The Campaign to Diminish Men’s Social Status to Slave Class in Western Culture

Author’s note: This is not intended to be an attack on women. I am friendly with women, some of whom consider themselves feminists. This is an analysis of what I and others have identified as a disturbing trend throughout society. As a career artist, teacher, and divorced father, I have always shunned New Age jargon, paranoid conspiracy theories, or any cultish group mentality. I had very little awareness of or regard for the organized Men’s Rights Movement before writing my first draft of this essay in virtual isolation. My assumption was a common one that men’s groups were comprised of a few ragtag misfits who got together in the woods to bang bongos, whine about their lives, and atone for the perceived sins of their fathers.

Since then however, I have found an impressive collection of intelligent work by some very well-informed and accomplished authors who write with great clarity and objectivity about these disturbingly overlooked men’s issues. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I was not the only man (and even a few remarkable women) to draw similar conclusions about the organized campaign to denigrate and subjugate men in Western culture. In this piece, I touch on many facets of the subject that will be well-known to readers who are already familiar with the MRM. However, I probe a little deeper than merely identifying the symptoms into some informed speculation about the sinister origins and ultimate goals of this insidious trend.

–Gabriel Raphael, 2012

* * * * *

It’s A Man’s World?

All women’s issues are to some degree men’s issues and all men’s issues are to some degree women’s issues because when either sex wins unilaterally both sexes lose.Warren Farrell

We have lived for so long with the cliché that it is a man’s world that we rarely question what it means. So I’m asking. Does it mean that a disproportionate majority of men enjoy freedoms, advantages and benefits that women are denied? If that’s what it means, then it is one of many absurd fallacies regarding men’s and women’s status in this day and age here in the Western world. It has been anything but a man’s world for most of my lifetime since the late 1960s and I know for most men of my generation here in America, whether or not they have the awareness or nerve to admit it. Like a hapless frog boiling to death in a slowly heated pot of water, we never saw it coming. The apparatus of feminism has seen to that. In the politically-correct-osphere, it has become taboo for anyone, male or female to even question the motives, tactics, or ultimate consequences of the feminist agenda. However, as a man to whom it would never occur to question the notion that the sexes deserve equal rights, I definitely do question the feminist agenda. In my lifetime of experience, I must objectively conclude that true gender equality and the goals of feminism as it is practiced are anything but synonymous.

My beautiful daughter attends a successfully integrated public school where we live in Northern California. She has never witnessed racial discrimination but is taught about it in school, especially around the time of MLK day. When she was only about eight, I asked her if she understood what it was all about. She innocently replied, “Yeah but it isn’t like that anymore, so why do they still have to make such a big deal about it?” Hesitantly, I answered her that some people think that it’s the only way to prevent it from happening again. And yet while offering this explanation, I had misgivings about how it felt disingenuous. Even though it was the stock answer, didn’t really make much sense to me or to my daughter. Contrary to its intended purpose of being preventative, it instead seemed more likely to perpetuate the resentment. They are teaching children about a time of hate to whom it would never otherwise occur. I’m not suggesting that we should deny historic facts either, but such sensitive subjects must be kept in proper perspective. I mention this as a parallel to what I now see happening in the so-called battle of the sexes.

With the same paradoxical logic that would put the American Cancer Society out of business if a cure for cancer were found, I submit that the apparatus of feminism actually reinforces and depends on the fallacy that it’s a man’s world in ways that actually diminish the dignity of both sexes. In science, including social science, any good theory or procedure must withstand the test of objective scrutiny. So let’s put feminism to the test. In this case, as simple thought experiment. Like most men of my generation, I can’t even imagine having the motive or power to oppress women. It is an empty accusation. And yet feminism depends on that premise. Therefore, I must conclude that feminism fails the credibility test— catastrophically. Why? Not because men are threatened by the idea of gender equality or “strong” women, a familiar accusation so often claimed by feminists. We’re not. Really. Yet most men become baffled by this accusation just long enough to lose their focus. That is a typical ad hominem logical fallacy that effectively obfuscates the real problems and usually derails any meaningful conversation before it begins.

Feminism Knows Best

It would be futile to attempt to fit women into a masculine pattern of attitudes, skills and abilities and disastrous to force them to suppress their specifically female characteristics and abilities by keeping up the pretense that there are no differences between the sexes. Arianna Huffington

Another reason that feminism fails is because it has rampaged far beyond its alleged goal of gender equality and spawned some other very hostile and inequitable conditions for men, women and children. It has elevated women not to equal status but to special status, while promoting a universal perception of men as clueless buffoons or violent criminals by a grossly disproportionate measure. Hand in hand with the self-righteousness of “therapy culture”, feminism has diminished the quality of life for everyone by destroying the values that once sustained the stability and bonds of the American family. This is no accident or side effect, nor is it good for anyone including women. It can’t be denied that this brazenly indefensible objective is at the core of feminism’s purported nobler goals of equality. Yet radical feminists will still try to defend it with the absurdly paranoid assertion that the traditional family is nothing more than a male invention designed to oppress women. This theory is even hostile to women who find fulfillment as wives and mothers as being naively brainwashed by a tyrannical patriarchy.

If a tenet of feminism is that women have choices, then this is yet another example of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. What feminists are really saying is that women are free to do whatever feminism says they should do because feminism presumes to speak for all women and that it knows what’s best for them; better than they even know for themselves.  Amazingly, too many Americans have already accepted such rhetoric and readily ignore the fact that the family unit is our greatest asset and source of strength as individuals and as free citizens. Without the support and strength of the intact family, we are weakened and reduced to proletariats of the state. This, I believe is no mere coincidence. Women— the so-called nurturers and caregivers have been the unwitting foot soldiers this destructive campaign; and men— the proverbial protectors and providers have passively stood by and allowed it to happen. We are all equally accountable for allowing our natural instincts as protectors and nurturers to be so easily perverted.

What began as a seemingly honorable movement to insure legal, financial, and social equality between men and women when war widows were left with no means of support, has now degenerated into a grotesque caricature that backfires far more than it accomplishes any true gains toward its presumably virtuous purpose, or as other authors have identified it: feminism’s “cover story.” A minority of angry, vocal women have hijacked and franchised the feminist movement into a disturbingly destructive force while sheltered under its original banner of righteousness. Yet we dare not question their rhetoric lest we are branded as hostile to their seemingly noble cause, so most men comply or assume the obsequious role of championing the feminist cause.

Even if some women really do have legitimate personal grievances with specific men, I would point out that these exceptions to the rule are personal and unique; and not justification for a universally hostile social trend. Thousands of people are killed in car accidents every year but we don’t outlaw cars.  I love dogs even though I’ve been bitten once or twice in my life. In fact, I love women despite all of their shortcomings and ways that I have witness few of them have behave with depravity or unjustifiably extreme cruelty toward me and other men.  Most young women are now systematically taught that there is a sinister conspiracy among all men against all women with nothing more than a tiny percentage of isolated transgressions to justify this claim. This is mobilizing a political agenda through fear and loathing of the proverbial boogeyman which most women have never personally experienced.

And yet despite the finger pointing, the vast majority of actual men have been anything but unsympathetic. On the contrary. Millions of men just like me have done as much or more to support and abide by the demands of feminism as the women that it is supposed to benefit. In an effort to be deemed as “acceptable” by the feminist sensibility, a whole generation of men spend most of their lives bending over backwards to suppress their better judgment and male instincts while apologizing for simply being male (which ironically further incurs women’s contempt.) It begins and ends with this militant faction and their unrelentingly vitriolic characterization of men as their oppressors or abusers. It may seem counterintuitive, but the explanation is that like so many human institutions, feminism would have no cohesion without a scapegoat. I will therefore submit that feminism’s raison d’être is a phantom— but that its effects are dreadfully tangible.

A few so-called “moderate” feminists may attempt to distance themselves from these radical extremists, but their voices are drowned out by all the noise. And even they can’t evade the truth that feminism even exists at all because of a contrived fallacy that a hegemony of men opposes their freedom. Here in America in the 21st century… really? By that definition, any feminism is akin to radical fundamentalism. Eliminate that unjustified core theory and feminism has no unifying meaning or purpose. For a little perspective, all we need to do is look at some Arab and African countries to see what it really looks like for women to be oppressed by men. Despite enjoying advantages and freedoms above almost any other class of people in the world, American women, like spoiled children, aren’t embarrassed to keep right on complaining. Yet perhaps they should complain— not for anything that they have been denied, but for the tragic consequences of what they themselves have wrought: the unmitigated betrayal of their men, their children, and ultimately, themselves.  

Plunder and Slander

I remember Nazi election propaganda posters showing a hateful Jewish face with crooked nose. Jack Steinberger

All of this may come as no surprise. Any social trend that gains enough momentum will always attract a few fanatic extremists who undermine its true spirit. They are to feminism what suicide bombers are to Islam. These “squeaky wheels” always opt for a rage-fueled tirade over logic against their manufactured adversary. Such fanatic hyperbole inevitably becomes the manifesto for the whole movement. Declare war and then justify it by accusing the identified enemy of initiating aggression for displaying the slightest hint of defense at the attack. Assassinate character instead of seeking accord. Rather than graciously recognizing the willingness of the other party to be reasonable, they default to the most adversarial position possible and employ the same strategy as price bantering in a Cairo street market: aggressively demand more than is reasonable, take as much as they can get, demand more still, give nothing back, and never apologize. This strategy may achieve some petty gains, but the net result is a severely diminished quality of life for all concerned from an increased atmosphere of antagonism and distrust between men and women. The strategy being, “screw him before he screws me.” It is the equivalent to the short-sighted greed of corporate raiders who plunder the assets of an old beloved company and lay off all of its loyal employees rather than reinvesting in its long term potential. A small minority benefits while most suffer. Starting to sound familiar?

Radio pundit bullies like Rush Limbaugh and Tom Leykis have been called out for making the regrettable comparison of feminism and Nazism: “Feminazis”. In so doing, they undermine their own credibility by stooping to the same low level of inflammatory name calling, and yet I believe the core point that they clumsily make is how feminists demonize men just as Nazis demonized Jews so as to justify their hostility. If so, then I’m afraid to say that even they got that part right. Of course, these are rare examples of the kind of man that feminists love to use as poster boys for what’s wrong with all men. They depend on each other to define themselves. Such polarization is inevitable. Like a law of physics, for every radical feminist, there must be an equal and opposite male “pig” to serve as a yardstick by which they measure their own limits. If the moniker “feminazis” is going too far, then it may not be going too far to compare feminism to McCarthyism. At least McCarthy didn’t massacre millions of people that he falsely accused of communism, but the similarity is that he did foster an unnecessarily antagonistic atmosphere for a period of this country’s history based more on a personal paranoia than on any legitimate or widespread threat.

“Displacement” is a well-recognized psychological phenomenon in which the subject redirects their rage toward any convenient target while repressing awareness of the true cause. If they can justify their antagonism by indoctrinating as many others as possible, then they feel validated in their delusion.

And so, in the last 40 years, men in America and a few other Western nations in the northern latitudes have been the target of one of the most insidious slander campaigns ever waged against any minority, and it hides in plain sight. It is not just against the tiny minority of genuinely “bad guys”, but toward all men through guilt by association and the questionably paranoid logic of always erring on the side of caution. In many cases, the easiest targets—the proverbial “nice guys” are the recipients of the most egregious injustices. Why? Because they offer the least resistance. They are the weakest link.

So, if women aren’t really oppressed by men in this country, then why all the sound and fury? All we need to do is look at the effects. Skyrocketing divorce rates, children raised in broken homes and daycare, and the “ghettoization” of the middle class. Nothing is an accident. What we may dismiss as a collection of unfortunate side effects is the purpose. Who would possibly benefit from such social devastation? I’m getting to that.

Riding the Civil Rights Bandwagon

We live in a society of victimization, where people are much more comfortable being victimized than actually standing up for themselves.Marilyn Manson

“White guilt” became part of our vernacular since the civil rights movement as whites began to have a collective awakening of conscience about the centuries of black suffering in America. Jumping on this bandwagon, comfortable, well-educated, middle and upper class women sought to extend this sentiment to include “male guilt” by comparing their situations as wives and mothers to the conditions of black oppression. And thus began their campaign to demonize men— all men, in exaggerated ways that even exceed the animosity that blacks expressed toward whites for incomparably more legitimate reasons. Thus, the “victim culture” was born and suddenly everyone had a new tool for manipulating the system to their favor. However, unlike our new found sensitivity to racism toward ethnic minorities and sexism toward women, this reactionary form of bigotry toward men is regarded with nothing more than a chuckle during any romantic comedy or primetime sitcom.

Men are the one minority that is banned by definition from playing the “victim card”. If a man complains, then he is not a real man. However, I submit that as real men, we can set a better example for improving our station than by resorting to the same crybaby strategy so overused by other groups. No more crying wolf. You can’t get respect by whining for it. Being a man is not something that requires a feminist’s permission or approval.  

The implications are much farther reaching than these venues. Substitute the word “woman” or “black” or any other minority for the word “man” or “dad” in any derogatory joke commonly made at men’s expense and then see if you still think it’s funny or inconsequential: “It’s so simple, even Dad can do it.” Harmlessly funny, right? Now try: It’s so simple, even a woman can do it.” Still laughing? We usually shrug off “male bashing” as a relatively trivial footnote in daytime talk shows and women’s studies college courses. And yet, regarding the latter, the editorial board of the Canadian newspaper National Post has argued:

The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women. Women’s Studies courses have taught that all women — or nearly all — are victims and nearly all men are victimizers. Their professors have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted not to individuals alone, but to whole classes of people, too.

Justifications for Male Discrimination

The anger that appears to be building up between the sexes becomes more virulent with every day that passes. And far from women taking the blame… the fact is that men are invariably portrayed as the bad guys. Being a good man is like being a good Nazi.Dave Thomas

The rationale goes something like this: Men have always had all of the advantages, so now it’s OK to level the playing field by denigrating any man, anywhere, anytime, in any situation. What this logic conveniently ignores is that only a tiny percentage of men at the very top of the social pyramid have these mythical advantages. The rest of us are all in the same boat. And yet the remaining ordinary, hard-working men who do dutifully work difficult or dangerous jobs that women don’t want to do in order to support their families are vilified as oppressors, predators, or as immature buffoons, making it open season on the proverbial boogeyman. In any conflict, men are almost always seen as guilty until proven innocent, while women’s virtue is always given the benefit of the doubt, even when evidence to the contrary is irrefutable. Where exactly is the oppressive patriarchal system that I have been hearing women complain about my whole life? I don’t see it. Not here in America— at least not in my lifetime. This is the classic cognitive dissonance that many men live with every day. Is it any wonder that a few snap under the stress? How much hand wringing are we doing in the hope of understanding them compared to when a woman snaps?. Men are held 100% accountable for their actions regardless of extenuating circumstances while women are infantilized, analyzed, coddled, and excused under identical circumstances. The fact that so-called “empowered” feminists insist upon this is hypocrisy in the extreme.

It has already been demonstrated that statistics regarding earning disparity are misleading due to the failure to take into account the fact that men tend to work longer hours and more days per year at many jobs that women simply don’t want to do.  And yet, feminists cherry-pick the final tally of their own choices as the prime example of discrimination against them. And we’ve been buying this nonsense for a generation now.  

The news media is insidiously complicit. Every leading story on the eleven o-clock news begins with some atrocity committed by a “man”, while the feel-good human interest stories refer to men merely as “personnel”, “coalminers”, “soldiers”, or any other gender-neutral euphemism.

Others have already written at length about exaggerated or fabricated statistics on atrocities like rape and DV perpetrated by men against women. In a nutshell, the fact is that violence is initiated equally by men and women and that women abuse children (including sexually) at more than twice the numbers than men. And yet, we behave as if only men are perpetrators and only women are victims. Once again, acting as if things are the way we think they should be instead of how they really are.

All of this amounts to being the ultimate straw man fallacy, and the true cause for such widespread insistence upon it goes even deeper than almost anyone really understands.

Of course, there will always be some bad eggs among any demographic group that deserve the scrutiny that they receive, but that includes both men and women. Neither gender owns the monopoly on virtue. However, for the same reason that racism is wrong, condemning an entire category of people for the shortcomings of a few is ultimately far more damaging than the behavior that it presumes to denounce.


This idea that males are physically aggressive and females are not has distinct drawbacks for both sexes. Katherine Dunn

This phenomenon has its tentacles in every important aspect of modern life including education, the job market, retirement, health care, the economy, the media, journalism, literature, the arts, law enforcement, criminal courts, dating, marriage, raising children, family courts, and divorce. In all of these arenas, there is a profound pattern of discrimination against boys and men, and preferential “kid glove” treatment or portrayal of girls and women— which is only possible because of a baseless but persistent myth that the bias favors men.

We say that women can do anything men can do, but then force men to pay alimony to women in the vast majority of cases when it is awarded in a divorce. The assumption of course, being that the poor, helpless woman can’t fend for herself without a husband to support her even if she left him. Suddenly, pride in being a strong, independent woman is conveniently set aside. In such cases, it is presumed that life with him was so unbearable that she had to “escape”, which is something that doesn’t require any proof. She is then “owed” compensation for the excruciating ordeal of having to sleep with her husband for the years that they were married as if she were a prostitute or sexual slave with no choice in the matter. If it is an insult in the extreme to call a woman a whore, then you’d think that more of them would be embarrassed to behave in a way that invites such characterization.

In any case, the man is expected to continue supporting the woman; an outdated vestige from the time when most men worked and most women stayed home to raise the children. While feminism has ravaged that traditional model, they have staunchly defended the disproportionate alimony and child support awards in family courts that originated in a time when most women didn’t work.  The legalese is: “in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed”. In higher income cases with children, outrageous amounts of child support are granted that far exceed what is required to comfortably raise a child. As “discretionary” income, the custodial parent (the mother) is free to spend this jackpot on anything she wants. This stunning hypocrisy is still boilerplate practice in divorce courts. The spectacularly insulting double standard goes unnoticed, dismissed, or rationalized as “evening the playing field”. And yet, it can be demonstrated that we have grossly overcompensated for something that was never as far out of balance as it has now become. It happened only after the natural differences in gender temperament and predisposition became falsely branded as inequality and injustice. The implications of all this are much farther reaching than a few hurt feelings.

Boys Taught Early

The differences between the sexes are the single most important fact of human society. George Gilder

In subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways, boys are now taught from an early age that their maleness is a flaw to be suppressed or punished. Anyone who has observed young children play can easily see the obvious natural differences in the temperaments of most children of each gender. There are always some exceptions but most boys are naturally more competitive, active, and fascinated by things that can be thrown or ridden, while girls tend to more often sit quietly and “pretend” play. These are not learned behaviors— they are instinctive. However, in many experimental new educational environments, young boys are deterred from their more naturally boisterous instincts by hyper-sensitive adults who deem boys’ natural behavior as disruptive and sometimes even going so absurdly far as to deem it oppressive of the girls’ well-being.

We’re talking about politicizing children’s natural behavior.

A whole generation of boys are now being chemically castrated with Ritalin and other drugs, presumably to curb their so-called “hyperactivity”, or what was once called, you know, “being a boy.” In some “progressive” educational environments, young boys are even directed to play quietly with dolls along with the girls. The message is that the educators are attempting to break down natural gender behavior under the insane theory that it is unnatural— before the children can possibly understand why they are being discouraged from behaving normally. This symbolic gender reassignment goes far beyond the need for a reasonable degree of discipline and order when children really do behave disruptively.  

The fact that girls often enter puberty a little earlier than boys has spawned a myth that they mature intellectually sooner as well, and yet there is no evidence at all to support this belief. In fact, girls’ school performance sometimes drops sharply at the onset of puberty, with far less of this effect observed among boys. Statistically, it’s no surprise that girls’ aptitude skews a little more toward verbal and language skills while boys skew a little more toward analytical and math skills, but there is no significant difference in overall performance except when one group is favored over another, which is exactly what’s been happening in the last 30 years. Boys’ tendency to assert themselves a little more than girls has been branded as damaging to girls’ self-esteem. So, instead of dealing with each child according to their innate temperaments, boys are admonished for their natural enthusiasm. Being born male has taken the place of “original sin”, and boys learn to feel guilty just for being boys, especially when most elementary school teachers are women who consider themselves feminists.

Boys see their own fathers marginalized in their lives and fathers in media portrayed as inept buffoons instead of the stable, wise heroes that they once were. No longer is the protector, the provider, the decision maker respected or even acknowledged. In domestic disputes, the man is almost always arrested even when the woman was the aggressor, which is far more frequently than reported, for the same biased reasons. Men are blamed for all the evils of the world with a naïve dream that all problems would be solved if only women ran the world. None of these biases are absolute, but they are now commonplace enough to have a cumulatively negative effect on how boys learn to see themselves. This far exceeds the seriousness of any complaint about how women are portrayed in the media. Once again, all of this reinforces the absurd and dangerous idea that the only way to “empower” girls is to emasculate boys, even at very young ages.

In the Workplace

The sexes in each species of being… are always true equivalents – equals but not identical. Antoinette Brown Blackwell

In the professional world, women often complain that their male colleagues don’t take them seriously. Having worked for several large companies, I have often heard the complaint but never actually witnessed the alleged cause. On the contrary, I have seen many women in positions of authority, surrounded by mild-mannered beta males who would never dare question them even if they had good reason— out of fear that any challenge whatsoever to a woman would be misinterpreted as the deadly sin of sexism. These are the young men who were raised in the generation of feminism.

Nevertheless, even if it still sometimes happens that a few old-school men don’t take their female colleagues or subordinates as seriously as they’d like, one very important reason for it is rarely acknowledged: women actually have more options than men, despite a common assumption to the contrary. Every working man knows that he has no choice. He has no safety net. He must work, period.

For men, working for a living is not a privilege, group therapy, or a liberating expression of his individuality, creativity, and freedom, as feminists have been taught to see it and envy it. For men, work is merely an inescapable and necessary burden whether he likes it or not.  A man must work his whole life because he knows that no one is ever going to take care of him, and he will have to work extra hard, long hours that most women won’t if he is going to be considered successful enough to attract a woman and support a family.

A woman in the workplace on the other hand has many more choices, especially if she’s attractive. Whether we care to admit it or not, she can flirt or screw her way up the ladder if she wants. She can threaten to sue for sexual discrimination pretty much any time she is challenged for any reason by a male colleague or superior. That is not to say that every woman does these things, but some do. That is a fact, and everyone knows it. Every man in the professional world knows that even if a woman doesn’t do these things, the threat that she could always looms, while he will never have such options. It’s not difficult to see how this knowledge could influence even fair-minded men to begin seeing working women as mere career dabblers or hobbyists who are exploiting unfair advantages compared to their more serious male colleagues who have only their hard work and dedication to earn credibility.

Also, most women can still opt-out and revert to the traditional role of housewife pretty much whenever they want, if they want, unless they wait until it’s too late. There should be no shame in this option, but it is there. In such cases when they do wait too long, only then do some women begin to think that the grass is greener on the path not taken. They then long to be wives and mothers often long after the optimal time to start a family has passed. Like men, such women finally realize that being responsible for themselves is not a mere test of self-esteem to prove like a precocious child, but after a certain point, it becomes a hard, inescapable reality. Some even admit to feeling as if they had been “suckered” into pursuing careers that they only later realize that do not bring them the fulfillment that they were promised by their women’s studies professor in college. So until that day of reckoning, no matter how hard a woman works to prove herself equal to her male colleagues in a professional environment, the unspoken knowledge that she has a safety net that he lacks has an unavoidable affect on her credibility as a serious employee compared to her male colleagues.

If there is one attractive woman sitting in the boardroom at a meeting with her male colleagues, then everyone including her is acutely aware of the proverbial pink elephant in the room that no one dares to talk about. Everyone is uncomfortable and she can use that fact to her advantage. While this may not seem fair, it is foolish to pretend that it’s not true. But we do pretend. We pretend that things are the way we think they should be, instead of how they really are. This head-in-the-sand reflex does not bring about positive change. It only fosters more tension and distrust. Consequently, the workplace has become a minefield of hyper-vigilance against the slightest perception of harassment, which stems more from a fear of lawsuits than from any actual behavior that rises to a reasonable interpretation of being genuinely offensive. Talk about a hostile work environment!

An attractive, successful business woman that I once dated told me that as an artist, I was a refreshing alternative to the stodgy men in suits that she worked with all day. She actually complained to me that they didn’t take her seriously even though she was just as competent and hard working as any of them. Without hesitation, I told her why I thought that was so, and her jaw dropped. Not in offense, but to her credit, in recognition of the truth. She replied, “Oh my god, you’re right. I never thought of it like that.” We eventually parted on good terms but I know that she will remember that conversation.

Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll

No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. Henry A. Kissinger

Before the 1960s, the American male archetype was admired for being strong, and stoic, with grit and moral fiber. Women chose men carefully based on these qualities— with good reason. In the time before the pill and legal abortion, unwanted pregnancy was a serious concern, so a stand-up man was valued and appreciated. Strong, smart, heroic men were a staple in literature, television and movies.

Enter: JFK’s assassination and the Viet Nam war. Suddenly, all bets were off and a new young generation dared to seriously challenge the status quo through an explosion of creativity in music, literature, film, and personal exploration of new ways of thinking and living. This posed a far more serious threat to the incumbent establishment than most people realize. In ancient Rome, the powers of the time realized that they couldn’t stop Christianity, so they co-opted it and formed the Roman Catholic Church in order to maintain power over a growing population of Christians. This is not a discourse about religion but a similar thing happened here in America in the wake of the 60s. The hippie movement was completely derailed with the pacifying temptations of sex and drugs, courtesy of your friendly CIA. Contrary to popular belief, the sexual revolution was actually part of the arsenal to sabotage a movement that could have otherwise had a real chance of overthrowing the corrupt establishment. Like giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native American tribes, hippies were given unrestricted sex and recreational drugs with the idea that these were expressions of their rebellion, when they were actually the elements of their demise. Indeed, my parents’ generation naively and eagerly partook of these temptations without having any idea of the intended consequences. An entire generation of rebels was anesthetized into docility with very little bloodshed except for isolated incidents like Kent State.

The pill was developed and Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. One of feminism’s dictates was that women should no longer be ashamed to be single mothers if they chose not to terminate their pregnancies. The lid blew off sexual restrictions. Promiscuity was no longer shameful, women no longer needed to be coy about their sexuality, and men no longer needed to be strong or responsible. The androgynous rock star replaced the chiseled leading man. We invented absurd new euphemisms like “polyamory”, to legitimize behavior that was once taboo, which of course has nothing to do with real love. Qualities like commitment, responsibility, character, and virtue became synonymous with the rigid, oppressive establishment of the previous generation. Motivated by the temptation of easy sex, most men eagerly adapted to these new mores. The American male archetype transformed from stoic and masculine to the non-threatening man-child anti-hero. As a friend suggested, men went from “pull out artists” to “pick up artists.”  This may all seem like good fun, but at what cost? Skyrocketing statistics of single mothers, uninvolved fathers, broken homes, and tension between the sexes.

Like trying to live on a diet of nothing but hot fudge sundaes, all this non-committal sex eventually led to an inevitable breakdown of trust or respect between the sexes. “Free love” was anything but free. Sex as recreation demands the suppression of the natural intimacy and bonding that normally accompanies it. But suppression begets perversion, jealousy, resentment, disillusionment, and rage. By the 80’s, the AIDS epidemic struck, rehab clinics became commonplace and the party was over. Having forgotten any sense of the traditional values and respect that once existed between the sexes, it was too late to turn back. All we were left with was animosity, distrust, and a tidal wave of blame.

Fast forward to today and sexual relationships have come to resemble tense diplomatic negotiations during a temporary cease-fire between warring nations that are considering the benefit of temporarily lifting a trade embargo. People are torn between their natural instincts and the legacy of a generation of promiscuity. Confusion predominates; consumerism and convenience prevail. With absurdly oversimplified theories like “The Rules” and “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” gaining traction among most of the population spoon-fed on pop culture, men and women have abandoned their own common sense and decency. Instead, they have come to see each other as alien specimens to be analyzed and manipulated through a scripted and choreographed series of disingenuous interactions, or as disposable consumer products to be traded in at the first sign of boredom or imperfection. Relationships and marriage are more frequently than ever based on short-sighted whim and superficial convenience more than on genuine love, trust, respect or devotion. No commitment is deep enough to withstand the opportunity to “trade up”. The slogan “I want it all now” from Cyra McFadden’s satirical book “The Serial” has lost its irony and become the mantra for a whole generation. Scratching the surface of these trends reveals some interesting underlying causes.

We are now surrounded by overt sexual imagery everywhere in the media. Despite our professed abhorrence toward child pornography, we allow our children to become inured to sexualized imagery, attitudes, and styles at increasingly younger ages. Worldwide pornography industry revenues are now far in excess of $100 billion annually, which is more than double that of Microsoft and more than the NFL, NBA, and MLB combined. When natural sexuality becomes unavoidably confused with the caricature of pornography, it is not unusual for men to be ridiculed as pigs or perverts merely for expressing any sexual desire at all, whereas women’s sexuality is seen as almost a divine sacrament, even when it really is perverted.

The mixed messages are enough to drive anyone mad. Men are bombarded with the admonition that they are supposed to be kind, honest, chivalrous, respectful, and gentle, but men who are naturally like this find themselves rejected time and time again, only to watch women run into the arms of thugs. Why? Because most women now resent the non-committal dandy that they invented. They instinctively revert to their desire for a strong, stand-up guy, but there are very few good models for this type of man left these days. So, women settle for any superficial display of strength or power as the next best thing.  Of course, attraction to wealth never went out of style, but good character is seen as weakness and usually ignored, despite protests to the contrary. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.  The exceptions to this rule are the relationships comprised of a domineering woman and her male lap dog. These men either lack or have suppressed their natural male traits in order to be deemed worthy of the woman’s acceptance. These variations tend to be regional but the net effect is a profoundly diminished quality of life for all.


I could not point to any need in childhood as strong as that for a father’s protection. – Sigmund Freud

Loving fathers are systematically torn from their families, branded as deadbeats, and treated like criminals in family courts. We accept this as if it’s just the natural order of things. It isn’t. And yet we still hold the notion that papa was a rolling stone, when in fact a much larger percentage of women actually initiate divorce than men, forcing the fathers of their children out of his own home.  In the minority of cases when men leave their marriages, we assume that he’s a jerk for abandoning his wife. When the woman leaves, we still assume that she had no choice because, once again, he must be a jerk. All of this is accepted with absolutely no evidence; just an automatic assumption that flatters women and insults men. Men are the targets of this “damned either way” bias in almost every kind of situation. Even more shockingly, more than twice as many women than men neglect, harm and even kill their own children, especially after moving in with a man other than the biological father. Yes, you read that right.

Despite these facts, we do not err on the side of caution by systematically taking children away from the majority of decent mothers. Instead, we ignore the statistics and do the reverse, because we mistakenly assume that it must be the reverse. Why? This is justified in part by a baseless theory about the breastfeeding bond between mother and child superseding any possible bond between fathers and children, even long after children have long since moved on to solid food. It is also regarded with a nod and a wink as a kind of ad hoc reparation for perceived injustices against women elsewhere in society, such as the aforementioned debatable wage discrepancies. And so children become the bargaining chip, with the insulting justification that such decisions are made in the children’s best interest. Wink, wink.

However, reverse the genders and there would be riots in the streets. Take children away from a mother simply because the father decided that he needed to leave his wife to go “find himself” along with his kids in tow? Laughable, unless the mother is caught selling crack on the schoolyard— and even then we would wring our hands trying to understand what unbearable stresses could push a poor woman to do such a terrible thing, when even a good man would receive no such consideration. Instead, decent, loving fathers are forcibly removed from their children every day without as much as a shrug, often for no better reason than the woman’s whim. Ask any man who has experienced this if it is any less heartbreaking than it would be for a woman and you are likely to see a grown man break into tears, not to mention his children. This is how callously and systematically the family court system not merely permits, but is actually geared to goad already fragile families into devastation, and is really at the heart of the whole matter.

Also, birth control options for women far outweigh the options for men. Choices in birth matters is regarded as the woman’s alone; and yet still the man’s burden depending on the choice that she makes without his wishes carrying any weight whatsoever. Yes, it is her body that will or will not be pregnant for nine months, but his desire to be a parent or not for the next eighteen years and to bear the financial burden or not is completely disregarded depending on her whim. When a sperm bank becomes an equally viable or even preferable alternative to an involved father, then clearly no one any longer takes the consequences of raising fatherless children very seriously. But the results are in and the naïve social experiment that elevated single mothers from shame to glorified sainthood can be declared an unmitigated disaster.

There was once a good reason why it was considered shameful for an unmarried woman to get “knocked up” and raise children on her own. Now, women should never feel shame for anything they do, however careless or selfish. Where single motherhood was once considered a tragedy, it is now considered a perfectly viable or even admirable choice. However, the epidemic rise of drug use, teen pregnancy, gang violence, depression and suicide all correlate precisely with the increased absence or marginalization of biological fathers from the lives of their children. Once again, this is not a coincidence or an unintended side-effect. I assert that it is undeniable case of calculated and predictable cause and effect, and raises the disturbing question of who really benefits. I’m still getting to that. In the meantime, I contend that the system is critically broken and that we can do so much better.

Rite of Passage

Ah, yes, divorce… from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet. Robin Williams

As mentioned, most children are raised in broken homes because far more women than men are abandoning their marriages. I can almost hear the feminists cheer at this “victory” but, but the noble cause of equality is just a decoy and the ramifications are much farther-reaching. The devil really is in the details. Of the aforementioned majority of divorces initiated by women against their first husbands, only a very small percentage of those are for serious reasons like abuse or infidelity by the man. In most cases, “irreconcilable differences” is a meaninglessly vague euphemism for “she’s liberating herself from the institution of patriarchal oppression.” But is that really what she’s doing?

It has instead become a rite of passage for women… an initiation to womanhood. You’re not really a liberated woman until you’ve abandoned at least one devastated beta male in the dust to either “trade up” or go “find yourself”, with or without kids in the picture. Even if he was the most loving, supportive husband in the world, simply claim that he was “controlling” and that you felt “trapped”, or that he left the toilet seat up, and the sisterhood will all nod in unison, “just like a man.” I guess it just wouldn’t be as satisfying or meaningful to find herself before ruining a few other people’s lives in the process. This is accepted and even encouraged as the woman’s prerogative to change her mind without moral accountability to anyone that her almighty whim might harm. The fact that she never thought of this before willingly entering the marriage is ignored or explained away as her having been too young and naïve to know what a terrible trap she was getting herself into… you know: stuck with a hard-working man who loves her and provides for her. She can’t execute the symbolic act of liberating herself until she has first willingly entered a union that she can only then vilify as her prison. The fact that she may cause irreparable harm to others in the process is an acceptable casualty at best; or perhaps it is even a badge of honor at worst.

However, the question has never really been whether a woman has the right to choose. The real question is (or should be) how well she chooses. If women truly want to see themselves as equal to men in society (as they should), then they must be held to the same standard of accountability for the choices they make as men are held, and not expect to be forever coddled like children taking their first baby steps into the real world.

Pop Culture

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. Adolf Hitler

There are countless examples of propaganda in the media that reinforce these skewed views. Despite feminists’ complaint about unrealistic images of thin, sexy women in the media, every romantic comedy is about some immature rogue who can’t commit until he meets the right woman. Every sitcom (and commercial) is about an overweight idiot married to a beautiful, mature, intelligent, sophisticated woman who treats him like a child. Practically every Disney movie since the 70s has been about a plucky, independent young heroine proving herself in some way.

Recently, the bestseller book “Eat, Drink, Pray” and subsequent 2010 film starring Julia Roberts was lauded as a landmark of feminist aspirations but what was it really all about? An attractive, successful, married, middle-aged woman abandons her perfectly decent, loving husband to go on a year long quest to “find herself”, only to ultimately learn that she has selfishly pushed away every man who ever loved her. At least she had a great time in the process while her poor ex was left in anguish— but who cares? It was her adventure and a vicarious fantasy for every married woman in the audience who ever felt a twinge of restlessness. Now, reverse the genders and make the main character the husband who does what Julia did. He would be seen as an irresponsible, selfish villain and everyone would sympathize with the ex whose part is pretty much over after the first 20 minutes.

In the blockbuster 2012, John Kusak asks his ex-wife Amanda Peet if she really loves her new husband. She answers, “I love him enough”, which clearly means that she tolerates him because he’s a better provider than the father of her children, whom she left. This is considered to be a perfectly reasonable answer. Now reverse the genders. If a man gave the same answer when asked if he loves his wife, then that would not definitely not fly with modern audiences as an acceptable reply for a likeable guy. He’d be a real jerk for admitting that he married a woman for convenience. Like so many double standards that give women a free ride that men are denied, it is accepted as a small retribution for some other contrived offenses.

These are only a couple of examples that recently caught my attention out of countless others. For anyone interested, I suggest counting how many television commercials for a wide variety of products and services follow this formula. Apart from selling products, what’s the overarching message?

The Rhetorical Trap

Anger is never without an argument, but seldom with a good one. Indira Gandhi

Like a religious devotee suffering from a crisis of faith when exercising a bit of common sense, any man who raises these questions is immediately attacked for challenging the politically correct status quo. He is branded a chauvinist, or as a whining, humorless crybaby who can’t take a joke and doesn’t know how good he has it compared to women, or as a loser venting his sour grapes. After all, if you are presumed to have all of the advantages, then you should be able to take a few hits and have no reason to complain, or so the reasoning goes. And if you do complain, you are not being “manly”. Men should be stoic. Men should take their lumps. Men’s feelings don’t get hurt, or at least don’t matter compared to women’s feelings. Men are the oppressors, and so have no credibility to complain. There’s no vacancy in the victim hotel, and men are to blame. It is the classic ad hominem logical fallacy designed to keep men silenced about any injustices they endure.

Instead, you have the occasional hard working quiet family man who just snaps one day and shoots up the post office. Now let’s do a little soul-searching to really understand what terrible stresses could push this poor guy to the edge: Perhaps if he only had the opportunity to voice his frustrations just once in the way he heard the women around him do every single day, then such tragedies might be averted. Just a thought.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

All I ever seek from good deeds is a measure of respect. Walter Annenberg

Despite being the target of all this hostility from women, most men silently nod and continue to say and do whatever it takes at all costs to appease women’s bottomless well of demands. They will go along with the common platitude that “she’s always right”, even with all the derogatory jokes about what clueless pigs men are. They will not question the notion of how much more sensitive, nurturing, intuitive, intelligent, and spiritually enlightened women are compared to men, who are always presumed to be inept, immature, knuckle-dragging goobers who lie, cheat, and need to be treated like one of the children by their flawless wives— if they are lucky enough for a woman to tolerate them at all. And so, in either ignorant bliss, the desire for acceptance, or fear of ridicule, most men play along with the burden of trying to impress women, while women maintain their posture of trying to remain unimpressed without even the courtesy of showing up on time, or at all. And which men get the shortest end of this stick? The ones who offer the least resistance… the “nice” guys who least resemble the negative stereotype.

Women often seem to do this with smug, almost perverse satisfaction as if they are cashing in their retribution chips against men— against any man, and yet for exactly what offenses, and to what end? Such small victories ring hollow. There are a lot of bitter, divorced, middle-aged women out there who have never once let down their guard to show genuine appreciation for the decent men in their lives. Let’s not underestimate how much they are suffering too— not because of how awful men are, but because of how awful they think men are. This myopic view becomes their own personal hell. Unwittingly, a woman who believes that she is justified in “getting one over” on the men in her life ends up suffering just as much, if not even more in the long run, and worse: causing her children to suffer too. No one wins. Well, almost no one.

Life Out of Balance

There is more difference within the sexes than between them. Ivy Compton-Burnett

All of this preferential treatment toward women on the surface would seem to be with good intentions. But if you really think about it, the message actually undermines everything that feminism would logically advocate. Rather than women being able to do anything men can do, it actually reinforces the message that women are helpless victims who need to pressure men into feeling guilty so that they will grant special concessions to women— presumably because women are incapable of succeeding otherwise. The false message is that men’s power is the only power, so women should feel inferior unless they can pilfer men’s power and become more like men. This is actually the opposite of “empowerment”. It negates women’s true feminine power and natural dignity as women, as well as attacking men’s masculine power. It’s like a social short circuit.

Paradoxically, men are now also made to feel guilty and inferior for the very same traits to which women now aspire. So, the bizarre logic is that it is a virtue for women to be more like men, but it is shameful for men to be like men or like women. This is obviously no good for men, but it really doesn’t help women either. They may claim some petty victories, but this ultimately keeps women dependent, in a childlike fantasy world where they can get whatever they want (or what they think they should want) by being aggressive, whining, manipulative, or insisting on changing the rules; and it keeps men in a constant, weakened state of guilt, confusion, and contrition for their natural instincts to be manly. If women can’t compete successfully with men in arenas where men excel, then we must rig the game.

In conversation with women friends about men’s frustration about never knowing what women want, some of the more sympathetic ones have admitted to me, “I don’t blame men for being frustrated since we don’t even know what the hell we want most of the time.”

The hidden message in the jargon of “empowerment” is that you are powerless until someone else rigs the game for you. It’s like affirmative action and special Olympics for women. You’d think that any self-respecting woman would see through the insulting condescension of this, but they don’t because it offers the path of least resistance toward an artificially contrived goal, under a banner of false righteousness. It’s like the trifecta of manipulation. Madison Avenue would be proud (or should I say is proud?)

The net result of all this actually undermines both men’s and women’s dignity, strengths, self-awareness, and autonomy over their own lives to follow their true nature as long as they accept the fallacy that each gender should suppress their natural instincts and strive to be more like the other. Sure there will always be some exceptions to the majority, which is fine for them, but we now act as if the exceptions must be the rule for everyone. As far as we may think we have “evolved” intellectually or socially, we are still biological creatures operating to a great extent on instinct. This is not a bad thing. It is a supreme conceit of human ego to think that gender is an arbitrary contrivance to be methodically altered based on some passing social trend. Rather, it is our nature; it is DNA, hormones, biology, and instinct. We are suffering by attempting to suppress it based on some misguided social theory.

As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, “Nature finds a way.”

Acknowledging Skepticism

Do not let yourself be tainted with a barren skepticism. Louis Pasteur

So, as a man who believes that this subject is in dire need of closer examination, how can I present my case without inviting the same kind of derision directed at every man who has ever attempted to voice similar ideas? I’m not sure that I can. But I can anticipate the ridicule and point out what I believe really motivates it. This extends far beyond my personal experience with a sympathetic view toward all concerned: men, women, and children alike. My purpose is not to complain or to make an appeal for sympathy. It is to shed some light that I believe will benefit all concerned.


Why shouldn’t truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. Mark Twain

If you begin to even consider the validity of this entire premise, then the next question to ask is: why would a presumably enlightened, modern society that has made such great strides against racial discrimination so systematically undermine the natural dignity and respectability that both genders once took for granted? A militant feminist will predictably assert that men have brought this upon themselves and declare that the end of the argument. Now, let’s look at it from a non-dogmatic perspective. My theory is not for the faint of heart. In fact, it is rather chilling and based on well-documented historic facts. It may seem at first like a long leap of logic, but the parallels between past and present are uncanny, so please bear with me.

Historic Precedent

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. Plato

Back in 1712, a man named William Lynch gave a seminal speech to a coalition of Southern Plantation owners on the bank of the James River. The speech was titled, “The Making of a Slave”. In it, Lynch described in explicit detail a systematic approach to psychologically “breaking” a population of people so that they will remain obedient and docile.

The simple premise was “divide and conquer” at the level of the most intimate family bonds.

The first and most important step was to weaken the strongest link. Remove the father from the family unit and brutally humiliate him in front of his woman and children. We’ve all seen “Roots”. Remember?

The next step was to give the woman more decision-making power than the man, especially regarding children, yet always under the control of the master. Children raised under these conditions were deprived of any strong male influence except the master. Women learned to despise their own men’s weakness and consequently form a stronger allegiance to their captor, the master. Sex between masters and female slaves was commonplace. Whether it was forcible or consensual was ultimately usually irrelevant under the circumstances. Much later, this phenomenon was recognized as the Stockholm syndrome in which a group of kidnapees grew to identify with their captors. The first generation of male slaves were killed or maimed beyond any ability to fight back, but the next generation of boys grew to be more compliant, usually through brutal “whippings” from their own mothers, inflicted to avert even worse beatings from the masters.

This became a mindset and a way of life so deeply instilled that it persists in black American culture today, 300 years later. How many African American women really respect African American men, even in this day and age? Very few. This is the legacy of Lynch’s system that he actually predicted. And now, this malignant mindset has spread far beyond the descendents of African slaves throughout all of society in America.

The Conspiracy

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. Frederick Douglass

Fast forward to the Civil War, emancipation, and then further to the civil rights movement. Slavery is abolished. The economic system that built this nation and depended on slavery was on the verge of collapse. Bankers and wealthy land owners needed to think fast. They figured out that they could continue a form of legal economic slavery as long as they didn’t call it that. Just employ the same techniques that Lynch taught, but in more subtle ways throughout the whole society, not just against a single minority group. Open Ellis Island to the largest influx of poor, immigrant worker classes in history with the lure of a chance at a better quality of life in America. Undermine the dignity of the father in the family unit, if not through torture, then through industrial mechanization, economic oppression, and seductive propaganda. Make the ordinary man obsolete as an authority, even in his own family and useful only as an obedient worker… all legally.  The dystopian visions of Orwell and Huxley were not that far off the mark. The only subtle but important difference is that we have replaced the chilling bleakness Orwell’s cautionary tales with Huxley’s placebo of banal consumer comforts and dream of a shot at the glamorous life. “You can never underestimate a population’s appetite for distraction.”

And yet the ultimate irony and insult to women is that much of the feminist agenda that they so religiously espouse is really part of a sinister plot devised by a very small group of very powerful men to control the masses by undermining the family unit. They simply planted the seed, and let it play out. Divide and conquer, just like prison guards maintaining their authority by fueling hostility among the inmates. So yes, the real oppressor probably really is male, but it is a very small, elite group of powerful men whose existence and directives are far below most people’s radar. The rest of us ordinary men in women’s lives however, are not the enemy. We’re really all in the same boat.

The Cost

It is the logic of consumerism that undermines the values of loyalty and permanence and promotes a different set of values that is destructive of family life. Christopher Lasch

The scheme is working. A vast population of the working class is keeping the top fraction of a percent of the wealthiest elite in power, with the recent exception of the Occupy movement. We are the 99%. However, the general public is usually too docile and distracted by consumer media to recognize their own plight or to ever consider a revolt. Instead, most wave their banners in blind allegiance to the powers that be. At what cost? At the cost of the most basic and fundamental social unit upon which the pursuit of happiness depends: the intimate bonds of the intact family. The only difference now is the vast scale and that the “master” is now the faceless godlike entity of corporate capitalism and consumerism. In contrast, husbands and fathers who were once the heroes of their families are now reduced to a punch line.

We believe in things more than we believe in each other. We cheer for our sports teams, for our armies, for our movie stars, for our politics, for our religions, and for our precious cars, fashions, and gadgets— but not for each other. We are allowing our greatest asset— our families— to be sabotaged from within. This is undeniably the brave new world that we live in today. It has not always been this way, nor must it remain so.

As Krishnamurti said, “It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

Conclusion and Prediction

The sexes were made for each other, and only in the wise and loving union of the two is the fullness of health and duty and happiness to be expected. William Hall

Now, here we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, an epidemic of foreclosed homes, broken homes, and a general atmosphere of malaise and mistrust between the sexes. None of this is an accident. We have been led like sheep to this much weakened place. How can anyone with a merely average sense of decency look around and fail to see that something has gone seriously wrong?

Now, the question is whether it is possible for us to gain the collective awareness to recognize it, to see the bigger picture, and as a population of intelligent and decent men and women, reclaim our dignity and the family bonds that once made us strong as individuals and as a nation? The present course is clearly unsustainable. I predict that the pendulum must start swinging back. There will be a shift in coming decades back toward a healthier respect and appreciation for men’s strength, dignity, wisdom, and roles as beloved husband, father, provider, protector, wise authority, and hero, at least in some sectors. When critical mass is reached, then this reawakening will become universal.

Just like the apologetic state that men are in today, there may even come a period of female atonement in which they will express contrition for their formerly misguided hostility toward the men in their lives. Mutual empathy, compassion, and respect between men and women for our strengths as well as for our differences will become the norm and families will once again become strong and stable. This is the true source from which social and economic recovery will “trickle down.” Of course, there must always be acceptance for alternative family models including blended families, single parent families, and gay couple families. However, the standard prototype of husband, wife, and children will resume its rightful status in the pantheon of stable family models. Feminism will dissipate and be replaced by the more inclusive “humanism.”

For all the die-hard feminists who will misinterpret this as some veiled attempt of reinforcing their imagined shackles of female subservience, please. You were never a slave to men and certainly no one is forcing anything on you now. Are you so insecure as to think that any positive relations with men must be synonymous with oppression? Is that what you call empowerment? If you are really happier alone with your cats, or at least without any positive relationships with men, then that’s always your choice. But as the minority, you don’t have the right to speak or choose for all women. In your own philosophy, women more than anything else have the right to choose what’s best for them. Those many choices must include the choice to take the most natural path in the world: to become truly invested in creating a healthy, happy, strong family… to know the contentment of finding herself right there, without shame, and to stay, for better or worse.

We have mustered the collective mobility to occupy Wall Street. It is now time for the 99% to turn that collective focus back to our homes and families.


About Gabriel Raphael

Gabriel Raphael is the pen name for a California artist, teacher, and divorced father. He is better known for his visual art which has appeared in books, films, and worldwide exhibitions. After successfully fighting a system that would have marginalized him from his beloved daughter’s life, he became more interested in the MRM. He is an instructor at a major California art university.

View All Posts
  • Paul Elam

    Absolutely devastating.

    • Zorro

      Ditto that! Muhammad Ali couldn’t have machine-gunned this topic onto the mat faster and harder!

      Get this author to write some more, Paul!

    • Arvy

      More than merely devastating, this article may be the best assessment of the feminist phenomenon in its larger societal and political context that I’ve seen anywhere. More please!

      I have one minor quibble however. The author really should broaden that contextual examination even further. While the genesis may be American in large part, the underlying agenda extends far beyond “the American family” to impinge on global geopolitical strategies and even on “justifications” for wars … mostly fought by men, incidentally … in furtherance of that agenda.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    I’m reading this with tears streaming down my face, and nodding yes! yes! yes! to every word…except for the happy ending. The pendulum swinging back.

    “How to make a slave” is ringing shrieking alarm too loudly for me to hear the happy ending.

    I don’t believe a Happy Ending is what the owners have in mind…

  • qdpsteve

    Another fantastic AVfM piece.

    The only thing I would have added is a quote from a song called “Real Men”, by the great 1980s-era new wave musician, Joe Jackson: “If there’s war between the sexes, then they’ll be no people left.”

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F


    My printer is nagging me.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

    …… wow.

  • Dannyboy

    I am in awe Gabe.
    Given your name and profession might I just say “Welcome Back Kotter.”
    One other thing you mentioned and it rang out in my head about the 60’s.
    It would appear that the radical brand of femies you point to is the equivalent to the brown acid mentioned when reading about Woodstock. And it would appear that society has taken multiple doses.
    Thank you sir now please excuse me while I read it a few more times.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    Wow! This is an excellent article Gabriel. There is a lot right and very little to argue with. I might nitpick some details, but for the most part I agree.

    I’m not so certain that I can see the pendulum swinging back. The corporate masters have too much control. Your quoting of Plato is very indicative of why. Democracy is its own worst enemy. Eventually it self-destructs and deteriorates, particularly when coupled with capitalism. The corporate capitalist has little concern for national boundaries and the failure of western society will matter very little in the grand scheme. The 1% will remain comfortably at the top no matter who is in control or what kind of government. Identified leaders don’t matter. What matters is the slavery of the masses. I know that sounds a bit Marxist, but Marx wasn’t entirely wrong in his description of social classes. The tricky part is to maintain a status quo wherein men as a class are too weak to be a threat, but just strong enough not to become one.

    A democratic feminist society employing Marxist principles in support of women without applying those same supports to men can achieve that balance. Men will work to support the government, the government will support women, and women will vote in support of the government. Men will be left with just enough to maintain themselves.

    This is not horribly different from traditional society wherein men worked to support women maintaining just enough to support themselves regardless of government.

    The difference is that in traditional society when government made it impossible for men to support women, men rose against it. It was more personal as individual men supported individual women. In the feminist democracy all men support all women and it becomes less personal and more difficult to tell when the women aren’t being supported.


  • Gabriel Raphael

    As a first time contributor, I am honored to have my piece represented here and humbled by the positive comments so far. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read my long article.
    @OneHundredPercentCotton and @TDOM, I didn’t anticipate the cynical reaction to my final suggestion that things can still improve. Without hope of that possibility, then just what are we doing here? Awareness of this issue is still small but clearly gaining traction, just as the feminist movement started. I suggest that the best strategy will be to remain vigilant but optimistic, and to take the “high road” armed with facts and a dose of humor rather than hopelessness and anger.

    • Paul Elam

      I agree 100%, -2%, lol. No social movement gains momentum without anger.Facts don’t move people, their hearts do, and their pain. It is just a fact of life.

      But I am with you on the rest. I also see the swining of the pendulum and I think it will eventually find its balance, but it will not be a smooth ride.

      The path to sanity between men and women will be through the belly of the beast. But I do think we will get there, or perish.

      • Gabriel Raphael

        I understand all too well the causes and even usefulness of anger, believe me. It is what drove me to fight for equal parenthood of my beloved daughter – the preservation of my family. For that reason, I could not allow the anger to overshadow the precious and fragile thing that I was fighting for. Also, I knew that any overt expression of rage would undermine my own credibility and play directly into the adversary’s hands. So, I learned to temper it and ride it, like breaking a wild bronco.
        In mythology, the reluctant hero must “become as the dragon, to destroy the dragon.” The most difficult part of the hero’s journey is to then shed that beastly rage so that he can return to the life that he defended before this transformative experience.
        I agree that we must go through the belly of the beast, but I think that’s where we are now. As much as we admonish women to regain their compassion, we men must never lose ours, or else all is truly lost.

        • scatmaster

          Your anger had to be tempered for the gender pandering judiciary and for the sake of your daughter. You were playing the game. Some of us are free of those impediments and are willing and able to muck around. As for “compassion” I still hold it but only for those who deserve it. Feminists and their minions are only worthy of my scorn and derision.

        • Paul Elam

          I hope you are right about where we are, but I fear that there are much darker days ahead given current events.

          It will indeed take all of our compassion to see it through. Too many have been denied that compassion for too long while other have squandered that compassion far too easily.

        • BeijaFlor

          Gabriel, I hope your daughter, or at least her children, will see the restoring of balance and equity and complementarity between Man and Woman, in this society. I don’t hope to see it myself; I can only add one thin voice to the choir, one tired old set of arms to the struggle.

          May victory come sooner, rather than later. And not “victory of Man over Woman.” Victory of Humanity, over the forces that tear Man and Woman apart.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I didn’t want to be cynical. I did a gut check before voicing any negativity, since I truly enjoyed your piece.

      Maybe it’s because I believe in the theory of History repeating itself. “There is nothing new under the sun”…and in this, I don’t know of any historical references to assure myself what’s happened before will happen again…

    • Arvy

      Great stuff! A very welcome examination of feminism in its “big picture” context. You’ve nailed it very well IMO, if perhaps not quite broadly enough from a global perspective. More please!

      P.S.: A lot of negative votes tell me that you’ve hit a very sensitive nerve somewhere. Better watch your back.

      • Dannyboy

        I suspect it is an “ugly sister” with an account just hitting the negative sign on every comment.
        If a person with ethics and morals chose to rate a comment negatively they would give reason.
        For example even MRA-GH’s one word comment of “wow” was hit with a dash of red with no reason given.
        Child like which is the “ugly sisters” trademark. They can offer no real rebuttal, they just stomp their feet and try to talk over people, it is all they are able to do.

        • Arvy

          Considering the strong implications that they’re manipulated dupes in someone else’s bigger game (maybe even a game played by certain men!) I suppose the “ugly sisters” have some reason for stomping their feet.

          • Dannyboy

            I suspect that those who might be “pulling the strings” on a grander scale will have there female members as well.
            Greed and power appeal equally to both men and women.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “Without hope of that possibility, then just what are we doing here?”

      I apologize for neglecting to answer that question more directly.

      I can only answer for me, rather than “we”. I am here to help shorten that destructive pendulum swing as quickly as possible. I am here to assure that fighting the good fight is the right thing to do. I am here to lend as much support to the good cause, and to undermine the unjust cause as much as humanly possible.

    • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

      Gabriel I was not being cynical. I frequently voice disagreement with articles and opinions posted on this and other sites. disagreement does not imply disparagement or contempt for your opinion. In fact I respect your opinion and as I stated from the beginning I thought it was an excellent article.

      I should probably elaborate as to why I don’t see the pendulum swinging the other way. When I envision a pendulum, I envision it swinging under its own power, back and forth until it reaches equilibrium and stops. In this instance, it is not swinging on its own. Outside forces are pushing it and preventing it from reversing itself. Unless they are met with greater force in the opposite direction the pendulum will not reverse itself. These outside forces are poweful and deceptive. Deceptive enough that it will be difficult, perhaps impossible to mount enough opposition to swing it back. This does not mean that it shouldn’t be tried or that opposition cannot succeed. We are as you say gaining traction. But we are not only fighting feminism, we are also fighting human nature.


    • gingerbred

      Thank you, Gabriel, for your words. Sadly, everything you wrote in this piece is the reason why I choose to remain single.

      • BeijaFlor

        I second that emotion, Gingerbred.

  • Lroset

    “Contrary to its intended purpose of being preventative, it instead seemed more likely to perpetuate the resentment. They are teaching children about a time of hate to whom it would never otherwise occur. ”

    I am not very old, but it’s always seemed to me that men respected women just as much if not more before feminism. To clarify – I am not saying men don’t still respect women, but feminism and misandry make it muchharder to do so. The only men in my life who I’ve met that showed any disrespect for women, cited reasons relating to feminism, not women. Feminism causes men to distrust women, and teaches women not to trust men. I sincerely hope you’re right that there will be change and real equality can someday be achieved.

  • Rper1959

    Thank you Gabriel, a concise summation of the current situation, beautifully illustrated with quotations, some new to me!

    Especially telling for me is this one:

    “It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

    which applies to a majority of men and women, we need to open their eyes!

  • scatmaster

    I suggest that the best strategy will be to remain vigilant but optimistic, and to take the “high road” armed with facts and a dose of humor

    Remain “vigilant but optimistic”, yes.
    Taking the “high road” armed with facts and a dose of humor.

    Tried and failed. Feminists are a dirty lot and the only way to fight them is to lower ourselves into the filthy stench and engage them on that level.
    Covert activism is another weapon which can be utilized if one is adverse to sinking into the feminist ferment. Agent Orange’s work is proof of that.

  • Matthew Steele

    Absolutely outstanding! This article is poignant, well written and really an amazing piece. It warrants another read. Well done and welcome!

  • Anti Idiocy

    “‘It would be futile to attempt to fit women into a masculine pattern of attitudes, skills and abilities and disastrous to force them to suppress their specifically female characteristics and abilities by keeping up the pretense that there are no differences between the sexes.’ -Arianna Huffington”

    While there is a growing number of people recognizing the fundamental, biologically based differences between the sexes, it appears more and more that female supremacists are now falling back on those differences in an increasingly desperate hope of preserving female privilege. They know which way the wind is blowing; the way things are going, women may soon find themselves lowered to the level of equality with men.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “‘It would be futile to attempt to fit women into a masculine pattern of attitudes, skills and abilities and disastrous to force them to suppress their specifically female characteristics and abilities by keeping up the pretense that there are no differences between the sexes.’ -Arianna Huffington”

      Yeah. THIS from the REDQUEEN of feminism!

      • Dannyboy

        I find what is not said by that quote to be the most disturbing.
        huf-a-femie says it’s alright for women to be women but she doesn’t say its alright for men to be men.
        She could have made the statement egalitarian with one little phrase at the end “and the converse / opposite is true for men” but she didn’t.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Of course not. There are no “Men’s Voices” on huffnpuff.

          Arianna wants to preserve all seats on the lifeboat for herself and the sisterhood for all eternity.

          Someone has already call that one out.

  • http://a-wayforward.blogspot.com/ caimis.vudnaus.

    I’m amazed at your insight, Lynch’s letter, it corollary and implication in what is happening now is astonishing.

    I now can’t see how, knowing that bit of history, that anyone could deny that there has to be a systematic agenda to destroy the family. Either southern plantation owner’s inheritors are doing it, or someone who read and took to heart that letter. It is very hard to see how it could just be by chance.

    I knew we were screwed as men, but I thought it was out of general hate fear and petty greed, not from a systematic and malignant plan that could only be made by people I can’t consider human anymore.

    Strong words, but its hard to not react strongly to an insight like that. Thank you for your thoughts.

  • http://a-wayforward.blogspot.com/ caimis.vudnaus.

    FYI, your link didn’t work for me.

    Edit. Apparently the site is screwy. Your link sent to the exact same address as Google but it told me coming from this site that the page didn’t exist. From Google to the exact same page it loaded fine.

    • Dannyboy

      Had the same problem but thought it might be my bad

  • http://www.bcdads.com bcdad666

    Great article. Too much to digest at one go, perhaps pieces of this length could be presented in parts?

    “I predict that the pendulum must start swinging back.”
    History supports this, but the pendulum always goes to the end of its arc first. That means things will get very much worse before they get better.

    ““Displacement” is a well-recognized psychological phenomenon.”
    Like most commonly-accepted psychological concepts, this phenomenon is based on presumption and supposition, not science. Psychology is the biggest perpetuator of victim ideology, and will easily surpass the inquisition for harm by the time all is said and done.

  • Pirran

    I’d agree with almost all of it, apart from one small thing. “Feminazis” no longer seems extreme in the context of RadFem Hub, merely prophetic.

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      “Radio pundit bullies like Rush Limbaugh and Tom Leykis have been called out for making the regrettable comparison of feminism and Nazism: “Feminazis”. In so doing, they undermine their own credibility by stooping to the same low level of inflammatory name calling, and yet I believe the core point that they clumsily make is how feminists demonize men just as Nazis demonized Jews so as to justify their hostility.”

      I think you’ve gone off the rails there. I call them Nazi feminists, because they are Na Zis (National Socialists) first and foremost. Destroying traditional families and taking control of all children under the National nanny state is one of their biggest Socialist goals. A lot of people praised the author for a very well thought out article, but I think the article was imperceptive a number of times. Why was the father of feminist Patriarchy theory, Friedrich Engels, not called out. Read about him in “The New Male Studies by Eugene August. Where do you think feminist “Patriarchy theory” originated? Look at a Pudovkin’s, Commie propaganda, in his silent movie, “The End of St. Petersburg” from 1930 and see an International Woman’s day poster hanging on the wall in one scene with as I recall the same date it’s now celebrated. Yes, International Women’s Day was around in the Commie world before movies even had sound. Read Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html and see name by name how Nazism is traced back to its Marxist Socialists origins. Let’s face it, the words and thoughts of Marx and Engels, authors of “The Communist Manifesto” are heavily weaved throughout feminist ideology. Nazism and feminism have very common roots. It’s a misnomer to call them anything else but feminazis, IMO.

      Read Erin Pizzy, founder of the first women’s shelter in the world and hear her talk about how Communist and Marxist feminists hijacked the domestic violence movement, and used it to destroy traditional families by driving the Dad out. Their goal was to destroy the family and build up the Marxist nanny state, according to Pizzy. You can also read a lot about it at Dr. Charles Corey’s Equal Justice Foundation website. http://www.ejfi.org/Intro.htm

      I’m no fan of Rush and Leykis, but I’d say they got it right when they called feminists feminazis, and if anybody has undermined their own credibility, its the author of the above article who hasn’t done his homework on feminism’s roots and its strong ties to Marx and Engel’s ideology, in my opinion.

      By all means fault conservatives for promotion of Chivalry and White Knight behavior, but let’s be honest about feminism’s political ties. http://tinyurl.com/ye8morz

      Look at the methodology used in men’s batter training programs. The model is almost perfectly parallel to Commie Stalinist: witch-hunting, interrogation, punishment and re-education programs. And it was Stalin who pointed out to Hitler how there was hardly any difference in their Marxist based ideologies.

      Oh, and yes, Nazis were definitely Socialists, National Socialists spawned from Marx and Engels. If you want a list of Adolph’s “German New Deal” programs, I’d be happy to give you a list: Autobahn, Lebensborn, the people’s wagon, Hitler Jugend, the Volks guard, etc., etc.

      Also, take a look at the interchanging and use of Nazi/Soviet Communist death camps. The BBC has done documentation of that.

      Lastly, if all that isn’t enough, Discover the Networks

      It has been determined that Betty Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique” was not just a bored housewife who had “the problem that did not know its name,” but had a number of Communist connections throughout her life. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1328

      There’s also “Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation.” http://tinyurl.com/7lw62e2

      • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

        Not every author here is going to conduct exhaustive research on every point they are trying to make. Some do not have the resources, others do not have the time. Gabriel obviously put a lot of effort into this article and deserves credit for that.

        As an author here I expect and encourage discussion and disagreement on the articles I write as part of a free exchange of ideas and knowledge. I certainly feel free to respectfully disagree with some of what I read here and to voice that disagreement. The same goes for when I agree. In fact, that agreement or disagreement has sometimes inspired me to write entire articles, not just make comments.

        What I don’t expect or encourage are comments questioning the credibility of an author or claiming he did not do his homework which implies he is sloppy or lazy. Such comments are not constructive and are insulting. It is one thing to disagree and provide support for your opinion that feminists should rightfully be called feminazis. it is something else entirely to attack the credibility of the author because he didn’t read or mention the same books you read.


        • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

          “Not every author here is going to conduct exhaustive research on every point they are trying to make. Some do not have the resources, others do not have the time. Gabriel obviously put a lot of effort into this article and deserves credit for that.”

          That’s the point. He wrote a very long article, but missed all those points (all along one ideological line). He “appeared” to have conducted exhaustive research, but missed all those points. Hmm?

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        From what I’ve read, purposeful feminism in Russian started in 1917. Decades before feminism began in the US, abortion, promotion of women over men and the shift toward matriarchy was well established.

        The pendulum has begun to haltingly swing back, perhaps, but judging by the proliferation and popularity of Russian mail order brides, the basic disrespect of their own males still stands.

        Judging by the many anectdotal stories of “once time was up she took off” stories and several “divorced” Russian women I have met or worked with, Russian women don’t seem to respect males of any stripe. I don’t have any direct friendships with men who have resorted to that, but “some guy at work” or friends or relatives of friends seem to get burned on this repeatedly.

        It doesn’t bode well that the pendulum is going back to a particularly good place. Respect is very difficult thing to rebuild, which is why I am fighting it’s demise.

      • justicer

        This thread is long-dead, but I’ll reply to this.
        Ray, in the mid-1800s, there was a reason for “feminism” in industrialising Europe. The city of London, mid-1800s, contained an army of 100,000 prostitutes. They were not there because they were too lazy to go get an honest job.
        Be aware that what used to be called “The Women’s Movement” has ceased to exist. In fact, it was long supported by the wealthiest women — who had the luxury of fighting for sufferage and equal rights, whilst their poorer sisters were dealing with more mundane issues.
        True, Engels and Marx did a bit of communistic speculation around collective life and women’s roles. However, the main women’s movement was there for unvarnished, bourgeois civil rights and employment equity, and that’s something we all agree with.
        The historic women’s movement was coopted by petty-bourgeois ideologues on campuses, by psychotic man-haters leading marginal lives in the 1970s, and, to a lesser extent, by the decadent trade-union movement. But please refrain from red-baiting feminism. Females are a sex, not a social class.

        • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

          “But please refrain from red-baiting feminism. Females are a sex, not a social class.”

          Why? I stated the case accurately. According to the Marxist/Leninist, German Socialist Workers party ideologues, women are part of the race, class and gender paradigm they spew.
          Notice that the wording for the first, Red, International Women’s Day is in German and it recognizes working women as a class. Yes, boys and girls, International Women’s Day is steeped in Red, Commie, Marxist/Leninist, German Socialist Workers party traditions.

          “Events took place in more than 100 countries[10] on March 8, 2011 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day.[11] In the United States, President Barack Obama proclaimed March 2011 to be “Women’s History Month”, calling Americans to mark IWD by reflecting on “the extraordinary accomplishments of women” in shaping the country’s history.[10] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the “100 Women Initiative: Empowering Women and Girls through International Exchanges”, on the eve of IWD.[12] In the run-up to 2011 International Women’s Day, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called on States and other entities not to relent in their efforts to prevent rape and other forms of sexual violence that harm the lives and dignity of countless women in conflict zones around the world every year.[13]”

          “The 1932 Soviet poster dedicated to the 8th of March holiday. The text reads: “8th of March is the day of rebellion of the working women against kitchen slavery” and “Down with the oppression and narrow-mindedness of household work!”. Originally in the USSR the holiday had a clear political character, emphasizing the role of the Soviet state in the liberation of women from their second-class-citizen status.”

    • Lee Quarry

      I agree with most of it too. But on this point I am with Pirran. I certainly do not object to the term “feminazi” on grounds of hyperbole.

      And, I ask it as a genuine question, what do you mean when you say the following?

      ” For a little perspective, all we need to do is look at some Arab and African countries to see what it really looks like for women to be oppressed by men.”

      I ask this because I await being convinced that at any time in history that men have oppressed women anywhere in the world.

  • Patrick Henry

    Gabriel, You hit a home run with this one!

    • Patrick Henry

      Looks like we have some feminismistas in the house. Just like the good old days. lol

  • Codebuster

    In a nutshell, the fact is that violence is initiated equally by men and women and that women abuse children (including sexually) at more than twice the numbers than men.

    Good call, comprehensively addressed… but just to emphasize a point that is often glossed over… Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer.

    Usually in any confrontation between two opposing sides, it is common to ignore collateral damage. So in this feminist-contrived battle ostensibly between men and women, children without a voice are the collateral damage. Children do not have a voice against feminism, and thus they have no protections against becoming collateral damage. For feminists, it would be all well and good if this collateral damage can be cordoned off and isolated. The trouble is that children go on to become adults, the new generation goes on to become the new culture. This collateral damage to the children cannot be trivialized and isolated from the culture. The disease mestatizes throughout.

    So if women are the primary abusers of children, why don’t we hear from the children? Here be the reasons:

    1) Our preoccupation with the feminist-inspired myth that it’s all about men versus women blinds us to the most devastating damage caused;
    2) Children do not get in our faces. They don’t know how to raise our conscious awareness regarding their plight. They don’t go on marches to take back the night.
    3) Children do not form lobby groups to influence politicians. They do not write to newspapers to voice outrage in the media at the injustices perpetrated against them by their primary abuser.
    4) Children don’t know how to assert their rights. They don’t know how to seek protection in dv shelters.

    Abused children must bear their pain in silence, because when they no longer have their parents to protect them, then they have no way of being heard. Remove the father in family court proceedings, and you remove the one possible person who can protect the child from further unrestrained abuse.

    In other words, feminists are given free reign while the most devastating damage – the collateral damage to children – goes unnoticed, ignored and unaccounted for. But children adapt, and most go on to become the adults who apply what they learned from their primary abuser in childhood. What goes around comes around. The only possible outcome is the destruction of culture.

  • Codebuster

    In the professional world, women often complain that their male colleagues don’t take them seriously.

    The irony is that now when we look at a woman in a position of some authority, we must inevitably conclude that she wouldn’t have gotten there without affirmative action. That is, she never earned her position on a competitive, level playing field, but got there solely by virtue of the pussy-pass. The tragedy is that there are capable women out there who do work hard, who are capable of meeting men on their own terms and who do deserve their promotions. But there is no way of identifying them. Their achievements will remain forever invisible, obscured by the cloud of affirmative action.

    The bottom line is that affirmative action favoring women has set the stage for never taking women seriously ever again. AA is a historical precedent from which societies learn and incorporate it into their traditions and cultures. If feminists thought that Muslim women had it bad, there’s a good chance, if our cultures survive long enough, that they ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I don’t trust anyone in those positions knowing they came by it dishonestly.

      You can call me “sexist” or “racist” as you please.

      …you can flatter me by calling me an asshole for not going along.

      All things being equal, I must observe ” The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes/The Empress is a woman’s studies major”, or “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”/”Pay no attention to the feminist facts in that cloud of smoke”.

  • StarsDie

    The part about “The Making of a Slave” absolutely floored me. I didn’t think it was possible to hit the nail on the head so perfectly. It was incredibly chilling to see the comparisons. I was actually almost brought to tears over it.

    Excellent work.

  • Gabriel Raphael

    @Ray: I was well aware of the theory about feminism’s roots in socialism but chose not to delve there because others have already done so in great depth and I’m not yet convinced of it’s validity. If it’s not already obvious, I’m more suspicious of the corporate/capitalist power elite’s motive and means to nullify the family unit here in America. The assortment of well-researched historic references that you cite is impressive and certainly worthy of further study. However, as a first time contributor, it wasn’t my intention to show off a prodigious regurgitation of well-known research or theories by others before me. I simply had an idea, wrote it down, and submitted it. For whatever it may lack, I am pleased to see it instigating some conversation.
    @bcdad666: I considered breaking this into parts but decided that would severely weaken it with the “denoument” about Lynch very near the end. Gratitude to Paul for agreeing.
    @scatmaster: I feel your wrath man, but you lose me with the “filthy stench” business… which sounds like the language used by angry feminists. Are we not better than that?

    • Arvy

      You’re certainly right about motive and means, especially the latter. Anyone who suspects “socialism” of accomplishing anything of much consequence recently, especially in the U.S., would be hard pressed to explain whence and how they derive the power to do so. The “the corporate/capitalist power elite”, on the other hand, have proven themselves judo masters in co-opting the assumed “strength” of their opponents (and often their ideological constraints as well) and using it against them.

      You might say it’s a combined effort that includes a goodly amount of unwitting collaboration, combined with the ages-old “divide and conquer” strategy.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Replace “the corporate/capitalist power elite” with the “slave owner” in the How To Make A Salve story, and what is happening becomes crystal clear.

        • Arvy

          I’ll buy that. How that ownership class may be characterized with other (political) adjectives is relatively unimportant, at least as far as the slaves are concerned.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Gabriel, I too didn’t see the connection until I read this bit of history.


      I welcome anyone here to offer any dispute to this theory.

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      “I feel your wrath man, but you lose me with the “filthy stench” business… which sounds like the language used by angry feminists.”

      You lose me with your soft soaping of the vileness of feminism. I 100% support scatmaster’s use of that term to describe the ideology, the behavior, of feminists against men. Describing feminists in any term(s) less is a euphemism. Maybe you could better smell the “filthy stench” of feminist atrocities as you smell the “filthy stench” of men http://tinyurl.com/5sz48v who’ve been driven to despair by the vile feminist hate movement, that lives and operates in the realm of one political ideology – that you omit addressing. That one political ideology, (which I used to be a member of) carries water for the feminist movement like a baby carries a load of crap around in its diapers, IMO. The only difference I see is that the baby is uncomfortable and unhappy with the crap it carries. :-/

      Yes, I used to be a member of that political ideology, but after an honest assessment of the full reality of what feminism is, I have cogently ostracized that political ideology/agenda from my list of choices to support as a citizen.

      Your new here so maybe you are unaware of the full horror, the full scope of feminist atrocities against men. A portion of the feminist misandry is shown in “Los Misandry” and “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube, in my opinion.



      P.S. Here’s a website I hastily slapped together for a final grade in my Web design class. http://manamongoaks.com/index.html I haven’t touched a thing since the Final. That website is about as “soft soap” as I’m willing to be about feminism, and if I get the time, I’ll change it to a harder stance against feminism.

  • Ivo Vos

    Excellent piece. Thank you for the time and energy you spent on this article. I have a few additional remarks.
    In what I have perceived as a transition period, the period between 1965 and 1975, culture changed from a collective to a personal worldview as the preferred worldview. As a rock musician I noticed that it was not about the music anymore, but about the personality, the show, how big your rock star status could rise. The short lived naïveté of the hippies about making the world a better place was transformed into the ‘Age of Aquarius’, where a better world was translated into better for yourself. And the philosophical stupid, but commercially brilliant idea that this automatically would lead to a better world for everyone. It sold like never before. The notion of the importance of the individual had been part and parcel of Calvinistic oriented societies, but now this notion became the single morally preferred axiom in the developing worldview. Well, we cannot say that we have not witnessed the spectacular results that came out of this new worldview during the last decades. Especially for the happy few that were mastering the art of ‘Divide and conquer 2.0’, up to today.
    A couple of years after the Age of Aquarius was declared to have started, feminist’s self-declared ‘radical view’ stretched the notion of the importance of the individual further. It was solidly based on the meanwhile morally accepted idea that the individual, whatever individual, was supposed to have become the centre of the universe. As a representative on the faculty board, I had to deal with radicals on the left and radicalising self declared feminists. The radicals on the left were open to reason. The feminists, using every available means to serve their personal interests, were not. Indeed, most men were eager to support their new feminist masters while bragging about their new sexual freedom. I was shouted down when I explained during a college that, based on these new assumptions, marriage was redefined and it would not serve the best interest of men to marry.
    The question can be asked if the feministic worldview can be stabilized, on any level. Psychological, economical, social, personal, emotional. Any level. The question can be restated as how our world would be if everybody would act on the assumptions of feminism and the thus far achieved result. It would be a disaster, even worse than the disaster we already witness. It is, in today’s vocabulary, not sustainable. Not on any level. And the moral implication is that there is no other moral alternative left other than to decline the feminists narrative in the strongest possible terms, if it was only for our future generations.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      Wow, I like this.

  • gateman

    Brilliant article. Thank you Gabriel!

    “Without hope of that possibility, then just what are we doing here?”

    Aside from finding AVfM good therapy, knowledge is the best weapon we have to navigate our way through this cultural mess and live a decent life. This site is proving to be a great spring of wisdom.

    While optimistic of my own personal situation I believe that society as a whole will struggle greatly for many decades. There will still be individuals and small groups (those who took the red pill) who manage to live a happy and fulfilling life and I intend to be one of them.

    As for marriage, I think it is doomed. Forever.

    It will be replaced with something less rigid, less permanent, less burdensome. Traditional Amazonian or Aboriginal tribes may provide a clue to where we’re heading in terms of family structures.

    In the meantime the popularity of western men seeking an Asian, Sth American or Eastern European wife (in an effort to bypass feminism) is an example of nature (men) “finding a way”.

    • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

      “As for marriage, I think it is doomed. Forever.

      It will be replaced with something less rigid, less permanent, less burdensome.”

      The feminist ideal for marriage and family can be found in Mosuo society where they have an unofficial marriage called a “walking marriage.” In this, a woman invites a man into her home. He is permitted to spend the night and must leave in the morning. He is free to return or not until she locks the door. Most Mosuo women will have 1-3 of these marriages over their lifetime. Any children belong to their mother and the father’s involvement is only what the mother will permit, usually no involvement at all. Men are forbidden to own property and all their earnings are turned over to the family matriarch (usually their mother). the men do not live with their wives. Instead they remain in the home of their mother as long as she lives, then they are transferred to a sister who will become the new matriarch.

      Mosuo society is often referred to as the ideal society in feminist literature.


      • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis


        Meghalaya, India: Where women rule, and men are suffragettes

        • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

          I have never heard of that particular society and while it is somewhat different than the Mosuo, it sounds about right. In all of the articles I have ever read about the Mosuo, not one has been written by a Mosuo man or contained any direct quote voicing a man’s opinion. It does not surprise me that in this Indian society the men do not or are afraid to speak for themselves.

          It does sound like the men in that society do the majority of the physical labor and maintain the tradition of being providers. the women may have careers, but the men work in the fields and probably are the ones producing more than they consume in order to maintain the culture. But it is difficult to say this for certain from reading such a short and vague article. if true, it would mean that many traditional gender roles are still intact as they are in Mosuo society. I have yet to read about any culture in which the women are the primary producers that maintain society.


          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I’d be interested in who enforces the female domination. Do the females themselves dominate and rule the men, or are there male enforcers?

          • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

            I didn’t know anything about Mosuo society until you mentioned it. Thanks for sharing, this is interesting stuff.

          • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

            @ OneHundredPercentCotton

            Mosuo society has no central government although it is in china and subject to that country’s laws and policies. My guess is that it is cultural and religious tradition. Interestingly, the men are the religious leaders, but the religion (Buddhist) gives them very little authority or influence over cultural matters. The Mosuo have an interesting practice which, I would suppose, allows dissenting men a way out. As men reach adulthood, they are often encouraged to venture out into the “real” world. The may become educated or find employment, but remain under the cultural requirement to send any excess income to their matriarch. Eventually they are expected to return. However, several of the articles I’ve read indicate that there are very few men in Mosuo villages, most live in the real world. I would guess that many simply assimilate themselves into whatever culture they enter and decide never to return. This allows the women to choose the more submissive men as mates and maintain the culture. Of course this is mostly specualtion on my part, but based on available information.


          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            That is intriguing to me, TDOM.

            While I grew up less than half a mile from an Indian reservation, I haven’t been around that culture since the early ’70’s. I’m too far removed and don’t read or hear much about how the American native culture has currently adapted to “feminism”. I know there has been an intense effort to incorporate sex offender laws on reservations, but that’s about it. I’m not aware of any pendulum swinging in the Indian male’s favor.

          • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

            @ OneHundredPercentCotton

            I may be misunderstanding your comment, but the Mosuo are not Native American. They are Chinese. The culture mentioned by Denis is in Meghalaya, India. I have little knowledge of modern Native American societies or how feminism has affected them.


          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Yes, you misunderstood.

            I have never heard of Mosuo before and don’t know their history enough to formulate an opinion about their circumstance.

            I was making a leap back to my own country where I find the premise that the black race has not recovered from systematic emasculation to be valid, and wondered if Native Americans have fared any better with the pendulum swinging back to a better place.

            I REALLY want to believe that can possibly happen, but so far I don’t see where historically it’s something to hope for.

      • Mike Gibbs

        Stupid men. If this society even exist. Stupid, stupid men-

  • Open War

    Welcome aboard. I’m glad to hear you are still a part of your daughter’s life. I think some other commenters have pointed out that happy endings are in short supply among the red pill crowd. Though I don’t feel anger is useful to the MRM, I understand its origin.

    What your article contributes is a goal. MGTOW, ghosting, anger, and other separatist tactics are not the end goal. Our end goal is mutual respect, the destruction of female entitlement, and the ultimate reassertion of strong families. May we never forget it.

  • keyster

    If the pendulum is to swing back there will need to be an acknowledgement on a critical-mass social scale, that man is not the standard by which woman is to be measured, and that men and women are equal in VALUE…not a head to head competition as to who can best the other at masculine (or feminine) endeavors.

    Unfortunately this is the path Feminism as set us on; one of competition rather than cooperation. There is no precedent for this in the history of mankind. Certianly not one that had such wide social and political support.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “At least McCarthy didn’t massacre millions of people that he falsely accused of communism, but the similarity is that he did foster an unnecessarily antagonistic atmosphere for a period of this country’s history based more on a personal paranoia than on any legitimate or widespread threat.”

    But the BBC (among others) has documented on a lengthy DVD how Communist Joe Stalin did massacre millions of people – as did Mao as did Hitler – all Marxist based ideologues (as is feminism).

    Also, it has been shown that Russian Communist spies were at work in American government (at the highest levels) during Stalin’s reign. I forget all the specifics, but “Venona” is a keyword to research. Evidence of Russia’s infiltration has even been found (after the “Cold War” ended) in Russian archives, detailing some Communist agent’s names. Yes, Communist activity had somewhat diminished by the time McCarthy started going after Communists who’d infiltrated American government and American society. There have been a lot of books written, documenting the Russian espionage leading up to Joe McCarthy’s anti-Communist campaign, and beyond. Here are a few that will give you links to others:

    “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”

    “The Venona Secrets, Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors”

    “Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America”

    “In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage”

    “DUPES: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”


    • keyster

      I agree Ray, that modern Feminism is a derivative of Marxism…(although I might be the only one).

      One clarification though; Nazism/Hitler was NOT Marxist. Hitler was Nationalist/Capitalist/Fascist. Hitler believed in individual responsibility and free markets…(as long as it didn’t take priority over Nationalism).

      Google Hitler on Marx.

      • Bombay

        Another consideration is that although Hitler started out a Fascist he ended up a Nazi. The Italians were quintessential Fascists and they did not commit the atrocities that the Nazis did. Hitler is known for his horrific acts, Nazi acts, not Fascist acts.

        • justicer

          Mussolini did erect a full-scale police state built on terror. Insofar as Italians are able to perform civic duty, it was effective.
          The guiding principles of Italian fascism and German National-socialism are not far from each other. They way each State enacted their mission is.

          • Bombay

            Yes, both were power mongers and actually changed their positions to gain that power. However, Hitler had a final solution and Mussolini did not. This is the difference between the two.

        • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

          “One clarification though; Nazism/Hitler was NOT Marxist. Hitler was Nationalist/Capitalist/Fascist. Hitler believed in individual responsibility and free markets…(as long as it didn’t take priority over Nationalism).”

          @ Keyster:

          A lot of people try to steer arguments about WWII Germany’s National Socialism into discussions about economic philosophy. It’s a common tactic in college classrooms. Hitler and his Nazi’s were masters of Marxist “social engineering,” but the mold wasn’t broken after WWII. It’s still being used to cast feminists in Hitler’s Marxist based, social engineering image. Feminists don’t use the term “master race,” but their misandirst prejudice has worked fervently for nothing short of setting up a “master gender.” While the feminists have yet to set up actual death camps for men in the name of “social justice,” we’ve recently heard echos of those murderous misandrist sentiments from feminists, and there’s no doubt they’ve racked up a horrendous body count of innocent male victims through their many misandrist witch-hunts.

          Murderous, Marxist social engineering has a long and bloody history (including Nazism), and leading straight into the feminist laws and policies of today.

      • Raven01

        A capitalist as the head of a German socialist party?
        Nationalist and Fascist I absolutely agree with.
        Free markets fully controlled by a dominant German state doesn’t seem very “free-market-capitalist”.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “Men are the one minority that is banned by definition from playing the “victim card”. If a man complains, then he is not a real man. However, I submit that as real men, we can set a better example for improving our station than by resorting to the same crybaby strategy so overused by other groups. No more crying wolf. You can’t get respect by whining for it.”

    There so much hogwash woven into this article I’m having trouble getting through the whole thing. Something this flawed should not have been this long, IMO, because the commenting thread gets especially unwieldy.

    I particularly take offense at your statement that men are “crying wolf.” You go on to use the words “crybaby” and “whining” to infer that “men” and/or “real men” are engaging in the same behavior and modus operandi as feminists. That sounds just like the drivel I’ve heard coming from the brains of male feminists. :-/

    Please specifically point out on this list where you think MRA’s are being “cry babys,” “whining,” “not being real men.” http://tinyurl.com/7m7ja2h

    This is having a lot of trouble getting through AVfM’s spam filter – so much for my refutation of this flawed article.

    • Gabriel Raphael

      Ray: I never expected to please everyone and knew that at least some of what I wrote would be misinterpreted or criticized. Fair enough. The list is a very compelling collection of statistics, many of which I was already aware. These facts absolutely speak for themselves. However, I have still heard at least a few MRM members resort to the same immature rhetoric used by feminists in angry retaliation rather than offering any well-thought out solutions.

      • Paul Elam

        With all respect, Raphael, I ask you to consider something. As a man who has been savaged by the current system perhaps your experience could help you practice more patience with other men who are wounded and angry.

        We help them by allowing them their anger and a place to express it, even as we encourage them to find more constructive outlets.

        What I have never seen work is shaming or ridicule. These men are not immature, they are simply pulling knives our of their backs. We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by forgetting that, even briefly.

      • justicer

        Wrong, wronger, very wrong, Gabe.
        The entire error of late-20th-century manhood consists of men keeping silent while feminism destroyed them.

      • Bev

        I can only speak for what I know is and has happened in Australia. For many many years a few Oz activists have been putting in submissions when public comment has been called on changes to family law, sexual assault laws and DV law. Many including Sue Price have made public statements saying “working within the system” sucks. The submissions are made and almost totally ignored as feminists having completed the “long march through the institutions” and are now in a position to have their policy and legislative ideas taken up anything else is ignored. One such consultation is coming up in Victoria on DV a read of the report (on this site) shows many of the action items in the 2009 action plan appear here. The changes called for (if implimented) are frightening. I shall be making a submission but will limit myself (at this stage) to one item. The teaching of “respectful relations” to high school students based on the White ribbon campaign schoolkits. Without going into details this is a hate/propoganda kit stating only the feminist line, it cites stats for women but totally ignores men except to mention that 27% of complaints are by men (in the main body of the report). It aim is simply to brainwash, destroy self esteem and intimidate boys. I hope there is some follow though from others in Australia but volume is the key. I see a number of submissions each aimed at different points plus a combined effort addressing all points as the way to go rather than just one submission. I do note however that submissions are not to be made public (as they normally are). A new twist to hide whatever feminists propose and allow them to cover their tracks.


        Gabriel long experience tells me that reasoned argument does not work (mostly) feminists only take notice when you counter their bile with some of your own if thats what it takes. I have no trouble calling a spade a long handled bloody shovel and wacking them with it if called for.

        • Bev

          I thought perhaps I should add a further comment about public submissions to enquiries. It has long been the practice for these sorts of enquiries that womens groups have been in the know before public announcement and calls for submissions are made but extremely difficult to find evidence that this is the case. As such they have much more time to put together submissions as the amount of time allowed for public submissions is usually short. Since submissions were published a cross reference between submisions and the final report outcomes could be made. So with some effort it was possible to see what influence the various submissions had on the final result. This appears to be a new tactic in that since submissions will not be published it will be impossible to cross reference or find out what the various womens groups have asked for or what claims they are making. It would appear that an attempt is being made to hide any demands made from public scrutiny in a public enquiry!

      • Mike Gibbs

        …well the lies, whining and false accusations are working excellently for the females 50 years now with no slowing down. They hit on an absolute gold mine! Shouldn’t we take a hint at what’s working?

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “She is then “owed” compensation for the excruciating ordeal of having to sleep with her husband for the years that they were married as if she were a prostitute or sexual slave with no choice in the matter. If it is an insult in the extreme to call a woman a whore, then you’d think that more of them would be embarrassed to behave in a way that invites such characterization.”

    That’s an interesting assessment.

    Just yesterday I was hearing about the financial arrangement being worked out in the Kobe Bryant divorce, half of his assets and three mansions in Newport Beach go to his ex-wife. I heard one TV news source say, “each valued at $6, 000, 000.00.” I found myself asking, “I know what he did to earn all those assets, but what exactly did she do?”

    “The deal, which has already been finalized, sees mother-of-two Vanessa Bryant take close to half of the former couple’s total assets, estimated at around $150 million.”

    • Mike Gibbs

      What she ‘did’ was to be born with a vagina. You see? If you are a cunning and deceitful liar, you can steal another’s hard earned income. But only if you have said vagina that is. Corrupt courts disallow men from taking ANYTHING from a female. Ever.
      Any other questions?

  • Gabriel Raphael

    I’m pleased to discover that my article is inspiring so much conversation. It is becoming difficult for me to respond to each comment individually, so I’d like to address one particular topic that has been coming up.

    I would not have bothered to write this if I thought the situation was hopeless. I know from direct personal experience plenty of reasons for being angry without having to read a pile of books to further fuel my fury. However, instead of “giving in to hate”, my intention is to shed some light on a problem with the hope of finding some viable solutions; not to merely add my voice to a choir of rage.

    As men, we are natural problem solvers. We have identified a problem, so now what are we going to do about it? Stoop to juvenile name-calling and complaining like a bunch of feminists, or take calculated steps to solve it? We must ask ourselves what is the goal that we really hope to achieve. Crush the “enemy” just as some of them would do to us, OR pave the path to reunification and accord?

    From the comments that have come in, I suspect that this question may prove to be divisive among members of the MRM. I for one don’t wish to be at war with women, even if that is where we sometimes find ourselves now. If we want women to know that men are not enemy, then men must know that women are not ours. As I wrote in my article, we are all in the same boat, like prison gangs being goaded into hostility toward each other by the guards.

    Buckminster Fuller wrote, ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Therefore, I’d start by inviting more sympathetic women into the mix and work together to make the current model obsolete by replacing it with a better one. With more intelligent voices like Christyomisty and Girlwriteswhat on our side, our cause has that much more clout and credibility to reach more women. Otherwise, it’s just name-calling on the schoolyard, which is a waste of time.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I think the “men own women, men want to dominate women” ship has long since sailed off into the distant past.

      Women are beating the ” Men are trying to hold us back” drum, when in fact there are so many legitimate concerns that aren’t being addressed.

      When a man says “My life, and my children’s lives are being shredded in family court”, the dialogue isn’t about “You just want to own me”.

      When a man says “You got pregnant while I was deployed, you’ve taken my children, my belongings and I’ll go to prison if I lose my job and can’t pay you for the priviledge” the answer isn’t “Men make 20 cents more an hour than I do.”

      Men are overwhelmingly the homeless, suicidal, disenfranchised, uneducated, marginalized, while women complain they have to pay $5.00 more for haircuts and dry cleaning.

      The largest prison population the world has ever seen, epidemic false rape and DV accusations, selective service and human slaughter is less note worthy than “We only got the vote a hundred years ago! We’re oppressed!”

      Of course, men need to learn to listen more and talk less if they want to get along.

      Obviously they no longer want to get along.

      • Mike Gibbs

        Fucking A right!
        It seems to me there are very few men (and less still of women) who understand this concept EVEN when explained to them in explicit detail.
        ‘Facts are stubborn things’ yet they still lie and say I don’t care about your damn facts!
        How do you fight that?

    • Paul Elam

      There is a seasoning, a maturity if you will, that comes with time as an involved activist. It is also a time where many good men weed themselves out, long before they have a chance to make an impact.

      This is a movement that attracts men, many of whom have been fucked over in the worst possible ways. I understand fully that you know quite well about that.

      The thing is that those men will always be streaming in here, wounded, confused, betrayed.

      WE LET THEM SPEAK, in their words, on their own terms as long as they do not stray into violence. In fact, presenting pressure to remain quiet is frowned on here for very good reason.

      We do attract women here, like no other MRM site ever has. Typhonblue, GWW, Dr. Palmatier, Izzey, Uma Challa and others have posted articles here All articulate voices, all good examples of what is needed here, and all of them Gabriel, every last one, empathetic and seasoned enough to know that in an environment where men are bound together by such collective pain that there will be times when it gets rough.

      They accept it as the rest of us do and continue to work toward the amelioration of that pain rather than stifling its expression.

      It is that kind of wisdom that is our only hope, because the alternative, that of shaming and deriding any man that comes here speaking in ways you do not approve of. is a non starter.

      You mentioned GWW as an important voice. I agree. She is golden. I suggest you go into the video library here and listen to what she has to say on this subject.


      You clearly have a gift, at least as is implied with this outstanding essay. If you want to make an impact in this fight, in the long run I will argue that you have to have other skills as well.

      Otherwise I fear the waste of time will be yours.

      • Gabriel Raphael

        Thanks Paul for your sober words of wisdom and advice to an admitted newbie here. While I do question the productive value of raging tirades, I definitely understand the cathartic need for them and would never presume to silence anyone any more than I would want to be silenced for what I have to share.

        There was a time when I had to scream at the top of my lungs, like I know many men are now experiencing. However, that was not a place that I wished to stay. I moved on to what I know are more constructive purposes. I then had the experience of triumphing in what once seemed like a hopeless situation, simply because I kept my composure and never gave up. While each of us here may at different points along the path, I’d like to think that we’re all going in the same direction.

        I have listened to all of GWW’s videos and have even exchanged some warm personal correspondences with her. Total agreement that she is an extraordinary voice.

        Apart from writing this article, I know that I have already made a positive impact among other men who know me personally by setting an example and encouraging them to defend their parental rights. So, definitely not wasting my time.

        Another thanks to you for providing this platform for everyone.

        • Paul Elam

          A tip of the hat to you, and a handshake.

        • Primal

          This war will be won by ICE because feminists are cold blooded reptiles. FIRE, particularly red hot rage, merely encourages the Beast. To drive men mad (and foolish) is the favorite female tactic women have always used down through the ages…and one which End of Menner’s like Hanna Rosin really orgasm over.

          Man to man, we fight fire with fire and all gain something from the battles. Vile women fight (or rather fuck) ice to (female) ice or ice to (male) fire. As males, it’s very important that we refrain from wasting fire for ice because all the fire in the world isn’t enough to melt the ice in feminism’s evil heart. By offering em ice for ice, we can freeze em into oblivion and keep our fire for more worthy work.

    • StarsDie

      I tend to be more of a lurker and only an occasional commenter on this website. A lot of the anger has made me squirm for many reasons. One reason is the most telling and obvious: I haven’t experienced ANYTHING close to the hardships of these other men. The other reason is because I’m generally not an angry kind of dude… And so I generally just don’t relate. If I experienced some of the hardships here, I’d imagine that I would probably be too shaken by sadness, depression and suppressed anger to adequately release the anger. Ultimately I don’t relate. I’m not that kind of person, and I probably will always be a more “tame” voice in the movement. But I have to agree with Paul Elam and all the others here. The anger has to be expressed. The anger is a natural and normal reaction. The anger can be channeled to some damn good activism, and I think it already has. This is a good safe place for that anger. And I think, for the most part, anger that has bordered on unnecessary bigotry towards women has been dealt with accordingly.

      It may not be your cup of tea, and it may not ever be… But it should be a welcome addition to men’s rights. The tamer voices are welcomed just as much as the louder and angrier voices. I like both and think both have their benefits. All the angry voices need understanding ears. And while I may not relate, I can definitely understand.

    • Sting Chameleon

      Protip: They have declared war on us, so we’re already at war. Now it’s time to fight back with all we’ve got, and take no prisoners.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “At the cost of the most basic and fundamental social unit upon which the pursuit of happiness depends: the intimate bonds of the intact family. The only difference now is the vast scale and that the “master” is now the faceless godlike entity of corporate capitalism and consumerism.”


    “Now, here we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, an epidemic of foreclosed homes, broken homes, and a general atmosphere of malaise and mistrust between the sexes.”


    “We have mustered the collective mobility to occupy Wall Street. It is now time for the 99% to turn that collective focus back to our homes and families.”

    What a boatload of leftist hogwash, weaved into what seems like concern for our families. But how can you truly be concerned about families, when you wear such blinders?

    You seem to want to lay blame on the doorstep of “corporate capitalism and consumerism” and present an air of legitimacy to the bogus, largely Marxist/Communist cover of the Occupy movement. I doubt those Occupy protesters would agree with your criticism of feminism, given their common Marxist roots with feminism. As far as the housing market problems, it’s very clear that was formented by liberals in American government, according to this New York Times article of all places.

    Further analysis here,

    Curiously, our present economic problems originated in the same administration that gave us VAWA – – – all part of the plan. :-/

  • justicer

    Although the ‘left’ takes the blame for all this feminism, I still dispute the leftist label. Feminism no longer needs the ‘civil rights’ tag, and certainly not the ‘human rights’ tag that it used to claim, because women in the West are a privileged majority.
    True, the union sisterhood, insofar as it still exists, will make wildly fictional claims about being underpaid as female workers.
    However, the most pampered female executive on earth will agree with them and continue to perpetrate the ‘union’ myth: All men are Unfair.
    Feminism is gender-feminism, better described as a counter-cultural philosophy that morphed into a New-Age cult. It has no roots in class politics.
    The biggest sherrif with the most enduring links to Daddy Bigbucks, in any dusty town, will send his officers over to lay charges against Joe Blow on the slightest whim of Jill Blow. That’s because he thinks Jill represents 51% of the voters and because Jill’s sisterhood controls vital parts of the media.

  • Dennis

    I have long thought that feminism has the covert support of the power elite and I am in complete agreement with Gabriel Raphael’s idea that men are purposely being disenfranchised and dis-empowered so the power elite can more easily subvert democracy and turn our country into a totalitarian state. Feminism is a remarkably effective tool to further this end and explains how feminists have come to have so much power in societal life. But, this is not socialism. It is at best a manipulation of an oligarchy pretending to be a democracy.

    Our country now stands at the end of a sixty year monetary credit expansion cycle and the seismic shift it is causing in our national cultural life is only beginning to be felt (let alone understood). Today’s modern corporatism (that one percent at the top) sees as much benefit in killing the “male beast” as the woman’s movement has. Rapacious corporate interests could gain great advantages by exploiting a male work force that is socially invalidated, demoralized, fragmented and therefore silenced, subdued and pliant.

    If this does come to be, who will fight to end the ensuing tyranny and restore justice? It’s always been men who have led the fight. Who will do so then?

  • C.A. George

    Wow! This piece hit me like an atom bomb. The “Boys Taught Early” segment really hits home. Keep up the fantastic work!

  • jk-phd

    Why did Gabriel Raphael have to mire an otherwise splendid article with his Calif. induced paranoid fantasy about how the “hippie movement was completely derailed with the pacifying temptations of sex and drugs, courtesy of your friendly CIA” and then compound his error in his conclusion implying “a sinister plot devised by a very small group of very powerful men to control the masses”? How typically mundane from a California arts instructor!

    Gabriel, you cannot be taken seriously until you lose the conspiracy theories! As someone who retired recently from 30 years at EPA, a volunteer for Teacher Corps and Peace Corps, and with at least 3 personal friends at the CIA – your foolish conspiracy statements (which I also heard from Dick Gregory, noted comedian, who spoke at an environmental justice conference) are a type of sick paranoia that will not advance our cause.

    If you would like to correspond with me more about this please contact me at ms52mith@cox.net. You obviously have real talent but you can blow it all by your misunderstanding of how govt. works (or rather doesn’t). When talking about govt. remember “never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by straight forward stupidity.” Believe me, I know.

    • Gabriel Raphael

      jk-phd: I actually respect your perspective and even your issue with my “typically mundane” and “sick paranoia”. I actually share your skepticism about most paranoid conspiracy theories, but allowed myself the indulgence of connecting the dots and following some informed speculation to what seemed a logical conclusion based on both personal family experience and attention to conditions in the world at large. In particular, taking a cue from the old chestnut, “Just follow the money and see where it leads.”

      I do not pretend to be an authority on history or government secrets. Just a guy with a hunch who knows that a lengthy discourse on a hot social topic will never please everyone. However, just because you can’t prove something doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t true. With respect to your friends in the CIA, I doubt very much that they share all of their secrets with you (or even with each other.)

      Thanks for the invitation to correspond directly but I don’t have the bandwidth to take on every commentator at length. I also prefer to preserve my anonymity.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        While I joined the military during that era, my older sister was very much involved in the hippie/ protest movement, Haight Ashbury street corner musician, the whole bit.

        One thing she always marvels about in retrospect is how there was always a flow of money and always a place to live. She never knew where it came from or how it got there, but it was always there.

    • BeijaFlor

      “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by straight forward stupidity.”

      I’ve heard a similar quote called “Heinlein’s Razor”:

      “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity – but don’t rule out malice.”

  • Gorbachev

    This was a brilliant article, despite its flaws. Its summary of the difficulties facing men is excellent.

    It would make an excellent read for actual feminists or the average woman, too. They’re bred on a diet of MeMeMeMe so effectively, they’re more or less constitutionally incapable of seeing anything through anyone else’s glasses. And their ideology almost bars them from doing so as an act of treason.

    That said, there’s another piece of writing, albeit 22 years old, that I found very illuminating.

    Here’s a link to a truly remarkable little book.


    I don’t know who Chinweizu is/was, but the man was a genius. He crystalized much of the debate over male and female relations in a very apt male-centered viewpoint. This is a manual for dealing with women for men. All men should read it.

    As much as women may object to its contents, all such objections can likely be boiled down to “But I don’t want men realizing any of this.”

    The section from 118-124 is a startlingly clear summary of the feminist movement ca. 1990.

    His language is charmingly African-immigrant with its its archaisms and perhaps too-bold statements, without the silly academic fakery and sophistry of typical feminist prose, but I view this as a charming characteristic rather than a flaw.

    • Gabriel Raphael

      Thanks for the link the the AFP book. Looks very interesting indeed.

  • Primal

    This is an interesting and articulate article. Thanks for your hard work. Once I strip off the site headers, this is something I can offer my more open-minded female colleagues that might get through.

  • JFinn

    For the most part it was a fantastic article. But I’m starting to read through the comments – this guy is a big disappointment. Especially as a ‘voice’ for A Voice For Men.

    He’s talking like he’s going to set us straight and teach us how it’s really done. He’s using the same old shaming tactics to vilify MRAs. Particularly, he makes zero effort to explain his distinction between whining and rightfully protesting. The whiner label has always been a lazy attempt to dismiss a person fighting for justice.

    He decides we’re on the cusp of being saved(by him, I presume.) When met with skepticism, he is again dismissive of everything we’ve done with “then what are we all doing here?” Meaning that the truth is less important than making him feel good. Well, then, I have several religions to sell him. Of course we’re fighting for a happy ending. It’s just that false hope regarding how soon this can be attained – can de-motivate us from continuing to fight. Besides, for those who have lost decades of their lives, it’s patronizing to paint an eventual correction as such a happy outcome for them.

    He also accuses us of resorting to hate. Again, any person who has been oppressed and is fighting back can be lazily dismissed as a hater. No attempt to make the distinction between a hateful unjust counter-attack, and a just defense. Painting us as “angry scary dangerous men” is the common hatchet job the mainstream media will (briefly and infrequently) run about us.

    I’m also not sure it’s a good idea to start an article with: “now I know this might sound like a crazy cultish conspiracy theory, but hear me out.”

    He can’t keep shooting the MRM in the foot like that. I hope he reaches new understandings as I keep reading through the comments. I just noticed GirlWritesWhat posted an entry for the ultra-feminist GoodMenProject and am dreading another disappointment.

  • Fr Bob

    For the most part I read this artical and I have to say over all is a very good look at the issues at hand. I would agree with most of it with excetions that many have stated above.

    I would like to reiterate what Paul has said when it comes to anger. That for the most part this is a site that allows men and women for that matter to air their angers and disappointments, in the hope that eventually they are able to not to say forget their own anger or to dismiss their own anger; but to move from a place where they are able to function to the peek of their ability. Anger is not always unhealthy and expressing anger is part of the healing process (I suspect that Dr T would be able to explain this much better then I). On the other hand not expressing anger and repressing it is almost always (not always) unhealthy which for the most part I think is one of the reasons why we see such high rates of suicide among men.

    One other point and I know this is nit-picking.

    “In ancient Rome, the powers of the time realized that they couldn’t stop Christianity, so they co-opted it and formed the Roman Catholic Church in order to maintain power over a growing population of Christians”

    Although Rome was the seat of the one of the patriarchates and seen as first among equals but this was before the division of the eastern and western Christians. Aside from Rome there were 4 orther patriarchates that held equal power to that of the Roman. Those being the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The term/phrase Roman Catholic Chruch would of been completely foreign to these Christians. I am not stateing this to spark some kind of debate but more of a point of correction because it was brought up in the artical. Still I see and understand the point that you were bringing forward.

  • Carlos

    Very nicely done. I often look for articles on these topics that are consumable by audiences who are not already sympathetic with the goals of the MRM in order to raise consciousness of the problems we are facing. I wish I could find more articles presented in a fashion that is sympathetic to the fact that feminism, like many social movements, abandoned its ideals long ago and, at its core today, is driven by a miasma of hate and “useful idiots.” This reality, presented plainly, by MRA’s who are, justifiably, sick of having to mince words and dance around the topic, doesn’t sit well with most men and women who consider themselves “feminist” without understanding the history, legacy or present implications of taking up that mantra. The cognitive dissonance of this disconnect (not to mention the painful realization that they are, at least in some sense, a useful idiot) makes them unable to absorb the wisdom and insights that the piece contains.