Global Team - Americas

MHRM: counterculture or subculture?

Post-gynocentric attitudes are entertained by an increasing number of people, and by groups like those focused on Men’s Human Rights Advocacy (MHRAs), Women Against Feminism (WAF), and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). While they all demonstrate a reaction against gynocentric culture, it’s an error to conceptualize them as engaging in countercultural activity alone.

It should be noted that countercultural involvement is not always conscious and may be an unintended byproduct of committments that clash with the dominant culture. There are few examples of this better than Men Going Their Own Way. They demonstrate a new model for culture, and comprise a peaceful subcultural demographic that is at once countercultural, simply by going about their lives within the larger society.

Before we get to what ‘going about their lives’ means, let’s first make a few distinctions.

To clarify the distinction between subculture and counterculture, the following passages from Howard P. Chudacoff’s book ‘The Age of the Bachelor’ are instructive. Chudacoff asks if the values, behaviors and institutions typical of bachelors comprise a subculture — in other words, a subset of the general culture — or whether they are part of a counterculture that openly conflicts with the general culture. He begins by defining the difference between subculture and counterculture:

“A subculture exists as a reasonably benign component of a more general culture. The defining characteristics of a subculture may include such qualities as age, ethnicity, region or occupation. The elderly, the Irish, southerner’s, and carpenters are all subcultures. As well, a subculture may consist of people tied to each other by mutual special interests, such as bird watching, gun ownership or vegetarianism. According to one authority, the most important element in distinguishing a subculture is the degree to which values, artifacts and identities are shared among members. Such sharing is normally enhanced by the extent of conscious social separation between members of the smaller behavioral group and members of the larger society. Thus hair color can characterize a group but in itself is not a strong enough criterion for special separation — though certain cohorts of redheads or blonds might disagree. Youth or an interest in bird watching, by contrast, more likely would be sufficient qualities to create a subculture.

In an article published in 1960, J. Milton Yinger, a sociologist and leading authority on subcultures, separated the distinguishing characteristics of subcultures into four types: (1) aspects of life, such as religion, language, diet, or moral values; (2) duration over a period of time; (3) a common origin; and (4) a mode of relationship –indifferent, positive, or conflictual– with the surrounding larger culture. Yinger also distinguished between two types of subcultures: (1) those groups characterized by ascriptive qualities that differentiate the group from the larger society, qualities such as language and religion; and (2) those groups with norms that arise specifically from tension or conflict between that group and the larger society, separate norms common to groups such as youth gangs or homosexuals. He dubbed the second type “contra cultures” which he notes could develop a series of inverse or counter values that stand in opposition to those of the larger society. The term “contra culture” evolved into “counterculture” in the 1960s.

“According to Yinger, practically every person is born into a culture and is automatically a member of several subcultures, but an individual must actively and voluntarily join a counterculture. Moreover, conflict constitutes an essential element in the concept of counterculture, and such conflict differentiates a counterculture from a subculture. As sociologist William Zellner has written, “A subculture is part of the dominant culture, but some aspects of the subculture’s value system and life-style sets its members apart from the marger culture…” That is, a subculture normally does not pose a threat to the dominant culture. A counterculture, on the other hand, “is deliberately opposed to certain aspects of the larger culture.” Yinger has added that to understand a subculture, it is not necessary to understand its interaction with the larger society. But a counterculture’s identities a product of such interaction and can be understood only through that relationship. [Chudacoff, pp.12-14]

The title of this article asks whether the MHRM, and the wider post-gynocentric culture is better defined as a counterculture, or subculture? After reading the definitions above, the answer is unmistakably Both. Post-gynocentric culture defines itself in resistance to gynocentric culture and operates as a peaceful subculture based on human rights, equality, and greater freedom of choice than the larger culture currently prescribes – meta-ideological commitments that will, if we have our way, become principles of the culture at large.

The confluence should hardly be surprising. The Man Going His Own Way usually works, pays taxes, goes to school, socializes with friends, generally obeys laws and is indistinguishable on the surface from his cultural and subcultural counterparts.

However, his personal rejection of marriage, sex based chivalry or treating what relationships he has with women as a financial obligation – as well as his steadfast refusal of sex-based expectations on his values and actions — are all practiced in rejection and defiance of the culture at large. He is, through his personal choice, participating in counterculture, and as such is furthering advocacy by example of lifestyle and consciousness that is “deliberately opposed to certain aspects of the larger culture,” per Yinger.

The charge that post-gynocentric culture (including MGTOW and the MHRM) is merely a reaction to feminism can be dismissed. Post-gynocentric culture can’t be reduced to antifeminism any more than the black civil rights movement can be reduced to being anti-white, or the gay rights movement being reduced to anti-heterosexuality.

These are grossly oversimplified rationalizations — more symptomatic of cultural prejudice and backlash than credible explanations for the counterculture’s existence. It may, however, be said that the drumbeat of reductionism characterized by these misperceptions adds momentum to counterculture’s popularity.


Howard P. Chudacoff, The Age of The Bachelor: Creating an American Subculture.
Peter Wright, Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins
Peter Wright, A Voice for Choice
Paul Elam, What feminism is really about and why anyone who values freedom should fight against it
Paul Elam, Counterculture
Dean Esmay, Breaking the pendulum: Tradcons vs. Feminists
Dean Esmay and Paul Elam, On the MHRM, MGTOW, and Creating a Counter-Culture
August Løvenskiolds, Freedom from gynocentrism in 12 Steps

About Peter Wright & Paul Elam

Peter Wright is editor of and a long time advocate for men and boys. Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of the AVfM website, AVfM Facebook, and the coaching service An Ear for Men.

View All Posts
  • Jason Gregory

    One of the things I most admire about MGTOW is the commitment of men to actively disengage from participation in male dominance hierarchies of status.

    This commitment is certainly counter-cultural because it is counter to gynocentric cultural influences that would have men competing with each other in dog-eat-dog markets of economic exploitation to satisfy the hypergamous reproductive strategies of women.

    There is something revolutionary about men working together–cooperating with each other–rather than competing with each other.

    The potential here is the creation of an entirely new culture–a cooperative, rather than competitive one.

    There is also the potential to bridge a gap with some feminists–at least with those willing to admit that hypergamy is the flipside of male dominance hierarchies of status. If feminists and MGTOWs both want to flatten out these hierarchies of dominance, there is certainly some space for cooperation.

    • Dagda Mór

      “There is something revolutionary about men working together–cooperating with each other–rather than competing with each other.”

      Modern civilisation is the result of men co-operating with one another.

      “If feminists and MGTOWs both want to flatten out these hierarchies of dominance, there is certainly some space for cooperation.”

      All that tells us is that you don’t know what feminism is.

      • Andybob

        Feminists have taken to these hierarchies of dominance with a sledgehammer (rather, they sat back and coerced White Knights to do it for them). The problem is, their model of hierarchical dominance – otherwise known as patriarchy theory – was wrong to start with. In contrast, the MGTOW model of hierarchical dominance is the one that actually reflects reality.

        This is why there is no “space for co-operation” between feminists and MGTOW. One is grounded in reality, while the other operates in a fantasy land conjured up by perpetually aggrieved bigots. They will always be worlds apart.

        • Jason Gregory

          White knights are still part of that dominance hierarchy. Their actions are chivalrous and chivalry is an attempt at gaining status in competition with other men to comply with female hypergamous desires–the flipside of male status hierarchies.

          What feminists don’t get and what makes building that bridge such a mess:

          Domination itself implies hierarchy of status. As such, saying that male domination (The Patriarchy™) precedes male domination/male status hierarchy is unintelligible. How can something precede itself? Yet, this is the basis for which all feminist beliefs stem–something that is unintelligible religious gibberish–The Patriarchy™–the great Satan of feminist religion.

          If we are serious about dismantling power structures of domination, then we will have to accept the fact that both women and men are culpable for them and share a moral responsibility to dismantle them. We cannot simply claim status as a man or woman and then proceed to blame one or the other for the creation and maintenance of structures that both men and women created.

          So, yeah, Andybob, there will be no space for cooperation, if feminists insist that only men are culpable for the creation of these dominance hierarchies. When feminists are willing to share the moral responsibility, then we can set about building a bridge, but until that happens, we will likely remain worlds apart.

          • Andybob

            Totally agreed.

        • Daniel Freeman

          I think that there is enough healthy co-opetition within the so-called manosphere, we don’t need sick feminist frenemies. A slightly canted view from yours, but more similar than not.

      • Jason Gregory

        “Modern civilisation is the result of men co-operating with one another.”

        All that tells us is that you don’t know what civilization is.

        The history of civilization is marked by economic dominance hierarchies that exploit men–especially poor men–much like Qatar is doing today with poor immigrant men.

        Exploiting poor men to build the infrastructure of civilization is not “the result of men co-operating with one another.”

        • DukeLax

          The perversions and manufactured statistics alliances that have poisoned American law enforcement over the last 25 years…. are going to prove to be completely devastating to the average women who wants a “provider male”.

          It will soon be only the poor and un-educated males ( who need a female to pay the rent)…who will risk the legal dangers of hetero-dating!!!

        • Dagda Mór

          “Exploiting poor men to build the infrastructure of civilization is not “the result of men co-operating with one another.” ”

          I’m not sure if you’ve worked in the building trade lately but tradesmen get compensated pretty well, as a rule. Nobody puts a gun to their heads and forces them to work, they do so voluntarily. Obviously there are exceptions in places like Qatar but that’s what makes them newsworthy – they are exceptions.

          Now if you want to interpret say an electrician getting paid fifty to ninety bucks an hour as exploitative capitalism you’re free to do so, and some would – but by looking at the real world outcomes of the capitalistic process (your “economic dominance hierarchies”) it quickly becomes apparent that ostensibly unequal yet co-operative arrangements can work really well, doing more to raise the standard of living for people in places like China than any amount of ideological social engineering.

          Characterising these arrangements as purely exploitative is factually wrong, and trying to counteract this “exploitation” on a grand scale has resulted historically in monstrous bodycounts with no positive outcomes. Economic, political, artistic and social stagnation followed by collapse are instead the observable results.

          This can be readily observed on a lesser scale in feminist initiatives such as the Duluth model of law enforcement and the Swedish model of sex worker laws – by
          applying deeply flawed ideology to the real world, people suffer and die.

          The left, liberals, progressives, feminists and so on all take their cues from the works of Marx, his post enlightenment contemporaries and his ideological descendants using such tools as the religious apologetics embodied by critical theory.

          Sadly of course, Marx was wildly mistaken, as ideologues usually are. He believed firmly in the labour theory of value, and as such all economic power derived from human labour, not from mechanical power. Communism was about combating the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people who owned the means of production, at the expense of the masses who provided the labor (and hence the real value).

          His view was misguided in many ways, not least in that it almost completely ignores the value of intellectual work; the guy who figures out the right way to apply labour to raw materials is fantastically more effective than the one who does it the wrong way, and in fact this applies at all levels of the chain, up to and including the allocation of capital.

          Communism is inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since it lacks the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximize what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally.

          There are big problems with capitalism, especially unfettered capitalism, but the solution to these problems does not lie with much that the modern left identifies as falling under its ideological aegis except coincidentally.

          That doesn’t mean there aren’t better answers, or that those answers neccessarily include anything a traditionalist or right winger would immediately embrace, it just means that you can pretty much take vast swathes of ideological theorising from this and the last century and ditch them forthwith.

          Anyway to bring things back on topic, the very definition of MGTOW precludes mass co-operation, instead being principled non co-operation which may end up having a collective effect, as the Japanese are discovering with the grass eater phenomenon. Maybe that’s to-may-toe/to-mah-toe but I feel the distinction is important. The leadership required to complete the practical definition of a collectivist movement simply does not and cannot exist.

          Further MGTOW arose to one degree or another in response to adverse feminist influence on society, at least in the west, as Andybob correctly observes feminists aren’t taking a sledgehammer to dominance hierarchies, they’re literally creating new dominance hierarchies. This is what they’re doing.

          “When feminists are willing to share the moral responsibility” they will stop being feminists.

    • sputnik

      That, too, very much so, sir, yes! See my reply to Shrek below.

  • Shrek6

    This article by the two Apostles Peter and Paul, is in my opinion spot on. Couldn’t agree more!

    I really appreciate this social lesson guys. Thanks!
    I understand it just a bit more than I did before, especially seeing I live my life this way too.

    I reckon that MGTOW have been around since the beginning of the human race. There have always been men who simply never want to engage with women at all, at any level. And these men were not necessarily homosexual either. In fact, the majority would not have been.

    For a lot of men throughout history, women are nothing more than a liability, so they deliberately choose to live a ‘counter cultural’ lifestyle. However, and as we have seen at times throughout history, society under the demands of women, have tried to punish these men for not engaging with women.

    It will be interesting to see if this same punishment appears again in the future as the modern MGTOW grow in number across the globe.

    I think we could safely say that anything that disagrees with gynocentrism, will be seen at least by women, as a form of terrorist counter culture and it will have to be put down with the utmost urgency, using force if necessary.

    • sputnik

      As a matter of “going my own way”, I, on the other hand, DID want to engage, not “with women”, but with A woman— on mutually agreeable terms. (And there’s an essay in that.) I’d like to reiterate: MUTUALLY. Essentially, I *assumed* my role, in more than one sense of the word, according to my own lights. And I made it relatively clear to her what I was about, both explicitly and by example through through my attitudes and lifestyle, before we were married. She seemed to be on board with that, but… No, and my semi-hippie chick’s need for gynocentrism, nicely not in evidence beforehand, proved astonishingly trad-con-fused and psychotically rigid. (And abusive. Cheers.)

      It was 10:30. I was just home from work. I flipped on my ‘puter and went straight to AVfM, as I have been doing way too much lately. I read the first couple o’paragraphs to this article and realized that I ‘d skipped that potty break in my customary haste, and… while standing there it occurred to me, By God, I CAN thank feminism for something: my own MGTOWness, oddly enough. And thus I come to a point not in contradiction, but in contradistinction, to a point made by “the apostles Peter and Paul”. (Damn good line, Bud!)

      You see, I first encountered feminism through the pages of Playboy Mag, at about 11 years of age. I had regular, surreptitious access to Playboy at an early age, and insofar as Playboy was totally on board with R-E-S-P-E-C-T, — after all, how else would you best get anywhere with a woman — I, in the naivete of my youth, read it both ways; I actually BELIEVED that that was what feminism was about, and so I *asumed* my *men’s rights*, as well, thereforthwith, (so sayeth Daffy Duck, if you will) and without further ado. At an early age.

      Yes, I actually READ the magazine, too. :-)

      How could things be otherwise? How? How? Something never occurred to me… and of course, my parents and their many friends were all married: sensible, straightforward, honorable folk, living the good life of “The Greatest Generation”. There was only the slightest whiff of divorce on the periphery of my awareness, one divorce resulting from good cause. So, even though I was not unaware of worsening marriage stats by the time I was contemplating marriage, divorce, in all it’s life-altering splendor, just wasn’t very real to me. Ouch!

      Thus, I can say that my MGTOWness IS in fact in reaction to abstract feminism, but not in the way that our learned apostles have framed it, as an “anti-feminist” reaction. But then, neither was my reaction one that gynocentrism could countenance; and insofar as bricks-and-mortar feminism is really just a sort of trad-con-ism on steroids — wanna-be testosterone addicts — and insofar as my independence of spirit found no takers, and insofar as reality proves mucho insanity among the general population, finally, meh, I signed myself out of the game, with considerable spiritual relief, if not without some dissatisfaction in the dissolution.

      I really WAS expecting mutual respect and admiration within the game, a quid pro quo in kind, in quality as well as quantity, as well as some simple moral or ethical integrity, and WOW, but was I the fool! :-) Frankly, society has a shitload of a lot of catching up to me to do before I consider having a damn thing further to do with it in this respect. This may seem perfectly meaningless coming from an old-fart, but if this one life isn’t all there is,… and thus MGTOWness may be of far greater social import than y’all done reckoned, yet.

      Especially given that statistical research has been done regarding the thousands of VERIFIED cases of people — mostly young children — remembering past lives, and this research is fascinating: of some 3000 cases in the files of one professor Jim Tucker at the U. of Virginia, roughly 70% involve young males recalling lives in which they died a sudden, violent death, at an average age of about 28. And doesn’t this just align oh-so-neatly with something that we all, here, in the manosphere, already know about the lives and times of guys! :-) WOW, eh?

      Moreover, there is a 90% — 90%! — correlation between sex-this-lifetime and sex-last-lifetime, suggesting a high degree of both preference and choice in the matter. (And further suggesting avenues for research into gender-dysphoria, eh? (!) Like I said: fascinatig! Thus, a confirmed MGTOWness may indeed be of far greater importance than y’all have considered. You see, as difficult as my life as a guy has been, there is no way in HELL I’d ever consent to assuming for myself any stain upon my character — as if a matter of guilt-by-association — that might result from a lifetime as a woman, as much fun as it might seem to promise. But is the grass always greener? I’m a hardened son, I’ll tell ya. Just some far-reaching thoughts on the matter.

      Never underestimate either your potential for effectiveness, or your importance, as an individual actor in the greater scheme of things. And, with all that said, it may yet be that I was simply so inclined to self-realization even before I encountered feminism, out of some timeless well of understanding and personal integrity.

      On a closing note, then, here’s a throwaway that I put to paper some twenty years ago, oh-so-appropriate in the nonce:

      Fuck all you people who won’t let me smoke.
      Fuck all you women who don’t want a poke.
      Fuck all you guys who won’t throw off the yoke.
      Fuck all you folk who just can’t take a joke.



    • DukeLax

      Soon…only poor and un-educated males ( who need a female to pay the rent) …..will dare to be a hetero!!!! And many women are not going to like this!!!

      • DukeLax

        The saying ” Don’t know what you got…till its gone” comes to mind!!

      • alex brown3

        In the UK they take a cut of a man’s welfare for child support. I am sure some women will settle for that.

    • Steve Brulé

      “It will be interesting to see if this same punishment appears again in the future” …

      1. It’s built into the tax system. Men pay the majority of the collected taxes, which is spent is such a way as to preferentially benefit women.

      2. It’s coded in law: a women’s word is sufficient to arrest and charge a man.

      3. It is coded into the work place: Affirmative action ensures that women are preferentially hired and promoted, even when they out-number men as happens in almost every government agency.

  • Cobalt

    “The charge that post-gynocentric culture (including MGTOW and the MHRM) is merely a reaction to feminism can be dismissed. Post-gynocentric culture can’t be reduced to antifeminism any more than the black civil rights movement can be reduced to being anti-white, or the gay rights movement being reduced to anti-heterosexuality.”

    I believe that post-gynocentrism is a natural result of industrialization. In the past a majority of people had to labour to produce food. Rural people are the ones who produce lots of children. All Peoples reduce their birth rates when they urbanize.

    With the world population so high, not everyone needs to reproduce.

    My brother was a MGTOW from the 70s when this term wasn’t invented yet. He was very specific that the down sides to marriage and relationships with women was too great for him. He did date occasionally, but no long term dependant relationships. He provided me, his sister, with much insight as to male/female relationships.

    Understanding his choice and the reasons for it has enriched my life. I’m just sorry that the social support wasn’t there for him to exercise this choice.

  • DukeLax

    I believe as more and more American men go “MGTOW”….just to retain their basic civil due process rights…bright women are going to start waking up to the fact that something is wrong here!!!!

    I Believe that when American women finally realize that hetero-males have been culturally / and legally vilified to such a degree that only poor and un-educated males dare to “date hetero”…it will be too late for them to reverse it!!!

    • DukeLax

      Only when hetero-males become an underclass……of un-educated laborers….will American women than realize what they have done!!!!!
      Only then will they demand that the perversions and manufactured statistics Alliances be dismantled!!!!

  • DukeLax

    As time marches on…and the perversions and manufactured statistics Alliances that have poisoned American law enforcement continue to make hetero-sex ….”a dangerous legal liability” for guys … American women are not going to like the reality that only poor and un-educated men with no assets to lose…will be the only ones who dare to “date hetero”.

  • Kimski

    MHRM: counterculture or subculture?

    Self defense.

  • David M. Green

    Following in the footsteps of the feminists does not a counterculture or new Zeitgeist make. The reality is that our society is in the process of fragmenting along gender lines into two primary polar opposite cultures; both of which oppose the other in spite of the fact that they are mirror images of each other.

    To fully grasp this concept all one has to do is compare what the leadership of each group considers its primary demands for their members such as:

    The promoting and or tolerance of sexually immorality…

    The demand to be immune to the consequences of one’s own poor choices and actions….

    On the one hand feminists demand the right to murder their children in the womb…

    While on the other hand MHRA’s demand the right to abandon the children they carelessly procreate through unprotected sex…

    Focusing on their own self centered desire, wants and needs neither the feminists nor MHRA’s are willing to seriously tackle the issues that affect both men and women in a positive and effective manor.

    • Phil McCracken

      “While on the other hand Feminists demand the right to abandon the children they carelessly procreate through unprotected sex…”

      See how that fits so neatly my way, not so much yours considering the options men have, the poor reliability of condoms, vasectomy and abstinence. No choice on whether to abort or not. And let’s not even get into safe havens and adoption. As far as I know the MHRA’s have no official stand on abortion, but do support 50/50 shared parenting and the riddance of child support and alimony. And if a women has a right to give up her child for adoption why not the father?

      • 2cyar

        “And if a women has a right to give up her child for adoption why not the father?”

        Such a basic and obvious question on the surface, but would anyone even think to ask it without the MHRM? Is this subculture or counter culture? I think neither. I think it is a reversal from opposing the dominant culture and instead accepting and embracing it whole heartedly with an eye towards true equality for men and women.

        • 2cyar

          ” It’s Pro-culture.”

          Let me rephrase that…it’s mainstream, but it’s just that the mainstream doesn’t realize it yet.

    • TheBibo Sez

      You talk about “self centered desire” as if it were a bad thing in general. In this case it is slaves breaking their chains and that is only bad for the slave-masters.

      Having the right to decline or demand parenthood is a right only women have these days – giving men the same rights not only moves us toward greater equality but it will force women to make more responsible choices, which means that fewer of them will be killing their children in the womb.

      “Murder”, by the way, is an illegal killing, and since abortion is allowed in the USA, it is NOT murder here. Only men can murder children in the womb – women can merely kill them.

      • David M. Green

        Tell that to the millions of children aborted here in the US of A the numbers of which far exceed those murdered by the Nazi’s during WWII.

    • Peter Wright


      I looked up your commenting history here and it’s obvious you have a hate-on from MHRAs, and are obsessed with the issue of abortion. That pretty much sums up your posting history.

      Not only that, you’ve taken potshots at Mike Buchanan and Paul Elam in other posts – which is unacceptable. So take this as a warning that if you derail threads, go off topic (eg abortion), personally target individuals instead of topics, or are generally here just to tell us how you hate MHRAs, then your days here are numbered. Feel free to join in productively, or otherwise get moderated.

      • Paul Elam

        To clarify it, it goes way, way back. David’s hardon is really for men in general. I would say he has one of the most misandric attitudes I have ever encountered. On one hand, he seems to be supportive in some ways of men finding better methods of living, but always laces his commentary with disgust for men generally.

        Not trying to pathologize here, but I actually do suspect some severe childhood trauma aht the man never healed from.

        • David M. Green

          Familiarity breeds contempt and being quite familiar and having quite a bit of personal experience with how far too many men mistreat – malign, bully etc. – those men with independent minds who refuse to kow tow to them. Makes it downright difficult if not impossible to defend men especially when these same men are just as demanding and controlling as the feminists they rail against.

          More and more AVfM is coming to resemble a “Personality Cult” as opposed to a “Legitimate Movement” by purging those with “Independent Minds” who disagree with the “Status Quo” and dare to speak out instead of going along with flow.

          • Paul Elam

            If you believe that to be true, then go elsewhere. You won’t be allowed to stay here and derails threads with your imaginary ideas on what you think AVFM has become.

            We are not perfect, but we are doing activism. You, on the other hand are just concern trolling.

            Stick with the topics at hand from the articles, and relevant to the work being done here or I will see you off.

          • David M. Green

            No Paul F4J was all about activism. AVfM hasn’t even started leading the charge here in the US of A in regards to activism. Even the MHRM in India has a better track record than what you are falsely claiming.

          • Paul Elam

            If you are not aware of the activism we have done from this organization then it is because you are unconscious.

            Now, I think I have seen enough of you over the years to have seen enough.

        • David M. Green

          “Not trying to pathologize here, but I actually do suspect some severe childhood trauma that the man never healed from.”

          One of the dangers of fighting monsters is that all to often the hero ends up becoming the monster. I learned this while growing up with an abusive stepmother when I realized that I was becoming just like her and had to take corrective action. Not only is your above comment about me unbecoming it is very similar to the types of comments feminists make about those men who dare to disagree with them.

          Paul I suggest that you take a step back, take a deep breath and do some series soul searching for you are in the process of becoming the very thing that you hate.

          • Paul Elam

            David, I suggest you work through the issues of your own abuse. What I said about you and misandry is true. I have watched it for several years. Go heal yourself, and then come back and advise me on what you think I have become.

          • David M. Green

            No Paul what you wrote about me is an outright lie and it is what I would expect from an intellectually dishonest mind; steeped within the intellectually dishonest ideologies of Humanism, Atheism and Psychology: the least scientific and most manipulated of the sciences.

          • driversuz

            Troll. Get help.

      • David M. Green

        Peter this is the reasonable comment I left on MB site that he deleted:

        “The feminists are correct that men are inherently violent but wrong when they claim that male violence is aimed primarily at women. Where those in the MM go astray is by claiming that men are not inherently violent by ignoring the type of violent sports men play and watch, the violence all through the media depicted in movies, tv and books produced for a male audience. The truth is that men primarily aim their violence not at women but at other men; and by hiding behind the age old lie that boys will be boys. When it comes to men who bully other males simply because they are different by doing absolutely nothing those in the MM actually end up promoting male on male violence.”

        Keeping copies of comments is a tactic I began using when Feminists would delete my comments on their sites – its sad that I now have to use this same tactic with the leading lights of the MHRM who seem intent on emulating the very same behavior feminists are well known for in dealing with those who dare to disagree with them on their blogs.

    • 2cyar

      “While on the other hand MHRA’s demand the right to abandon the children they carelessly procreate through unprotected sex…”

      Men don’t procreate children…at most they contribute to the creation of a zygote, therefore men who choose not be a parent are not abandoning any “children.” The highest court in our land has ruled that a zygote is not a child. Only women can procreate a child…her body her choice. If she doesn’t have a child rearing agreement with her male partner beforehand, and with all the reproductive options available to her, then any “carelessness” rests on her shoulders alone. Don’t infantilize women….trust them, and hold THEM accountable, to make the right choice.

  • Mark Samenfink

    I’ve gotten to the point where I’m reading these articles in your voice, Mr. Elam

  • Renaissance Man

    Thought provoking piece. It would be really cool to see a book about the Men’s Movement from the 1970’s to the present written from this perspective.