Young men playing snooker

An attack on bachelors – and their reply

In the 1890′s a proposed ‘tax on bachelors’ caused the very first MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) and Men’s Rights group to form.1 At that time a group of bachelors banded together in response to the tax and to fight for their freedom from gynocentric slavery. They can also be considered the first Men’s Rights group to fight against patently misandric laws.

Background

01-charlotte-smith-1896In 1896, a Mrs. Charlotte Smith, feminist activist and President of the Women’s Rescue League, spearheaded an anti-bachelor campaign, based on her concerns about the increasing numbers of women who could not find husbands — a surprising development considering men outnumbered women in the United States then by 1.5 million.2 Her solution to the “problem” was to denigrate, malign, and ultimately punish bachelors in order to pressure them into marrying any women unlucky enough to remain unwed. Mrs. Smith’s malignment of bachelors began with attacks on public servants and officials, saying that bachelors have always been failures, and that bachelor politicians, especially, were “narrow minded, selfish, egotistical, and cowardly.” She further claimed that, “It’s about time to organize antibachelor clubs in this state. It should be the purpose of every young woman to look up the record of each and every man who is looking for votes and, should his moral character be such would make him unfit for office, then his shortcoming should be the point of attack by the antibachelor women of Massachusetts. There are 47,000 girls between the ages of 20 and 29 years in this state who cannot find husbands… [and] the bachelor politicians, they do not dare discuss the social evil question.”3 She states:

“No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has
not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock” [Charlotte Smith]4

 

The Chipley banner, Sept. 1897

The Chipley banner, Sept. 1897

Part of her remedy was to have bachelors excluded from employment in prominent public sector positions. Her second punishment proposed a universal bachelor tax of $10 per year be applied,5 amounting to between 1-4 weeks of the average wage, with the proceeds to provide living standards for ‘unmarried maidens’, orphans and the poor. In 1911, Mrs. Smith was still spruiking the tax on bachelors, claiming statistics showed that 60% of eligible men in Massachusetts never married, especially men of “small means” because “in order to be popular at the club now it is necessary for a man to have one or two automobiles, a yacht, and two or three mistresses, but no marriage.”6

Many proponents of the tax believed that it would encourage marriage and thereby reduce the state’s burden to care for those who did not financially support themselves. Perhaps most importantly, Mrs. Smith felt that the tax would lower the number of men “who go around making love to young girls.”6

The bachelor band of 1898

The bachelor tax proposed by Smith was by no means the first. In 1827 a “highly numerous and respectable” group of men met in a New York City hotel to organize a protest against a bill before the New York legislature that replaced a current tax on dogs with one on bachelors. The bill, they claimed, was “onerous and in direct violation of the great charter of their liberties.”7 In 1854, in Connecticut a legislator argued in the House of Representatives against a proposed bill to tax bachelors: such a bill was unnecessary, he claimed, because “There was a tax laid already upon a goose, and any man who had lived 25 years without being married could be taxed under that section.”8 These two bills were not unique, as bachelor taxes have existed around the globe and throughout the millennia, dating back at least to ancient Greece and Rome.9

The culmination of attacks on both the finances and character of bachelors resulted (in 1898) in the formation of a small resistance group in Atlanta Georgia, known variously as the Bachelor Band, The Bachelor League, or famously the ‘Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band.’ The latter takes its name from the case of Bardell vs Pickwick in Charles Dickins 1836 classic novel The Pickwick Papers in which the character Mr. Pickwick is forced to defend himself against a corrupt lawsuit brought by his landlady, Mrs. Bardell, who is suing him for breach of promise, and which ultimately results in his incarceration at Fleet Prison for his stubborn refusal to pay the compensation to her. Thus ‘Anti-Bardell’ in the title refers to men’s struggle against corruption, greed and bigotry, with the bachelor band publicly claiming that “One of its main objects is the suppression of Mrs. Bardell’s large army of female followers today.”10

The Bachelor Band undertook political activism on behalf of men’s rights, including articles in numerous mainstream newspapers, letters to politicians, and public petitions to raise both awareness and support for men against misandric laws and practices. In response to Mrs. Smith’s campaign for what she termed “compulsory marriage,” the Bachelor Band held an emergency meeting chaired by Al Mather, a prominent real-estate dealer. At the meeting a member cried out, “We are pledged to celibacy, and we must remain true to our resolve!” Another member, Henry Miller, stated “It is an outrage to attempt a tax on bachelors. The next thing, I suppose, will be to put tags on us or make us get out licenses as is now requires for dogs.”11 The meeting then moved into a secret session where the proposed bachelor tax was discussed, with attendees concluding that is was not the tax per-se that was the problem, but the spirit of the thing. The members, one and all, declared the tax was an attempt to place bachelors under a ban, and by doing so force them into matrimony. With all members of the same opinion a resolution was passed as follows:

“We hereby ask and request that the Senator and the Assemblymen from this district, namely Mr. Daly, Allen, and marshal exert themselves to the best of their ability and means to defeat the bill now before the Legislature to tax bachelors; and it is further resolved that the Secretary be authorized to forward a copy of the above resolution to each of the gentlemen mentioned, and further to notify the proposer of the bill, Assemblyman Weller, and the governor of our action.”11

Another group, the Hoboken Bachelor Club, further discussed the merits of drafting a petition protesting against the bill and circulating it for signatures. As can be seen from the political action taken, the assault on men was not going to be taken lying down, with the bachelors forming a resistance movement headed by Lawyer John A. Hynds who not only resisted pressure to marry but challenged the bachelor tax and the cultural misandry that accompanied it. According to one media account the bachelor group was still active four years after the date of the above controversy, making it a successful long-term organisation.12

One of the more humorous, but effective examples of the group’s media activism was this piece in the New York World:

BACHELOR’S LEAGUE AGAINST THE FAIR

John A. Hynds - (Chief Officer of Bachelor Band)

John A. Hynds -
(Chief Officer of Bachelor Band)

Twelve bachelors have formed a league against marriage under the name of the “Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band,” a name which recalls the woes of Mr. Pickwick, of immortal fame. The motto of the club is Solomon’s proverb: “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” The objects of the club are to oppose matrimony, to fight for the liberty of man, to encourage the manufacture of all such devices as bachelor buttons and to check the movement inaugurated by Mrs. Charlotte Smith “and other disgruntled females” to require bachelors to wed.

Any member who marries will be fined $1000. The club will attend the “funeral” in a body dressed in black, wearing long, mournful faces, with an abundant supply of crepe. In addition to this they will emit groans during the whole ceremony. When the fine is paid the member shall be declared legally dead.

Another offense is “getting the mitten.” If a member is “mittened” by a widow or old maid the fine is doubled. Among other offenses are calling a woman “sweetheart,” “dearest,” “sugar lump,” “dovie,” “tootsie-wootsie,” “honey,” “lamb” or any such kindred nonsensical, absurd and disgraceful terms, and “walking with the female in the moonlight, speaking of the stars or the weather, quoting poetry –original or otherwise, riding through a tunnel in a car when any female occupies a contiguous seat, getting down on his knees before or at the side of a woman, carrying a girl’s picture in his watch, hat or pocketbook, staying later than 12 o’clock at night, sending cologne, cinnamon drops or other kinds of perfumed liquids or shopping in a dry-goods store with any one of the fair sex.”

The chief officers of the club are: John A. Hynds, chief marble heart; E. C. Brown, junior marble heart; Mark J. McCord, freezer; J. D. Allen, iceberg.

Mr. E. C. Brown, the junior marble heart, was tried recently on the charge of deserting the Atlanta charmers and visiting a Marietta widow and sending the widow flowers and candles. He was forbidden to visit Marietta for two months and fined twenty-four theatre tickets.13

* * *

Penalties against bachelors as enticements to marry are seen as far back as classical Roman times and, as with Eliza and Mariana who in 1707 AD proposed harsh penalties for unwed men, women are the most passionate advocates of bachelor punishments.

The Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band represents possibly the earliest MGTOW and MHRA group we know of, with men fighting for the basic right to determine their own lives and liberty, including the right to not marry. As mentioned by Paul Elam the stacked deck against men is not new, nor is an organized reaction to it. The only thing these poor chaps needed was the internet, and a mind for rebellion. With this in mind let’s make sure we milk the internet for all we can squeeze out of it… it’s our best chance yet.

Notes

[1] Specifically, the earliest MGTOW and Men’s Rights groups currently known by this author. If an earlier MGTOW or MR group is brought to my attention this page will be updated accordingly.
[2] The Crusade Against Bachelors, The Norfolk Virginian. (Norfolk, Va.), 02 Sept. 1897.
[3] Antibachelor Clubs: Mr’s Charlotte Smith Starts New Political Crusade, Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.), 28 Aug. 1897
[4] No offices for Bachelors, Kansas City Star, Thursday, August 19, 1897, Kansas City, Kansas
[5] Massachusetts Bachelors Taxed $10 a Year, The Salt Lake Herald. (Salt Lake City [Utah), 01 March 1898
[6] Tax on Bachelors, Boston Globe, Feb.15, 1911, 1. (Smith was also campaigning against women riding bicycles, which she considered immoral).
[7] Editorial, Connecticut Courant, February 5, 1827
[8] Connecticut Legislature, Senate, House of Representatives, Hartford Courant, June 26, 1854
[9] Taxing Bachelors in America: 1895-1939, by Marjorie E. Kornhauser
[10] Evening star, February 15, 1898, Page 13, Image 13
[11] Bachelor Tax Feb 12 1898 New York World
[12] The Times 19 January 1902 › Page 4, “Allison Mather, former president of the Hoboken Bachelors’ Club, and who for many years was proud of the distinction or being a confirmed woman hater, is suing for divorce. When he married last year the members of the club went into mourning.”
[13] New York World, 1898 [Note: “mittened” or “getting the mitten” is an old-time New England expression, meaning to have your offer of marriage rejected by your “best girl,” and has an origin in the customs of the earlier days. Two hundred years ago, gloves were unknown in the country towns, and mittens were knitted and worn in all families. If a young man, going home from singing school with the girl of his choice, was holding her mittened hand to keep it from getting cold, and took that opportunity to urge his suit, if the offer proved acceptable, the hand would remain; if taken by surprise, an effort to withdraw the hand would leave the mitten. So the suitor would “get the mitten, but would not get the hand.”

Source: Gynocentrism and its cultural origins

 

Please help AVFM continue to spread the message that Men’s Rights are Human Rights by contributing to our quarterly fundraiser. Thank you.

About Peter Wright

Peter Wright has been a MHRA for 30 years, a Man Going His Own Way for more than 10 years, and is the creator and publisher of gynocentrism.com

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Seele

    Surely, in 1896 USA, men outnumbered women by 1.5 million, rather than 1,500,000 million. Still, single men have always been paying the penalty for being single: no tax breaks as in being husbands and fathers. I am not up to the minute with regards to tax laws, it would be interesting to compare the situations of single men and single women, where the only variable is the individuals’ gender.

    This makes me very suspicious of those who market themselves as champions of “family values”. I know of quite a number of men who are single but not by choice, such as having been screwed over by women multiple times, but they still get taxed as if they stay single so as to live lifestyles which would make Hugh Hefner blush, so they have to pay for that.

    • http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/about/ Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Lol, good point. Will amend it.

    • James83

      @Seele

      “it would be interesting to compare the situations of single men and single women, where the only variable is the individuals’ gender.”

      As far as laws go, tax laws are the least biased vs gender. I attribute this to the IRS. They don’t care about your gender. They just want your money. A single woman is taxed at the same rate as a single male. I can’t think of any tax shelters/break for single women that men aren’t able to receive. The closest I can think of would be the Head of Household status. But that goes back to family courts giving women custody rather than fathers. Let me explain about the HoH status a bit.

      Head of Household (HoH) is where you get a higher deduction on your taxable income due to having children in your care. A man who has primary custody of his children can just as readily claim this as a woman who has primary custody. However, since family courts tend to give women primary custody, it is usually women who claim this status. (Widow/Widower has the same deduction as HoH and will eventually convert to HoH 2 years after the year in which your spouse dies. But, since men die earlier and are killed more often women, this is also filed by women more often than men.)

      Source: I do personal taxes as a side job.

      Hopefully that answers your question. Like I said, the IRS has 1 concern. Getting your money. They care very little for anything else. They don’t even come after you for illegal activities so long as you put it on your return. (they might forward it to someone else though)

      I’ll add this as an OT caveat for those who may be wondering:

      http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch02.html#en_US_2013_publink1000170741

      Same-sex marriage. For federal tax purposes, individuals of the same sex are considered married if they were lawfully married in a state (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex, even if the state (or foreign country) in which they now live does not recognize same-sex marriage.

  • tamerlame

    Even ugly chicks with vicious personality disorders can find willing men.

    Those 49.000 women who could not find men? Most likely they where being too fussy, unrealistic.

    The entitlement of these women is shocking. Some things never change.

    • Bahias

      Cannot agree more. From my experiences, it’s supremely easy for virtually any woman to find a nice boyfriend, fiancé or even husband. Like you said though, those men however are often simply not rich and/or pretty enough, even if the woman in question is neither. Just take a look at this “fat acceptance” movement: if you read carefully, you will see that it’s essentially a group of fat, ugly woman demanding attention from handsome men.
      Also, I have experienced that especially fat woman can be horribly cruel to men who are in the “same league” as them. I’ve literally seen fat guys being publically, gravely insulted by fat women, for daring to think he would be good enough. Of course, with no repercussions for the fat, obnoxious bitch.

      • alek

        My experience tends to be that creep-shaming is almost always performed by less-attractive women. I’ve literally never seen a super-hot woman perform creep-shaming.

        Most of the models (and other beatiful women) I’ve met are super kind and nice to any man who shows interest in them (even a man who has no chance with her).

        Its always the female 5 or 6 who gets pissed off that a male 5 or 6 “dared” show interest in her – and then proceeds to creep-shaming, nuclear rejection etc…

        • Theseus

          Been there. Now I wouldn’t make a broad sweeping generalization the way that you did of attractive women either, but in many cases it’s true.

          I put myself out there to be friendly and talk to as many people as I can since I am self employed and my services have to do with disposable income. After years of congregating in a Starbucks by my house to meet clients or get coffee, I actually had a 50+ gray haired, homely as all fuck, pear shaped individual actually complain to the management that “I creeped her out”. My initial reaction was one of disbelief and disgust when the management approached me, but an attractive, blonde attorney friend of mine was within earshot of the whole thing, and she let out a loud “Ha!! Yeah right, Have you seen his wife? Puh-leeease”. She automatically knew it was bullshit and the woman had issues.

      • tamerlame

        Women get anxious about how they look, being objectified because they are projecting their mentally
        on to men.

        I don’t mind fat acceptance, men need to focus on not accepting rotten female personalities.

  • Partridge

    “No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has
    not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock” [Charlotte Smith]4

    For men, the bonds of wedlock as proposed by this woman, and certainly as enforced by feminists today, as we know, are anything but holy.

  • Zorro

    You can’t tax bachelors today. All a guy has to do is say he’s gay and “is your son still in college, and does he work out?”

    Poof. Tax repealed.

    • numbCruncher

      An excellent tactic, and one that has worked for me at many of my old friends weddings.

      • Laddition

        Lesbian trapped in a man’s body?

        I believe that it was an Aussie comic (Rodney Rude?) who said he was one. Because he’d “watched a lot of lesbian porn and they weren’t doing anything that he wouldn’t do…”

        Just a thought…I’ll get me coat.

    • FlowingFire

      As a gay guy I can tell you that doesn’t work; it’s not uncommon that I get people trying to push me to marry, even from those who know my orientation

      • Laddition

        Misery loves company…of course they want you married.

  • comslave

    Frankly, I see MGTOW as the only practical action for men seeking rights. It’s the only part of the movement that seems to have produced real results in that it has finally gotten the attention of women. Killing marriage is the only way to get government to roll back the generous compensation women receive for filing for divorce.

  • Andy Bob

    “Many proponents of the tax believed that it would encourage marriage and thereby reduce the state’s burden to care for those who did not financially support themselves.”

    So, Mrs Charlotte Smith was only thinking of the ‘greater good of society’. Yeah, I’ll bet. She was probably hoping that her proposed bachelor tax would reduce her own husband’s tax bill, enabling her to buy more parasols and high-buttoned shoes. Didn’t you just know she’d be the type to be involved in some league dedicated to rescuing women? I wonder how much white knight money kept that little venture afloat.

    Her statements read like a third-wave feminist narrative in search of a third-wave feminist vocabulary. She sounds like a gender studies professor trapped in an Edith Wharton novel, where it would be too impolite to refer to those men “who go around making love to young girls” as ‘rapists – you can bet your smelling salts that it was what she meant.

    Mrs Smith spoke of “narrow minded, selfish, egotistical, and cowardly” men because ‘privileged, patriarchal, misogynistic and creepy’ men had not yet been invented. Accusing bachelors of not being “good, honorable and upright’ citizens was the Edwardian version of gay-shaming. This is ‘man-up’ rhetoric in a big, ugly picture hat.

    Thank you, Mr Tarwil, for another entertaining, educational and downright inspiring post – and reminding us that this crap has been going on for a long time. Three cheers to the Bachelor Band for standing up to this bustled busybody. Their declaration to “check the movement inaugurated by Mrs. Charlotte Smith “and other disgruntled females”” would be right at home on the Mission Statement of ‘A Voice for Men’.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Here’s how you have a bachelor tax today without creating a fuss: in the US, already, singles are taxed hgher. All you need do is raise the tax rates on singles, while giving increased deductions and lower rates for single mothers.

    While MGTOW is important, getting people politically aware is still very much in order, or in 10 or 15 years expect even more draconian tax policies to be enacted, under the guise of helping saintly mothers but in reality designed to punish men one way or the other.

    • Laddition

      The more they push, the more men will walk away.

      I would really be a lot more optimistic about the future if they understood that I do not exist to fund their entitlements. Especially as their entitlements will always grow to exceed any ability for the men to pay for (even if we wanted to).

    • Seele

      Dean,

      In my original post (first one in this thread) I was wondering about the tax disparity between single men and women. While your post certainly goes some way to reveal the situation in the US by comparing single men and single mothers, it makes me wonder if there are tax accountants in our midst who can make a representative cross-section of the global situation.

      It should not surprise us to see that single men are penalized financially to subsidize single mothers, I have that strong suspicion that single men are penalized financially to subsidize single women in general, even those who are not mothers, to eliminate everything but the last variable. If my suspicion is correct, this is indeed sexism (women are favoured purely due to being female), but also an assumption that single men are invariable more affluent than single women, which is unrealistic, to put it mildly.

      As fellow correspondent tamerlane said, a woman can indeed find a partner if she wants it, for the simple fact that she is female. This does not apply to men, except those who are immediately and obviously deemed “desirable” by their looks, or trappings of wealth. For the other men – meaning the vast majority – they would have to work hard to get a ghost of a chance: hypergamy at work here.

      So, women can see affluent single men driving around in their Bentleys and say “look! They are being mean by depriving us of our rights to take their money!” and then demand them to be taxed more. This is the same mechanism as seeing the top people in the corporate and political worlds and see mostly men, and then claim that they are there just for being male. In other words, they see a small section of the population in question and totally ignore the rest: men who make an honest living doing modestly paid jobs, who might want to get married, but not wanted by women due to hypergamy. And yet, just for being male, they are thought to be making loads of money, thus they should be punished for not allowing women to help themselves to it for being single.

      • Redfield

        I am not so sure, women aren’t getting it all their own way anymore, and women aren’t getting partners on a whim, perhaps for sex, but I guess when your younger, surging hormones will do that? I am seeing a wide range of behaviours in both young men and young women, from screwing each other’s work buddies (both sexes),, to both genders not giving a crap about their counterpart …. I think it is in a state of flux at the moment, social norms seem to be all over the place … I think what I find troubling is how I hear more young men talk about young women, and vice versa … Truly wouldn’t like to be young in these times, little regard for each other, but that seems superficial also …. But what ever is going on girls are coming up shorted also … I think partly it is women generally have more secure jobs then men and they are totally confused as to what they want from men now, because they have what they want materially so why do I need a guy, and the guys are saying well fuck you and perhaps it reinforces the same sort of behaviour back at them?? Fuck knows? But that unspoken/subconscious trading between male and females forming relationships is becoming more conscious, and I do get the feeling young men more than young women accept these changes and won’t have the other gender walk on them and are increasingly treating them with the same disposability!!! Not saying it’s great way to be, but I can see an upside in making women more independent by narrowing acceptability in what a male is prepared to take from their potential mate … young guy’s are learning pretty quickly! And just because a woman thinks fuck work really is a drudge, tiring BS, she’s becoming increasingly frustrated with the avenues open to her to escape it … GREAT, it’s progressing the way it should!

  • FlowingFire

    This is no surprise at all. I’ll tell you what, even though most of my co-workers know I’m gay, I still regularly get women trying to hook with me, most of the time with “how do you know you’re gay?” or “you act too straight to be gay,” or whatever.
    But as much as women complain about men who show them unwanted attention, in reality they can’t stand the idea of men being uninterested in them. I think it’s about control really, they want men to be emotionally dependent on them

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikey_stephens/ John_mws

      Male, very masculine, presentable, single – without female, financially independent and indifferent to their charms. That ticks every box for your female colleagues, an irresistable challenge. You are so desirable I am surprised they have not offered a threesome to cure you of your gayness, while dening their (double standard) latent until needed bi-curious side.

      In my straight man experience getting a man to fall in love with them is the ultimate prize for women regardless of whether they have the same feelings.. Unfortunately feminism teaches them love is now only there for them to abuse men with, and reciprocation is not to be encouraged. Opting out of the game is many mens only option at the moment. A single man surcharge will fail completely to win over anyone to an discredited institution.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikey_stephens/ John_mws

        Just some factual info from the Lancet’s 3rd British sex survey that shows women’s behaviour changes due to feminism, and the legalisation of real porn in UK in 2000. The full survey covers ages 16-74. years 2010-12. Previous same surveys 1990 and 2000. Comparisons taken for various press releases.

        In the 16-24 age group in 1990 4% of women claimed to have had at least one same-sex experience, in 2012 that has increased to 19%. In both cases just under half included genital sex. Some of this may be down to more honesty than change of behaviour. The numbers that are now ok with same-sex partners
        (male or female) is 66% up from 28% 20 years ago.

        The mean average number of sex partners for women has increased from 3.7 to 7.7 and the number ok with one-night stands has risen from 5.4% to 13%.

        However 97% still claim to be non-gay, no change, 96% have slept with a man, and now 73.9% of young women disapprove of cheating in marriage up from 53%.

        For comparison men, gay sex in only up by 1% in 20 years to just under 5%. Men have had approx 12 sex partners in 2000 and in 2012 survey, and 20% still think one-night stands are ok. So no change apart from they disapprove of marriage cheating, now up to 66.5% for 16-24 men..

        So overall despite having more same-sex experiences by apparently emotionally straight girls, more one-night stands, probably with more threesomes, women still have exactly the same interest in maleness for relationships and want men to stop cheating while they increase how many people they sleep with.

        That is a cake and eat it for the girls and business as usual for men.

        Most recent survey here. http://press.thelancet.com/NATSAL1.pdf

  • gateman

    On the flip side, most feminists believe marriage means oppression and enslavement for women.
    They still want single men taxed at higher rates though.

  • quadrant

    I’m in my 20′s and this site has really made me think deeply about alot of things.

    It’s made me think about what I really want in my life, and what are just expectations from society often based from traditionalism, and/or given a new spin from modern liberal/feminism that I may have internalized.

    When I think about what I *really* want in my life, I want to be free, I want to explore, and have adventure(sorry if that’s worded cornily)I want to be able to follow athletic and intellectual interests-and I very much value brotherhood. Guy friendships are probably the most important relationships in my life. I don’t see why the culture treats that as some phase that has to be grown out of. Guys just want to bro out, if I can use the slang of my own generation. Marriage seems like bland drudgery. And, no, feminists that’s not because I long for the day of a submissive wife, and a trad. patriarchal role where I can control everyone. To the extent that ever existed, which is already debatable, that’s unappealing to me as well.

    Michael Kimmel wrote that book Guyland, and then found unappealing examples of ‘guys’ to cast it a bad light, but I don’t see it in that way, and I don’t see why you ever have to leave ‘guyland’. I’m not saying there aren’t *certain* responsibilities that you don’t take up as you mature, but well that’s a complex topic, and it’s getting off my original point.

    Sure, I love sex, and I like women romantically or otherwise sometimes. And maybe I’d like to have children one day, but I’m not going to sell myself out just to get to that. Maybe there are new, exciting ways of what raising children, or being in a romantic relationship with someone can look like–and I actually feel like some of you in the mra movement are closer to actually, open-mindedly exploring topics like that, than most feminists, whatever their supposed ‘left-wing’ posturing. However many of those UofT protesters considered themselves ‘anarchists’, I actually think more of you are closer to the spirit of classical, revolutionary anarchism, of questioning authority, of non-conformity, etc.

  • Redfield

    If women don’t change then their lack of attractiveness to men and the inevitable decline in fertility will be filled (and currently is being filled) by other subcultures in Western culture! Aren’t most demented ugly feminists of a certain race in Western Culture?? Either way the demographic is changing, and apart from AVfM :) it probably will in itself be the main deathknell for Western feminism, other cultures are filling the void even as we speak, and with this they won’t have a power base to abuse ….