it is wrong due to obvious reasons of power imbalance.

          But unless men do things the way women want, feminism won’t survive as long. Thus, the drive to suppress men with shaming them into being gentlemen and man-up..

          The semi-traditional upbringing in me (that I have ultimately rejected obviously—for the most part), wants me to admire the concept of being a gentleman but the more learned side of me wants it abolished because it is only a tool, now, for the selfish, destructive and the oblivious.

          I love the concept of a soft lady with refined values, behavior, and expectations. But since we are doing away with “oppressive” stuff, like being a lady, then why should men be the only thing not changed?

          No more ladies or gentlemen. Just equal people. Right feminists?

          • draigoluther

            I agree with alot of what you are saying, but I guess for me it would boil down to women respecting men as men, and not try to change us to what feminist ideology says what we should be. I guess this answers my own question of how young women need to taught to act like “ladies”. Do I think that women would ever be taught this? On a social or cultural level? In today’s environment? I highly doubt it.

        • Mr. Sungame

          “Teach boys to be “gentlemen”?

          Only when the culture returns to teaching young women to act like ladies.”

          Was what Paul said. It’s an answer to a question. He wasn’t advocating it, only saying that “If Gentlemen, then Ladies”.

          Chivalry works in a traditionalist setting, but not in a post-traditionalist “girl power! I do what I want” setting.

          But I think we can all agree that we would RATHER have responsible and accountable women, because when they are they are more equal to us than when we have a Gentleman+Ladies setting.

        • Paul Elam

          Teach women to be ladies means a society that does not reward gluttonous hypergamy. We taught ladies to remain with their families and invest their lives in their children (once they were married and had children) by stigmatizing and ostracizing them when they did not.

          We did not just allow them to up and walk out of a marriage, taking all the assets and the children, just because they thought the pool boy was hot and wanted to fuck him for a while.

          These legal constraints on hypergamy were also mirrored by social pressures. It was not there were not greedy, irresponsible women. There certainly were. But I am old enough to remember a time where there were indeed limits on what women could get away with, and the women of that time acted a great deal differently than women now.

          As someone else pointed out, my insinuation here was either/or. It was not a call to return to the times I just mentioned. I don’t wax nostalgic about chivalry or traditionalism.

          But if, in any corner of our society, we are still talking about teaching young men to be “gentlemen” we must counterbalance that with proportionate expectations of women.

          But to sum up an answer to your question, what is acting like a “lady”? Very simple, it is placing moral limits on hypergamy, and consequences for those that go too far.

          • draigoluther

            Thank you for your response, sorry mine is so late. But it makes me wonder how Feminists can openly say that Woman are oppressed or marginalized in the US, when they have all of these institutional privileges. I just don’t understand it..

  • Duke

    And hoff sommers, I recommend you’re book about “who stole feminism” to many, many people. Youre a great thinker, and a great writer!!!

    • The Real Peterman

      I think I’ll give it a read.

  • greg

    Love your work @CHSommers. Tried to introduce your work to my elder son. In 1 ear and out the other.

    I am so tired of this maleness/masculinity is broken, we’re all batterers/rapist filth. Found this article yesterday, faith based writer but article is not faith based, gist being, you are not broken, don’t be ashamed, and be very grateful for your masculinity and who you are.

  • Bluedrgn

    Seems like just another feminists out to show that being a male is bad, so we should teach all our boys to be more like girls.

    At least until that boy/man talks about feelings that they don’t want hear about… such has how oppressive it is be taught from birth that being born with the wrong plumbing makes him “bad”. Then it’s “ew manfeelz”, or, “oh no, he’s mansplaining”.

    • tango

      Well, yeah. You boys gotta learn to be feminine in ways that provide a service to women – a shoulder to cry on; a listening ear. As soon as you cross the line into the sort of feminine behaviour that serves YOU – like demanding extra care, compassion, or attention – you better make sure you have the uterus to pay for it, thief!

      This is why I say teaching boys to be more like girls is NOT the polar opposite of teaching them to be super masculine! Its the flipside of the same coin; either way you’re teaching them that they are defective as they are, and that their life is about serving other people! Toxic masculinity is what they call the fallout of treating boys like butlers in training instead of children. Perhaps toxic servitude would be a better name for it, and we should learn to just leave boys alone instead of interfering.

      • tallwheel

        “you better make sure you have the uterus to pay for it, thief!”

        I love that. It’s perfect. Femininity is a luxury, and it takes inherent biological value in order to be worthy of it in other humans’ eyes.

  • Bewildered

    Vested interests are at it again ! Need I tell who they are ? Dr. T gave a hint , Anja did her own research and voila discovered snake oil salesmen ooops ! .salespersons

    • Laddition

      VERY GOOD LINK to another great Anja article. I very much recommend that others check it out.

      Nice work Anja, thanks for the link Bewildered

      Anya, can we get your dulcet tones on Honey Badger Radio? Either as guest, or preferably, permanently.

  • draigoluther

    This film will be nothing more then feminism once again trying to define what men and boys “should” be, not who they are. The film asks the question “As a society how are we failing our boys?” Well, gee let me think, could it be that Men and Boys just can’t be respected as men and boys? The whole Male gender being looked at like a patheology that needs to conform to Feminist ideals? Just Maybe? A little?

    Why do they (feminists) insist on changing us, what if there was a similiar film expoloring the problems of girls and women, and suggesting how the NEED to change..Oh god, we would not hear the end of it…

    It just seems to me that Women are taught to be totally oblivious to the real issues that men and boys face…

    • Laddition

      They’re willingly oblivious because they do not care about boys or men. These women are a disgrace to humanity.

  • miketaurus

    I have a really simple take on boys in school and as previously mentioned “The social engineering of boys” is relative emotionally to the high number of female teachers in schools.

    Having been a parent of a son with ADHD it was the male teachers who had more success than female teachers because in the learning process it involved masculinity which encouraged male attachment and trust.

    From the experiences and analysis at the time the female teachers were making efforts to change his thinking, linking into the female spectrum. How absurd but is that not the feminist agenda getting dangerous.

    Would it be preposterous to argue that feminism kills boys?

    • gwallan

      “Would it be preposterous to argue that feminism kills boys?”


  • Aldir Gracindo

    I’m an admirer of people who dare to speak for men and boys in times like these. Christina is one of the brave! So glad to see this article here. :)

    In a while it’ll be in Portuguese, and so will the video, subtitled.

    How I wish future kids will come to a better world.

  • Redfield

    Hyper masculine/pathological masculine??? They used to call this APD when I was studying it, wow now masculinity has pathology? Who would have guessed this would come from a feminist psychologist? Didn’t Bob Geldof sing about a girl that shot her way thru a school on a monday? Did she also suffer from this, or was she categorised as a sociopath or psychopath?

  • comslave

    I have read report after report that states that male and female brain activity patterns are distinctly different to the extent one can tell someone’s gender by a scan of their brain activity. While this information does not necessarily speak to any specific conclusion it does point to gender being more than a mask.

    • MGTOW-man

      Aaah, the reflection of evolution, nature, and truth, When sex-specific differences between males and females became chic, feminists hated it—still do. Duuuh, wonder why? They would say in an oblivious format, that it promotes discrimination, sexism, and “unfairness’. but they avoid the elephant in the room. They want their way, no matter. Truth such as sex-specific differences scares them for, well, it is too truthful, objective, and sound. Like I have said many times, females are more alike than different and brain scans is but another way of proving my words. There are natural and sound reasons for the differences too. But of course, the only “reason” in the oblivious feelings-dominated, reality-skewed perspective/minds of feminists is so men can act out their patriarchal dreams of dominating women.

  • The Real Peterman

    “Are school shooters and mass murderers born out of an aggressive emphasis on masculinity in our society?”

    Even though there have been men and guns in society for centuries, these kinds of shootings have only happened in the past few decades.

    • The Horseless Hun

      Gee wiz, you don’t mean the same last few decades in the same society where feminism and “femininity” have been, and continue to be, aggressively emphasized?

      • Laddition

        And boys drugged en masse.

  • Fatherless

    World according to Fatherless:

    1. Masculinity is an adaption, not a mask. There’s no layer underneath that’s the real you. It’s the gradual accumulation of psychological layers of how you’ve learned to deal with the world. The reason we see similar behaviors from boys is because they are making due with the tools they’re been given, and reacting to the way people treat them (and their expectations of how they will be treated) in the best ways their developing minds can come up with. Masculine behaviors are not expressions, they are strategies. It’s not the choice between blue socks versus pink socks; it’s the choice between warm feet versus cold feet.

    Even feminists treat boys differently, and boys will adapt accordingly. No matter what, boys will always act differently than girls.

    2. There’s how males act when most of them in a group are hurt, damaged, and angry. This isn’t “toxic masculinity.” It’s the bubbling up of more pain than the mind can handle constructively. Don’t take such groups to be representative of the whole.

    3. The effect of how females enforce masculinity cannot be overstated. The worst examples of poisonous competition occur when males compete for the attention of females. Think of cliff diving: The boys jump. The girls watch. There simply is nothing males won’t do to impress females, and innate male solidarity is too weak to prevent boys from throwing each other under the bus to impress girls. It is imperative that the developing male mind has ample time to interact with other male minds free from the judgement of females.

    “Bro’s before hoes” is this regard is simply a cry for male safe spaces. BUT MEN DON’T SAY ‘MALE SAFE SPACES” BECAUSE THEY KNOW WOMEN WILL JUDGE THEM FOR IT!!!!!!

    4. Because females mature earlier than boys and display stronger in group preference than boys, thus dominating the adolescent social-sexual marketplace, perhaps the onus should be on them to de-incentivize unhealthy competition between males, by spreading rewards more evenly among the male hierarchy. That means the boy who chose not jump off the cliff shouldn’t be completely shunned by the females for valuing his own life.

    5. And I say this BECAUSE I’VE LIVED IT. The path from boyhood to manhood can either be smooth and gradual, or it can be rough and jolting, Either way you will arrive in the same place. You will shed entitlement and self-absorption and replace them with responsibility and self-discipline. It is merely a matter of time, and how many scars you carry with you as an adult.

    The presence of happy, content, respected male adults in the life of a developing boy shows that this journey is worth undertaking in earnest and is the difference between a smooth ride and rocky ride.

    6. The most dangerous males are the ones who were forced to transition from boyhood to manhood in one, sudden jolt. These are the killers and rapists, whose entire psychological structure is formed out of scar tissue.

    7. At best, women can only offer a rocky transition to manhood, since their strategies WILL NOT WORK FOR MEN. The best thing women can do is make sure their boys have unrestricted time with happy, content, respected men, preferable their own fathers, and away from the judgements of females.

    8. Cutting boys off from other men and from other boys guarantees the kind of sudden jolt to manhood that will render them permanently disfigured as adults, if they don’t commit suicide along the way.

    • Mr. Sungame

      ““Bro’s before hoes” is this regard is simply a cry for male safe spaces. BUT MEN DON’T SAY ‘MALE SAFE SPACES” BECAUSE THEY KNOW WOMEN WILL JUDGE THEM FOR IT!!!!!!”

      I don’t agree that “Bro’s before Hoes” has to do with male safe places. It has to do with male Fraternity (And not in the College Frat, sense). It has to do with respecting your friends enough to not throw them under the bus for a woman. It has to do with acknowledge that women are temporary, but that your friends will always be there (if you respect them).
      But of course you gain your “Safe Space” through the mutual respect between friends/Bro’s/brothers/mates over time.

      “8. Cutting boys off from other men and from other boys guarantees the kind of sudden jolt to manhood that will render them permanently disfigured as adults, if they don’t commit suicide along the way.”
      At least as long as there is a demand for change in the men, but not in the women.
      Society demand men become a docile dog, but women still expect a wolf. This is a dangerous course, because you train men to become something that is not wanted. It makes men confused, angsty and depressed. And when they try to rebel they are demonized. And when demonized some people just flip the table and become undesirables.
      It’s fucked up.

      • Fatherless

        You expressed Bros Before Hoes better than I did. And true, as you wrote, it’s through BFH that gain male safe spaces over time.

  • JinnBottle

    What part of this messenger-boy-for-the-Feminist-establishment are we supposed to *like*, again?

    It’s disgusting to any humanbeing still running a remnant of red blood, as opposed to bleach, in his veins, As Prof John Gordon once said of Feminism: “It is all, without exception, bullshit.”

    • B.R. Merrick

      The part we’re supposed to like is the part where a woman who calls herself a feminist stood up for masculinity in a great many ways that we see at this website quite often, like the articles by Camille Paglia. I think it’s best to remember that this particular feminist (as well as Paglia) is no darling to the feminist establishment.

      But then, you think I’m a feminist apologist for conceding a couple of minor points in my last article, don’t you?

      As for the debate on teaching boys to be gentlemen, I don’t think boys or girls need to be taught a thing. Humans are natural learners. It is ideologies like feminism that seek to teach. The men’s movement I admire seeks to leave males alone.

      • JinnBottle

        Used to admire you, Merrick; ditto Christina Hoff Sommers.

    • Astrokid

      I dont get it.
      She’s doing the best she can. She gets some stuff wrong/different, and so will we given our different backgrounds, and we can argue our point of view with her if needed.. but at least she’s fighting the good fight for 2+ decades.
      What portion do you find so objectionable?

      • JinnBottle

        Astrokid –

        Thank you for asking. Hoff Sommers has been making overtures of “amends” to the Sisterhood (that means Feminists in academics in her case) for some years now.

        The core of my problem with Sommers lately is that, *like every other feminist – hell, nearly every woman in America – she ASSumes that “guiding” – redesigning – “preparing boys for adulthood”, whatever mist (aka words) you want to put around it – must, and will, of course, be undertaken by women – or, at best, some phantom “we” – and not by men*. Men, presumably being now unqualified and too incompetent to be trusted to even have homosocial relations with one another, let alone boys – who, of course, belong to women. When Hoff Sommers above speaks of “male reserve” she does not (as I’d hoped on seeing the header of that paragraph) at all mean anything like *physical male space* – away from the females and the Society that the latter have always owned : quite the contrary, she means the dark, internal place that boys, and men, go to *when a physical space with others of their own sex canNOT be found.

        You know, like, today. Anywhere.

        What Sommers is getting around to is a social engineering, on women’s terms, wherein males are manipulated to remain mentally and spiritually in the 1950s – *while women don’t have to budge from “Feminism” (whatever Feminism’s women leaders decide that means for the moment), not one god damned inch*. Indeed, she is obviously interested, above all else, in saving and maintaining “Feminism”.

        She puts in her bid for a 1950s ideal male with her recommendation to “focus on the plight of women outside the US”: Because that will call for soldiers, and marines. And not the wimpy mixed-gendered soldiers and not-as-lean-or-mean marines we have right now, no: This is a job for (get ready for it) REAL MEN.

        How else are we going to go in to Saudi Arabia and teach those age-old Oppressors of Women (who happen to be sitting on lakes of oil, but that’s neither here nor there) – to be *gentlemen*?

        I spent 12 years, more or less, engaged with an organization that had a very similar paradigm to that above. And believe it or not, there was alot of value in it, having to do with men and women tapping into, and doing their best to maintain, their respective sources of power. But that was in the 1980s. I haven’t been involved with them for some 16 years; but it looks today to me like it’s deteriorated to something very much resembling what Hoff Sommers envisions, above.

        And that’s because the men, by nature and nurture, clung to their 1950s (modified for Feminism, needless to say) identities: while the women defaulted to more or less what all women default to: drifting along with the social fashion (which for a long time now, as you know, consists of gynosupremacy and Feminist governance), and calling it “growth”.

        Thank you, Anja, by the way. I haven’t read Tawil’s latest comment yet.

        • JinnBottle

          PS Anja – I wrote the above before I (just now, in fact) read your article on this in your “Not a Feminist” blog – 1st time visiting it.

          Either we’re both psychic, or there really IS a lot of Hoff Sommers’ article that fairly cries out for criticism.

    • Anja Eriud

      Excellent question Jinn.

      I’m just going to leave this here:

      From: How to Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists: Focus on injustice, poverty, and women in parts of the world beyond the United States.

      By Christina Hoff Sommers Jun 25 2013,

      “Though the major battles for equality and opportunity in the United States have been fought and largely won, the work of feminism remains unfinished. Across the globe, fledgling women’s groups struggle to survive in the face of genuine and often violent oppression. In the West, popular culture contains strong elements of misogyny. Women, far more than men, struggle with the challenge of combining work and family. Despite women’s immense progress, poverty rolls are disproportionately filled with women with children.

      Who needs feminism? We do. The world does. But an effective women’s movement needs to be rescued from its current outcast state. Anyone who cares about improving the status of women around the world should be working to create a women’s movement that resonates with women. A reality-based, male-respecting, judicious feminism could greatly help women both in the United States and throughout the world. I call it “freedom feminism.”

      And this here because War Against Boys being Republished, but with a few changes.

      “For a revised version of the book, due out this summer, I’ve changed the subtitle – to How Misguided Policies Are harming Our Young Men” from “How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” – and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerence disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminilize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling. As our schools have become more feelings-centred, risk-averse, collaboration-orientated and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities. Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more that a decade later, there are major policy reasons – besides the stale “culture wars” of the 1990’s – to focus on boys schooling.”

      Please note that we are now moving away from “criticizing feminism.”

      Left my favourite quote till last though:

      “My advice to today’s young women: Reform feminism. Give moderate and conservative women a voice. Most of all, make common cause with women across the globe who are struggling for their basic freedoms. Supporting truly oppressed women would give today’s Western feminism something it has lacked for many years: a contemporary purpose worthy of its illustrious past.

      From: From: How to Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists: Focus on injustice, poverty, and women in parts of the world beyond the United States.

      By Christina Hoff Sommers Jun 25 2013

      Hmmm, I dunno, I’d probably start by making moves on the MHRM, weasel my way in, being all “nice” and “fluffy” maybe play on the all the good things I’ve done in the past – but always bearing in mind the object is to:

      “Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists” especially in light of feminism’s ILLUSTRIOUS PAST – you know the one – that treated men and boys sooooooooooooo well, that behaved like a movement for good!

      Just like the one we have today!

      Oh! THAT wasn’t feminism – was it?

      • Astrokid

        Hmmm, I dunno, I’d probably start by making moves on the MHRM, weasel my way in, being all “nice” and “fluffy” maybe play on the all the good things I’ve done in the past – but always bearing in mind the object is to: “Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists”

        You are not being charitable to her.
        I bet it was AVFM/Dean who reached out to CHSommers for permission to reprint the TIME article here. She doesnt need MHRM.. she’s just continuing the same work she’s done for decades. Most importantly, she’s being entirely honest/forthright/consistent about her beliefs.. and I appreciate that even if I disagree with those beliefs.

        You arent criticising the content of her article here.. your critique of Freedom Feminism may be right on, but thats not the one being dissected here.

        • pjanus


          Anja has done two blog posts on this (16/1/14 and 17/1/14). Have a read of them and the comments. I know genuine when I see it.

          • Bombay

            Thanks. She is spot on IMO.

          • Astrokid

            Having only skimmed through Anja’s Part2 post (I will read it at leisure a bit later. I saw the part1 yesterday itself) I will make a really quick comment.

            The TIME article is by a blue-pill author for a blue-pill audience. Its only been been reprinted here. If the article here were written by a Red Pill author, say Dean Esmay himself with us an the audience, then my reaction will be different. I will probably do exactly what Anja says in these.

            What I did notice about the comments as well, was that with the exception of a few minor “issues” pointed out in the actual BODY of her article – no- one directly critiqued it. No-one took this article point by point and examined it very closely

            Why would I take it down point by point, when I already know how Hoff Sommers’s articles are? At the most, I will only critique it broadly.

            If you look at the comments on the TIME article, there are many MRA type comments shredding some parts of it apart, although not at the point by point level Anja does.
            I left these comments on the TIME article..

            As much as I respect and admire the indefatigable Christina Hommers for her 2+ decades of work in this field…
            Why is the conversation always in defense mode? We have had 50+ years of increasing demonization of men, and correspondsing destruction of individual men’s lives caught in Family Courts, and criminal courts on false allegations. And its only getting worse.
            I am an Indian migrant to the US, and your feminism has infected India as well for decades, and has reached a fever pitch since the early 2000s in terms of draconic legislation. Its only getting worse.
            Why dont we turn the tables and talk about toxic Femininity?…

            And since Hoff Sommers specifically mentioned civilizing men via chivalry, I left this..

            Traditionalists vs Feminists
            Feminists prefer “equality” when it suits women… such as Affirmative Action for Women, Quotas on boards, Title IX extra legup for women’s sports, Bogus and shielded Academia in the form of Women’s Studies, Bogus Laws like 600M$ p.y VAWA, etc
            Traditionalists prefer inequality when it suits women.. such as exemption from Selective Services and Draft, Men paying on dates, doing the pursuing of women, getting down on a knee and asking for marriage, man working to death while the woman chills out at home, Favorable terms in Family Courts.. she gets 50% of his assets, home, children, while he has to leave the home and keep paying Alimony and child support without getting to see his kids, and Parental Alienation also kicks in.
            A man has to be blind to not understand how these two sides, along with Government help and help from White Knights, have rigged the game against men.
            A man has to be rather foolish to get married now, or support any woman via life long servitude.

            We know how the conservative mindset is.. whether it calls itself feminism or not. Its been covered numerous times on this website.
            Ever notice that she hasnt covered the atrocities of Family Courts? possibly because it is outside of her expertise and she’s staying honest, or she thinks its all right coz of conservative entitlement.
            And recently when the End of Men munk debate was held and many of us were pissed off, this is what she had to say:
            The Munk Debate goes on: both sexes won this time. Christina Hoff Sommers | The Globe and Mail November 20, 2013

            ‘Be it resolved that men are obsolete.’
            That was the question last week at a high-spirited edition of Toronto’s celebrated Munk Debates. Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd said, “OMG Yes!” Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran: “No way!”
            To men offended by the proposition: Lighten up. Don’t join those censorious feminists who have made the battle of the sexes a humor-free zone.

            Imagine four brilliant, accomplished, funny women discussing the politics of gender outside the dreary, angry, “rape-culture” obsessed framework of contemporary feminism. That happened this past Friday night at the Munk Debate, and both sexes came out ahead in the encounter

            I most certainly know that CHSommers is not Red Pill, and as long as her guns are pointed at feminism, and we are all aware where she stands, we are good :-)

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            @Astrokid: “I most certainly know that CHSommers is not Red Pill, and as long as her guns are pointed at feminism, and we are all aware where she stands, we are good :-)

            Yep, that.

        • Anja Eriud

          @ astrokid

          I’m going to respond to two of your comments in one go, even though the first is a reply to Jinnbottle, and he gave a comprehensive answer outlining his experience of dealing with/working with feminists or in an atmosphere where feminism was the driving ideology.

          Partly because I detect a common theme in your responses. A plea for “allowances” to be made for Hoff Sommers.

          Astrokid says – January 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM

          “She’s doing the best she can. She gets some stuff wrong/different, and so will we given our different backgrounds, and we can argue our point of view with her if needed.. but at least she’s fighting the good fight for 2+ decades.”

          I have reiterated over and over again, both in my own blog posts and on here that Hoff Sommers has done some good work, excellent work in fact on behalf of boys. Not taking that away from her.

          But, she is not only a feminist, she is an academic feminist, ergo she has the inside track on HOW feminism works not just in theory, in practice.

          How feminist theory is generated, promulgated and disseminated. There is no way on God’s good earth she got as far as she did in academia without subscribing to FEMINISM. She took a big risk back in the late 70’s and early 80’s and it almost backfired on her – I have sat in on feminist lectures and to describe “real” feminists barely concealed contempt for Hoff Sommers would be an understatement – you really don’t want to know what they think of Camille Paglia.

          But, having said that, being out in the cold, outside the sisterhood is a lonely place, especially if you are, and believe yourself to be a feminist. A “real” feminist”.

          There is nothing more eyepopping that seeing two feminists go at one another over who is the “better feminist” mighty entertaining though – all gritted teeth and icy politeness, all snippy smart arse insults and questioning of one’s “integrity” “commitment to women” “lack of understanding of the issues” blah blah blah.

          This will give you a bit of an insight into a “battle of the feminists” – Christina Hoff Sommers – v – Carol Gilligan of “Hostile Hallways” fame – that launched the anti-boy paradigm shift in education.

          The Questions to be asked though is – which one them had her “vision” of education translated into education policy?

          Whose academic work gets puts on reading lists for college courses?

          Answer to both questions. Carol Gilligan.

          Project advisers:

          For their invaluable work on this project, we thank:

          Carol Gilligan, Harvard University; author, In a Different Voice; co-author, Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development

          There are two others, but Gilligan is front and center.

          “This is a summary of the poll that awakened the nation to the effects of gender bias in America’s schools. Commissioned by the American Association of University Women and conducted by Greenberg-Lake: The Analysis Group, Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America was the first national survey to link the sharp drop in self-esteem suffered by pre-adolescent and adolescent American girls to what they learn in the classroom.

          Publication of the poll in 1991 shook America’s consciousness and has had a far-reaching impact. Thanks to the poll and such subsequent studies as the AAUW Educational Foundation’s The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls, which synthesized more than 1,300 published studies on girls in school, equity for girls has earned a firm place on the nation’s education reform agenda. Educators and community leaders have discussed the problem of gender bias in open forums and are now working in communities across the nation to change the future for girls in school.”

          Astrokid says January 17, 2014 at 4:25 PM

          “You are not being charitable to her.”

          Actually, I AM being charitable to her, and even if that was not a rather asinine requirement, I probably still would be – we’re not talking about some delicate fragile little damsel here, we are talking about someone who has not just survived the feminist bitch wars of the 1980’s, but came out smelling of roses – granted outside academia and outside “the sisterhood” but – she wants back in – and she wants HER feminism, her “nice” feminism – back in charge.



          • Astrokid

            1) Nope.. I dont need any allowances to be given to her. That was not my intention. If it were, I would have argued vociferously on this thread.

            To me, she’s just a tool for the furtherance of the MRM ideas, just as ABC 20/20 was for Paul Elam (Imagine that.. I am a nobody, and am making CHS my tool LOL) .
            Whenever she moves the overton window by critiquing mainstream feminism, its an opportunity for MRAs to go that article and flood it with MRM ideas, and moving the window even further. And unlike the Tory Shepherd type feminist newspapers that censor us, CHSommers’s hosts dont.

            I have “critiqued” her on twitter myself. Take a look of you wish

            Christina H. Sommers ‏@CHSommers
            30 Rules For the Modern Gentleman. #27–so true!

            This is “Equity Feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers.. Conservative EQUALITY..

            Astrokid ‏@AstrokidNJ Jan 14
            .@RadInquisitor This is @CHSommers “Equity Feminism”. Another way of serving the Holy Vagina @TIME


            I dunno how exactly to put it.. I am happy to exploit her “star power”, appreciate her for the feminism-expose work, as well as critique her fair mindedly.

            You should get on Twitter too. I looked for a you over a week ago, and didnt find you. Follow CHSommers, and whenever she publishes a new mainstream article, you can jump in to the comments and cut+paste your crititique where blue pillers can see.

            2) Yes.. I am aware of the Carol Gilligan work, and Hoff sommer’s exposure of her work. I am not sure I understood your point though in mentioning that.
            Are you saying that CHSommers knows ALL the damage that feminism does, and yet is trying to present it as a force for good?
            If so.. I agree. And I have commented the same on her articles before.

            I was only arguing for a fair critique of the matter thats being presented in this article, bearing in mind that she didnt write this article for AVFM (as you thought it was, as per your blog).
            Do note why exactly I said you were not charitable to her.

            Hmmm, I dunno, I’d probably start by making moves on the MHRM, weasel my way in, being all “nice” and “fluffy” maybe play on the all the good things I’ve done in the past – but always bearing in mind the object is to: “Get More Women (and Men) to Call Themselves Feminists”

            Your claim wont hold up coz she didnt write this article for the MRM.
            However In case you didnt know, she has been in the “board of directors” types for some MRM efforts, and ‘Male Studies for many years.’

      • Bombay

        Thanks for calling all this out. The article above does not smell right and now we have a better understanding of this.

        • pjanus

          Sorry Bombay, I down voted you by accident.

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        @Anja, since you are in a quoting mood here’s another from Christina from a 2013 radio interview:

        The Acculturated Podcast: Ladies and Gentlemen – Jan 9, 2013

        Christina: Codes of gallantry and civility that developed over the centuries have served women very well. We badly need more of that male gallantry, but I hasten to say it’s a reciprocal system. If males are going to be gallant then women also have a role to play. So today I think both sexes are remiss in nurturing this system.

        Ben: What in this era of post feminism that we live in today relationally would be the possible incentive for any man to be gallant when there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason that he has to be in order to function within today’s relationship world?

        Christina: It’s an interesting question because one of the things you find today is that most young men are gallant, and they are respectful, at least they are struggling to be. When I interview young men I ask them if they think it’s a good thing to be a gentleman and almost all of them say yes- that word gentleman has a positive resonance with young men. Now, do they know how to be gentlemen, do they know what it entails? Many do not. And same with some young women, they are not necessarily behaving like ladies. So there’s a lot of misunderstanding and lack of, perhaps, motivation. But it’s still alive in people. I think still on a typical date a young man would pay for his date – it doesn’t always happen in which case a girl would be resentful, and I can understand that…. These are gestures, I’m talking about certain gestures of respect – they need to be there and I think most women want them and I think men do too.

        Ben: So why is that important – and I don’t just mean that in the sense of continuing a relationship but in the larger sense of the term, and this is a frame that I have to ask you about: if the incentive there is a relationship that is going to lead to something, does it matter that the something is beyond the typical aspirations of today’s men and women which seems to be more along the lines of a sex based relationship as opposed to one that actually has a longer term value beyond that prognosis.

        Christina: I think human beings at some point in their lives want something beyond a sex based relation. If you are going to build a relationship with someone it has been the case that women are going to be more likely to want to stay home and take care of the children, or certainly be more focused on that than the men, and I don’t see that changing.

        Ben: As a single dating male in today’s environment there’s a much lower bar that they have to clear, frankly, in order to bounce around the relationship scene with a good deal of happiness, at least in the temporary sense.

        Christina: Oh I have to agree, and I think in a way women sort of undid the social contract with men and released them from all the constraints. And we pay the price.

        And another quote:

        Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance

        Emily Esfahani Smith – Dec 2012

        Christina Hoff Sommers tells me in an interview, “Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even lethal.” Chivalry is grounded in a fundamental reality that defines the relationship between the sexes, she explains. Given that most men are physically stronger than most women, men can overpower women at any time to get what they want. Gentlemen developed symbolic practices to communicate to women that they would not inflict harm upon them and would even protect them against harm. The tacit assumption that men would risk their lives to protect women only underscores how valued women are—how elevated their status is—under the system of chivalry… “If women give up on chivalry, it will be gone,” Sommers tells me. “If boys can get away with being boorish, they will, happily. Women will pay the price.”

        In summary, Christina regularly refers to the tradtional thing she calls “The Contract” between men and women – a contract she describes as having been ruptured in recent times, and one which she advocates a return to. The contract she refers to is the one where males are “gallant” “chivalrous” and “gentlemanly” toward women, and women play some kind of complimentary feminine role. I’m not sure how deeply down the historical rabbit-hole Christina has researched this tradition, but it is basically the sexual relations contract laid out here, and also here.

      • The Horseless Hun

        Reading her words is making me sick. Does she touch on some truths? Sure, but like most other feminists, and in fact the general populace any more, she is just too slimy to get any worthy grip on them. Gynocentric and only concerned with the “plight” of women, just another blind, and on closer inspection cheap and unoriginal, individual… At this point I’m more interested in unmasking Christina Scoff Hummers… come on baby lets see it. The more I research, the more I see that what we’ll find underneath will be, at this point, utterly unsurprising and predictable.

  • tallwheel

    Good Men Project, Michael Kimmel, Michael Flood, this movie… The whole school on studying men through the lens of feminism is very much alive and well. The MRM is beginning to take over the narrative, but they’re not going to go down without a fight.

  • electricman

    I agree 100% with the video. I’m not sure how some on this site can complain about the problems that boys and men face, and then turn around and attack the very forces trying to make life easier for them. I’m so tired of hearing about the hard wiring baloney, and using this to set up a very rigid standard of behavior, especially when I, as a guy, know how I really feel.

    I’m not denying that males and females do have some fundamental differences in the way they behave, but no matter how anybody attempts to define these characteristics many males have drastically different personality traits from other males, and the same with females. I’m a very emotional guy, the type who is very open with his emotions, and I openly acknowledge when I think something is cute.

    I really do feel that the cause of almost every form of heartache and conflict in this entire world stems from people, regardless of sex, gender, poltical views, sexuality, religious beliefs/non beliefs, ethnicity, race, personality characteristics (like introversion and extroversion), etc not being able to truly be themselves. The ultimate prison on Earth isn’t Super Max or Pelican Bay, but human facades fueled by information cascades. Maybe we need more gated communities on this planet so people who want to live a certain lifestyle don’t, and can’t bother others who don’t think like them.

    • Fatherless

      What this video is missing are women’s voices telling boys to Man Up.

      The first time someone ever told to Man Up it was a female trying to shame me into watching a slasher film with her. The only time someone called me a Faggot and it actually bothered me was when a woman was trying to shame me into sleeping with her.

      See the problem? By asking men to do the work and rendering women blameless, you’re simply reentrenching the same roles with new language.

      Via mate selection and social pressure girls enforce gender roles on boys. True, it cuts both ways, but we are talking about boys today. The truth is that boys learn to act the way they act because it’s seems to be what females respond to.

      Telling boys they should act in a certain manner and then those boys finding out that girls don’t actually reward that behavior is going to render a lot of boys very distrustful of society and angry towards authority. It’s leading lambs to the slaughter.

      What needs to change is the environment that boys live in and the reward systems. If the reward systems change, boys will adapt. Most of that responsibility alls on women.

      Of course that won’t happen until women are blamed equally for what’s going on in society. So the best bet is simply to socialize boys away from girls so that those boys don’t learn to base their self esteem on the opinions of developing girls.

      Let boys build their identities from men and, ironically, you’ll get boys who are much more willing to share their feelings, and more importantly, more willing to call bullshit when women try to shame them for it.

      • electricman

        I’ve busted my ass today and I’m a bit tired so I’m not going to make a long response. The problem with some of your points is the fact that many of the behaviors of boys, including repressing feelings, are actually enforced by other men. Many women are simply just taking advantage of this since competing for females ultimately benefits them and boosts their egos. Ironically though I’ve heard many men whine when women do pursue them, so you tell me what’s really going on here. You can’t possibly tell me that males are wrong to compete for women, then turn around and have males complain when females do attempt to reverse traditional dating roles.

        I’d brought some of these points and others up in a few of my other posts, especially concerning the tasks boys will end up doing when they get older. I havn’t seen too many girls degrade a teen male for taking up a cosmetology or CNA course in high school, for it was always the other boys doing this. It’s the same thing with males not reporting rape, especially when perpetrated by a female, because it’s usually other men ridiculing these male victims. Ultimately males are simply playing their roles out that are enforced by other men. Can anybody debunk anything that I’ve stated above? I guess I’m only one of the few progressive masculists on here.

        • Fatherless

          Sorry you had a long day.

          I think we’re talking past each other a bit.

          1. The ways that females tend to enforce gender expectations of males (and females) is subtle, understudied in general, and completely unmentioned in the posted video. I reject any approach that ignores half the problem. My comments were largely to point out Kimmel’s very dangerous lie of omission. Of course men enforce gender expectations, but we have 40 years of feminism shoving that point down our throats. It kind of goes unsaid on this site.

          Also, there’s different brands of soft, sensitive men. There’s Michael Kimmel’s brand: delicate vocal tones, ends statements as though they were questions, but full of veiled contempt and frilly laced sneering condescension. Then there’s Tom Golden’s brand: robust laugh, big gut, sometimes only half articulate, but actually cares about people.

          In other worlds, I don’t think Michael Kimmel is a sensitive man at all. He’s a jerk and a bully posing as a nice guy. Whereas the gruff janitor who can barely put two words together might be the sweetest man you ever met if you bothered to spend time with him. (And I apologize if you already know this.)

          2. I’ve never seen a man complain about getting too much female attention. Never. I have read outdated gender studies textbooks from the 1970’s where the interviewers concluded that men feel emasculated when asked out by women, but I think that’s largely a thing of the past. Most men I know personally would be delighted to be relieved of the risk of rejection. I’m sure there are a few men who still prefer to do the asking, but I’ve only seen them post about it online. I’ve never met such a man under the age of 35 in real life. Also, if a man’s never been asked out before, cut him some slack for not knowing how to react.

          I’ll say in my case when women pursue me I love it.

          3. Regarding your last point. Girls may not necessarily use open ridicule as their preferred method of social aggression. Spreading rumors, shifts in body language and tone of voice, all of this can be used to demonstrate contempt in such a way that the target can’t pin it on the aggressor.

          Also, it’s what females DON’T do that enforces gender expectations/social status. Who do they not invite, not compliment, not share secrets with, not accept an invitation from?

          And yes, men do this too, but not to the same degree as females. But remember that females are certainly capable of open ridicule, too. The nature versus nurture debate doesn’t matter here, since I’m talking about what actually happens. In a perfect world, no form of aggression would ever occur.

          Maybe you’re not as attuned to females as I am. I don’t mean that as a personal challenge. Simply put, are you as willing to recognize typically female evil as you are willing to recognize typically male evil? As long as you think that evil only has a male face, you’ll always be standing askance to the MRM. You see, folks like Kimmel are blind to female evil, so they think that all men need to know to be good people is to be more like women.

          Finally, there’s likely no way to debunk your point because I’m asking you to go back in time in your memories and notice something that didn’t happen and what wasn’t going or was happening in the background in order to explain the underlying dynamic. Like I said, subtle, subtle, subtle.

          Hope this helps.

          • electricman

            I understand everything you’re saying. In no way do I see men as being more evil than women, but ultimately men are the enforcers since they have the power to do so. I’m fully aware of boys being set up to be emotionally vulnerable, only in order to not have women disrespect those qualities in them anyways, thus making it more likely the boy will fall apart when women and other guys don’t accept him for this behavior.
            I’m not a fan of shapeshifting masculinity either just to suit other people, including women.

            I didn’t see much of the above in the rather short video though. I’m not familiar with Kimmel either. I definitely agree that there needs to be as much emphasis placed upon women/girls respecting boys/men as there is vice versa though, and I become weary of any ideologue that doesn’t do this. I also believe that coddling any group of humans at the expense of another just leads to more oppression. A world that is safer for the male species ultimately would be a world that would be safer for women as well.

  • The Horseless Hun

    Why the need to always include “women are (more) intuitive”? It has always seemed to me to be a backhanded, and purposefully obfuscating, insult. What is even meant exactly? That women can sense emotions and changes in other people more than men? What an incredibly over-generalized way of describing a trait which both many men and women have. I can see such things acutely, however I personally tend to hold back a reaction. That does not mean I do not see it. It seems that even among “good” women, they are just too shallow, or what have you, to care to perceive then understand this in men…

    • Astrokid

      One concept that should get greater discussion is Roy Baumeister’s 2-spheres of evolution.. men spending MORE time in the public sphere, and women spending more time in the private sphere. This would definetely fine tune psychological traits differently.

      The 2010 book discusses many individuals traits.
      Take a look at the Are Women More Social? section

      The gist of our view was that there are two different ways of being social. In social psychology we tend to emphasize close, intimate relationships, and yes, perhaps women specialize in those and are better at them than men. But one can also look at being social in terms of having larger networks of shallower relationships, and on these, perhaps, men are more social than women.

      It’s like the common question, what’s more important to you, having a few close friendships or having lots of people who know you? Most people say the former is more important. But the large network of shallow relationships might be important too. We shouldn’t automatically see men as second-class human beings simply because they specialize in the less important, less satisfying kind of relationship. Men are social too — just in a different way.

      Re: Intuition.. I suspect that women would have had greater selection pressure on intuition in the private sphere coz child-rearing meant that they had to figure out things about an infant via body language.
      Mens intuition is probably fine tuned for the public sphere in some way.. just as their control of certain emotions are (for e.g control of fear in the face of danger, or control of anxiety in the face of stressful situations)

  • Mr. Sungame

    I have never viewed myself as a “hyper-masculine” man. I was always the weak skinny kid growing up, and was picked on a lot. And yet, I find it highly offensive that “Masculinity” is systematically made into a bad word. It’s as if all bad aspects of life falls into the Masculine.

    But what can you expect when societies norms are dictated by feminism. An ideology which takes the word feminine as it’s name. Of Course the “other” side will be bad, if your side is good…. *sigh*

    • Fatherless

      I consider the weak, skinny kid as masculine as the big kid.

    • JinnBottle

      “Women are people, and people are piggy….[Women under Feminism] do what most people want to do: Take all the goodies and leave the bad stuff for the other guy.”

      — From “The Myth of the Monstrous Male” by Prof John Gordon

  • Ken

    Christina Hoff Sommers now officially affiliated with AVFM ?!


    I would have thought that would have warranted a “BIG NEWS” article….

    This is great news.

    • Hlaford

      Keep your hopes at bay. Hoax to miracle rate is incredibly high.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    Matt Walsh’s take – this guy has a HUGE following, btw:

    If we adopt an “every man and woman for him/herself” then no woman will ever escape a sinking ship again. The men could quite easily shove the women aside, jump on the lifeboats, and get outta Dodge.

    You might think this irrelevant because you’ll probably never be in a floundering sea craft or a burning building, but I disagree. I think the whole world is sinking and on fire, and it’s been this way since the Fall of Man. And as things go bad, the weakest are the most exposed and vulnerable. That is, unless the strongest choose to stand fast and take the brunt of the storms that come.

    In the mean time, as a routine matter, chivalry is still essential. Men should carry bags, and hold doors, and pull out chairs, and offer seats to women, not because women are incapable of standing or opening their own doors, but because of what these acts represent — what they say. And what they say is simple: “I am bigger and stronger than you, but I will use my strength to honor you and protect you. I will not hurt you. I will not take advantage of you. I will humble myself before you and serve you.”

    Ask yourself: is it better that we live in a society where men are dedicated to using their physical superiority for good, even if the good is something as small as carrying a grocery bag or opening a door? If your answer is yes, then you should see the importance of chivalry.

    If you answer “no,” then, well, I’m not sure where to go from here. You and I live in different universes.

    And to men I ask this: what sort of man do you want to be? When you — assuming you are healthy and capable — sit as women stand, you have made a choice. That choice does not occur in a vacuum. You are now not just a man who sat while women stood, you are the sort of man who would sit as women stand. That wouldn’t look good on your profile, and it doesn’t bode well for society.

    So be chivalrous. Be chivalrous for their sake and yours.

    • Fatherless

      Make me.

    • draigoluther

      “I will humble myself before you and serve you.”

      UH-UH, NO WAY!!!

      But that does not mean that I will not give human beings the uptmost respect that they deserve on an individual basis, until they do something to me to revoke that respect….

      As far as holding the door, carrying bags, I would assist ANYONE who is struggling, or just needs some help in a practical fashion, then yes I would do this..that is just being a decent human being..But to have that chivalrous expectation put on men on how to treat women, I’m sorry but I cannot agree. I do not think it would do men or women any favors at all.

    • Andy Bob

      “We, as chivalrous men, are called to use our strength in service to women, children, the infirm, and the elderly.” Matt Walsh

      Why does Matt Walsh equate women with children, the infirm and the elderly? His labeling of women as weak is deeply offensive. So is his attempt to appropriate my strength and dictate that I apply it “In service to women”. My strength belongs to me. I have the right, within the law, to apply it however, and to whomever, I choose.

      I’m all for protecting the weak – a huge believer. I stood up for an elderly woman on the train today, but not because she was a woman. I did it because she was elderly. It was the right thing to do. I didn’t need Matt Walsh’s sexist code of chivalry to guide me. I wanted to. It was my choice.

      Therein lies all the difference.

      Christina Hoff Sommers at AVfM. I haven’t been so gobsmacked since Erin Pizzey joined our ranks.

    • Hlaford

      Errr… no. I can prostrate myself for my family, and as long as we are a true to the bone family with love and all. Doing the same for any random woman serves no other purpose than exiting the gene pool too soon with nothing on. Imposing it onto others is a crime.

    • Astrokid

      Re: Matt Walsh.. The Amazing Atheist did a hilarious video on this guy’s run-in with the feminists recently.
      I will pay big bucks to watch tradcons/chivalrists come together and fight feminists on how to kiss-women’s ass better. Somebody make it happen puhlease.
      Beware the Feminist Lynch Mob!

    • JinnBottle

      Uh…What hasn’t been established yet is, Which side of Walsh’s POV are you on, Hundred?

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    Hmmmmm. Here we go with the “mask” analogy again…am I spotting an attempted trend?

    • Hlaford

      It works for Borg. A single sparky idea reverberates throughout the collective.

    • Duke

      Many American gender-feminists employ the “rape hysteria motif”, and all the attached dogma and Inflammatory memes in order to Empower themselves over others. Thats why Its going to be extremely important in the near future to dismantle the US law enforcement manufactured statistics Alliances that are fueling mass rape hysteria in the US.

      • Duke

        One may even venture to say that the “manufactured statistics Alliances” that American law enforcement have been engaged in for the last 30 years, is in fact undermining democracy.

  • Hlaford

    This did not go well on my stomach. It is not that I do not believe in converting feminists into humanity but… Christina, if sincere in her conversion, is already prepared for the obvious lack of appreciation, and she’ll understand. I otherwise have great appreciation in women already in MHRM, yet they earned their trust. Many times over.

    I might be very new here, but a red pill feminist that continues her/his business as usual is unexpected. Feminism as offered by Christina Hoff Sommers and Steven Pinker have that sciency shine that allures the gullible folks into a hallucination that feminism is good for you. Sorry Christina, it is not, and I don’t buy it.

    For me this is just a way of hijacking the MHRM scene for a sole purpose of slip-streaming feminist agenda into it. So far it worked beautifully on excessive abuse of “gender” in equally meaningless sense as used in feminism. Too many people do not have faintest idea of what gender is, and why sex is a proper denominator in most of uses. E.g. you simply can’t feel so much feminine to go into a ladies loo. It just does not work that way.

    The video in question is a shameful misrepresentation of our boys. At best it will be forgotten soon after release, but I doubt it. Most probably it will be praised as Moses’ pink iPod tablets and a dictum our boys must follow. Or else. It must be denounced every way possible.

    To me Christina’s take is … a saccharine coating. It points out the obvious, but stays firmly within her role of a good feminist. I for my son do not need that, thank you very much.

    In a way this is another wake up call for me. The first was provided by courtesy of my son’s school pedagogue, a full fledged queen bee feminist, and her open loathing for minorities. Not that my son is a minority, but many of his friends are, and some of them simply left. Just gone. Same model is applied to boys’ activities, they are suddenly just gone. That pedagogue is a corrosive person, a feminist. And recently she became extra sweet. A coincidence?

    One surely must stock a toolbox with various size hawthorn stakes and garlic, as the cute little vam… feminists are popping up in various shapes and sizes. I must also teach my son to grow garlic and hawthorn, and equally minded friends – he’ll need them.

  • John_mws

    The key quote in the video for me was by Dr Niobe Way. It lets the cat of the bag.

    “They (boys) really buy into a culture(masculinity) that doesn’t value what we have feminised”

    So she admits society and the school environment has been feminised. Directly afterwards she describes what the current feminised culture is.

    “If we are in a culture that doesn’t value caring, doesn’t value relationships, doesn’t value empathy, you are going to have boy & girls, men & women go crazy”

    An absolutely perfect description of what our feminist society has achieved.Talk about a foot in mouth moment.

    The purpose of the video is clear. A new better funded effort to brainwash boys into a more subdued, compliant mangina work force. Because the feminised society is here to stay and boys are just a social problem to reprogamme away.

    It can be seen that they have the equivalent creationism to darwinism concept of gender. You can design away true masculine “gender” behaviour for the new shiny feminist masculine #2 design. Short of eugenics that is impossible.

    How they expect any of these boys to open up with their emotions to the very system that is crushing them is beyond me. As Dr Way says it has no empathy for boys and never will.

    • Hlaford

      Because it works for girls, that’s why. It must be good for them, or else.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      brilliant observation!

  • Redfield

    I didn’t know who Dr Sommers was before this article. Being Australian you have to excuse this! I have taken the time to read all the comments and would like to thank Dean Esmay for getting permission from Dr Sommers to print this, I didn’t find her article offensive, in fact found it helpful. Discussion like this is worth more to MHRM to hone concepts of what is needed in societies to tackle the disconnect men and boys have with their society. Not so much on her article, but on the original article:

    So many possible presumptions in this article!
    The first is that masculinity needs fixing!
    The second is bullying is an exclusive male domain!
    The third is that women have an answer for this!
    The forth is that women and girls don’t need a feminine make over!
    The fith is that it is ground breaking that males actually think differently form females from a neurpsychological perspective, this at least 10 years out of date!

    Perhaps the first assumption is correct, perhaps! But not in context with this article! What men and boys need to fix their masculinity is protection from feminism! Then we can assess the damage and exclude women from managing this process! Input welcome, but we can manage it thanks – FUCK OFF beyond this first step, your managment skills are surplus to these requirements!

    Bullying in Aussie schools is rampant with young females, the problems I have faced as a father on this matter suggests it is primarily a girl problem now, and because women are incapable at this point of their societal development to accept responsiblity for their actions, it continues into their adult life, guys think of your current workplace :) As a male I can offer some input here but fix your own shit! Dr Sommers statement about depression, (girls 3 times more depressed than boys) and yet boys still need fixing! Women are also 3 times more likely to fall into the category of “neuroticism” on the big three structural model of personality than men, sounds like you need to get yourselves focused on yourselves ….

    Women do always have an answer, but it will serve their own needs and not the needs of men and boys! You are incapable of having an answer because you never ask what men and boys need! Arrogance beyond arrogance!

    Female make over, refer to the above ..

    fMRI has been able for at least a decade to show how male and female brains use “diferent” parts of the brain structure to think … very old news! Brain imaging is just the start, there is much much more to diferentiating the male and female brains ….. neuroendocrinology is just one!


  • Redfield

    The linkage between abhorent school shootings and masculinity is very telling ….
    I think at the heart of every feminist lies fear that developes into loathing … this is the great disconnect. Men simply don’t fully understand this? And this fear is transmitted from one feminist to another. The rape culture is a good starting point here! Absolute bullshit but it still resonates with women beyond feminism. I believe there is something more primal in this than just the narrative, I have seen it in some of the responses in this blog by women! And in this particular story! It is fear of MHRM may somehow take women back to the stone age, dragging women into a cave by the hair followed by rape! And I really think this is where women apeal to Chivalrous side of males, because at some dark primal recess men understand this fear!? I think men understand it by experience, and learned behavior. I remember in my twenties being 6 foot 3 and built like a brick shithouse I was in this night club breaking up a fight, this giant bouncer picked me up by the throat and held me off the ground (feet dangling in mid air) after he recognised me let me go … he allowed me to drag this guy off my friend and exit … I felt fear! I felt fear walking towards a bunch of bikies on the sidewalk … I can imagine how a woman feels … I believe feminism constantly make these connections between masculinity, school shootings, rape, physical violence of some males to subdue a response to their bullshit because they know at some primal level both genders know this fear! They perpetuate it in stories like this one. They know they are peddling horse shit, but they also know their own fear is contagious and is understood at some level!
    The reality is 97% of men aren’t like thís! For the 3% of males that use intimidation, violence to wind their way thru life I feel absolutely no connection with! Perhaps for some people their reptilian brains are playing catchup with reality? Perhaps MHRA’s are just that little further along in the evolutionary process to shut this part of their thinking off with feminist ideologues and deal with the present reality that men and boys find themselves in? Perhaps feminists are using more of their reptilian cognitive resources to spread fear and loathing? Clearly this isn’t the stone age, and it isn’t the 1960’s, or for that matter 2001. Bullshit is bullshit and should be dealt with presently …

  • rawbradford

    Unfortunately Hoff-Summers, who I know makes every attempt to be fair, does fall into some of the usual traps and assumptions. For example, I do not consider it correct to identify “hypermasculine” behaviour with bullying. If masculinity is good not bad, then hypermasculinity, which merely means being very male, is not bad either. The issue is that masculinity is not only a tendency to physicality, it is also a code which involves a recognition of true merit amongst males – the male hierarchy – in which fairness and justice play a major part. So let’s not make the false identification that “hypermasculinity = bullying” because bullies don’t score on the male hierarchy – they are regarded as scumbags.

    Another example is Hoff-Summers’ advice that, “parents should do all they can to improve their sons’ emotional literacy”. Does she regard girls as being in need of this? I take it this refers to boys’ ability to express their emotions. So, fair enough, there is a point here in respect of young boys having less verbal dexterity than girls. But the bigger issue is to whom the boy is expected to open up. I suspect a major part of the supposed emotional muteness of boys is that they are extremely reticent about opening up to women. Here we get to the horrible hub of the matter. You see, boys are not stupid. They learn very early that if a female – of any age – is pumping you for information, then it’s probably so as to be able to manipulate you. Neither men nor boys are as emotionally illiterate as women imagine – we are just careful not to give you too big a stick to beat us with.

  • JinnBottle

    (Incidentally, I would not like this film if its only fault was the triple-z rated voice-over of one of the actors at the end – “GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS!” I bet it’s a womyn!)

  • MGTOW-man

    Message to Sommers: Thanks for all your hard work that is attempting to help men and boys too (REALLY, THANK YOU!!!) , but unfortunately your female feelings-oblivion factor is ultimately wining you over. No matter how you try to put it, CHIVALRY IS TOXIC TO TRUE EQUALITY. It is oil in water. The two do not mix well. They are impossible bedfellows

    How in the hell is letting women do practically whatever they hell they want with no restrictions hardly, while restraining/limiting men from that same freedom in all ways we—AS MHRA MEN—want, fair?

    Is your idea of fairness, men behave, women enjoy!

    Chivalry is equivalent to men being left behind. Chivalry and gentleman has to go unless we bring back the concept of proper ladies (see Paul’s definiton above…a most accurate notion) and in which we men get to define it too.

    Without this balance, women are superior. Is that what you, CHS, do not get? Well, WE DO! Nice try at manipulation. Won’t work here though. ..Still, I love most of your work, just be consistent with the concept of male expectations/limitations. A “fixed’ world is not just about women and what THEY get.

    Why should we be nice to them when they want to flip the world to an unnatural and chaotic state…that foists female feelings as the center of all loving things… that is hell bent on punishing men for having an oppressive patriarchy— that is as full as cow dung as is in the field outside. ? If that is what they want, no niceness.

    THEY CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You, CHS have missed the boat on this one. Yep, sure have!