Socialized psychopathy, modeling female misbehaviour

*Editorial Update*: Welcome, readers of The Daily Beast and The Raw Story. Just so you know, neither of those publications are reporting to you competently or honestly. We suggest you read the below old article from early 2011 in its full context: a sarcastic response to a vicious article about men by a gender ideologue written around the same time a few years ago. While you may still find this old article by Hembling offensive (many at A Voice for Men did, although we publish a wide variety of viewpoints and we at least understood the context that The Daily Beast and The Raw Story didn’t bother to give you), you may want to consider the many questionable articles seen regularly about the character defects supposedly typical of  boys and men (sex-obsessed, violent, controlling, domineering, thoughtless, etc.) that pass in today’s culture with nary a peep of complaint from anyone.

Are Hembling’s speculations and sarcastic remarks in this article questionable? Sure they are, just ask him and he’ll tell you so himself. In any case, both The Raw Story and The Daily Beast also grossly and more outrageously misreported to you on an even older video John made, and you can see how they did that if you just click right here. Meanwhile, this old article by Hembling remains below, unchanged, with only this note added to give historical context.

Oh, by the way, did we mention that John is not “new” and has never considered himself a “leader” in the movement–has in fact for years shunned the idea that he speaks for anyone but himself? That’s one of a lot of things they didn’t bother telling you, but you can find that out for yourself if you stick around and read more here at AVfM–or just start asking us some honest questions .. –DE


Women have no sympathy and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe.
~Florence Nightingale

In 1989, Billy Crystal starred, along with Meg Ryan in a Rob Reiner romantic comedy called When Harry Met Sally. I saw it during the 80′s, and as such films went, it was okay. It kept me entertained for the hour and twenty minutes or so that it lasted.

This was long before I learned to dislike rom-coms, or became politically aware, or starting writing anything besides science fiction. I do remember a line delivered by Crystal about friendships between men and women.

“You realize of course that we can never be friends. What I’m saying is, – and this is not a come-on, is that men and women cant be friends “because the sex part always gets in the way.”

Meg Ryan’s character responds by saying she has a number of male friends, none of which are sexual relationships. Crystal corrects her, she does not have male friends. Rather, these men actually all want to have sex with her.

It was years after this film’s release that I learned to loath romantic comedies. Principally because they portray a distorted view of reality which influences human expectations, and poisons people’s ability to realistically relate to one another. This impacts everybody, and not just women’s expectations, even though romantic comedies cater almost entirely to female entitlement and flattery.

What Crystal’s character says is not true, although it has become true by social enforcement of this as masculine social expectation. Men who automatically want to hump everything in a skirt is behavior endlessly reiterated in popular media. Men who grow up in the culture where this message is pervasive learn to conform to expectation. Even when it is not true, our culture pretends it is because it flatters and empowers women. Women learn that men are beneath them, that they’re sex-obsessed subhumans who only through careful socialization can learn to walk upright and wear pants. There are entire industries devoted to women complaining about men’s troglodyte nature, but really, the annoyance is worth a permanent smug superiority.

Men not conforming to this expected pattern rapidly learn to weather feminine censure of the character of “faggot” and “loser”, along with lesser pejorative. Although Crystal’s character was wrong about men being sex obsessed cretins, he was right about male and female friendships.

The real reason men and women cant be friends is that women lack moral agency.

Moral agency is a person’s ability to make moral judgments and take action that comport with morality. A moral agent is “a individual who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

I’m not suggesting here that women, as a demographic, are immoral, although a surface reading of behavior might sometimes lead to that impression. Rather, they are amoral – simply lacking in a moral or an ethical compass.

Whether this is innate or learned is a matter for speculation outside this discussion’s scope, although my own view is that it is a socialized characteristic. My own experience has shown me a handful of women who appear not to lack this aspect of human identity. By contrast, an individual of immoral character understands ethical behavior and boundaries, but crosses those lines for their own purposes, such as entertainment or advantage. An individual of amoral character feels no boundaries on their own actions. They might be intellectually aware of boundaries on ethical behavior, but that awareness is abstract, and provides no impetus to conduct.

With a small number of exceptions, western women have collectively demonstrated themselves to be unequipped with a grasp of personal accountability, ethics, compassion, or empathy.

This was exemplified by an Australian blogger’s recent attempt to declare men’s rights advocates a collection of angry extremists. Tory Shepherd began her article in Australia’s “The Punch” with a short sampling of the concerns of MRAs:

Men’s outcomes in some areas really are poor. Male suicide rates are three to four times higher, their life expectancy is lower. Girls often out-perform boys at school. Males are more likely to be incarcerated, more likely to be addicted.

Rather than addressing these issues, Shepherd jumps immediately to characterize men who argue for male human rights.

But these genuine issues are not the ones that concern the new breed of men’s activists. These aggrieved men see misandry – the hatred of males – everywhere in society, from government down.

Suicide rates, death rates, increasingly one sided educational outcomes, sexually differential incarceration rates are all the products of policies and climates in the areas of effect. Men did not always lag behind in education, but now they do. Why is that? Has some evolutionary change happened in the last 50 years? Or have policies changed to create a male-hostile environment? The scope and depth of intellectual dishonesty in Shepherd’s characterization of MRAs as angry white men is impressive.

“But these genuine issues are not the ones that concern the new breed of men’s activists.” This statement by Shepherd is flatly and factually, false. It is not a distortion, or a mischaracterization, it’s simply the opposite of the truth. She is not confused or incorrect, because she’s clearly a reader of AVfM where these issues are regularly featured.

Her statement, that “The site compares “feminists, manginas, white knights and other agents of misandry” to clansmen, skinheads and neo-Nazis.” is true, but implies such comparisons are unjust. If policies and laws are mirrors of such infamous ideologies, the comparison is wholly deserved. Interestingly the italicized list of bad actors is lifted by Shepherd from my own by-line on AVfM. Hello Tory.

The characterization doesn’t stop there, according to Shepherd:

“These aggrieved men see misandry – the hatred of males – everywhere in society, from government down.”

Aggrieved, yes, but why Tory? Is it because we’re all just angry, misogynistic wife beaters? Or maybe it’s because of an escalating climate of policies of unequal treatment by courts, a hostile educational system, social and legal systems which enforce male disposability, marginalizing male identity while claiming to empower women. Tory Shepherd demonstrates awareness of these problems in her article’s opening, while heaping contempt onto men acting to address these issues.

This two-faced narrative would normally be characterized by the phrase cognitive dissonance, but I no longer believe that’s adequate to understand what this Australian blogger is showing us. What’s good for Tory is good. What questions or challenges Tory is bad. This is not an unethical view, it is not immoral, it’s not even selfish in the normal application of that word. It is a human being for whom their moral compass is simply absent, and for whom empathy is simply a strange abstract concept.

I have previously believed that the apparent cognitive dissonance between our culture’s obvious and increasing male disenfranchisement and escalating public contempt for men voicing complaint at this disenfranchisement could be resolved by clear articulation by writers in the mens movement.

I no longer think this. That apparent failure of understanding is swept aside by Shepherd’s concise listing of men’s rights issues, and her immediately following condemnation MRAs.

Women, it is apparent now, lack an ethical sense. They are without the capacity for moral agency.

This is what makes an honest and meaningful friendship between a man and a woman, in most cases, impossible. The caveat being , as it always is, that not all women are like that. Setting aside those few who managed to become fully realized adult human beings despite a social climate steering them away from acquaintance with accountability, and the cognitive mapping which allows the adult emotion of empathy.

This mapping by the way, a necessary step in the brain’s development. Andrew Whiten, Professor of Evolutionary and Developmental Psychology and Wardlaw Professor of Psychology at the university of St Andrews has shown in his research that until the age of 3 years, children are unable to ascribe actions, motives and beliefs to others. But by the age of five, a child’s brain has developed a capacity for stepping into someone else’s mind.

According to Whiten:


It varies in different children, but generally the four year stage is thought of as a kind of watershed, when that particular theory of mind; ability emerges. So a three year old would typically have difficulty with it, a five year old has generally mastered it. And so far, no Chimpanzee has passed any test of the attribution of false belief that a five year old child passes. I suppose theory of mind makes us as sublime as we are, because we can feel for others so much…

Based on Professor Whiten’s work, the capability to experience empathy appears to manifest as a skill between the ages of three and five in normally socialized children, and as a byproduct of an individual’s ability to conceive a model of motivation and viewpoint of other individuals. However, this empathic ability seems notably absent in a major subset of western women. While educated adults like Tory Shepherd demonstrate knowledge of the increasingly bleak social reality for western males, the utter failure to connect to a motivation for men’s activism, or anger at the persistent public denial of the problem is understandable based on cognitive inability in women. This disconnect is explained better by this inability than by the existing hypothesis of cognitive dissonance, which describes that disconnect without explaining it’s cause.

In children’s early physical and intellectual development, hearing, language, physical coordination and other developmental benchmarks, each have windows of opportunity beyond which, if necessary cognitive mapping does not occur within that time frame, are never acquired.

Children deaf from birth who receive cochlear implants are treated within a specific age range because beyond that range, the brain’s mapping for auditory input is fixed.

Through children’s development, the emergence of increasingly mature abilities and the brain’s mapping of them is known among medical and psychological professionals to occur in age-specific developmental periods. The brain’s ability to develop particular abilities gained in childhood is lost as a child grows older. Cognitive abilities which are not acquired in their appropriate time frame become impossible for the mind to acquire as an adult. Of course, socialized sociopathy wouldn’t likely be possible by omission of learning if the natural tendency wasn’t already present.

Throughout the natural world, females are sexual selectors for reproduction, while males usually compete for selection. In this respect, humans are no different. By controlling access to sex, women enjoy significant social power in any society not ruled by brute force, nothwithstanding the brute violence already inflilcted on behalf of women in most societies.

Because women possess lesser average physical strength than man, biological control over sexual access means that characteristics of selfishness and manipulation provide reproductive and survival advantages to women that they don’t to men. A selfish or manipulative man may enjoy advantage to himself, but this doesn’t confer survival advantage to a group he is part of. By contrast a selfish and manipulative woman of reproductive age, because she is biological centre of the family unit affords herself and her offspring a survival and reproductive advantage.

Seen from an evolutionary perspective, the characteristics labeled by modern psychology as antisocial personality disorders are inherited behavioural traits which in pre-technological societies afforded women significant reproductive and survival advantages. However, in a modern culture of plentiful food, shelter and resources, these behavioural characteristics don’t simply disappear.

In the modern context of feminist ideology informing the courts and family courts, education, government, law enforcement, employment, health funding and the raft of other female favouring social institutions; the prevalence of clinical terminology describing mental illnesses overwhelmingly affecting women indicates we’ve fabricated these clinical conditions.

Narcissistic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, these are arguably not aberrations of normal human psychology at all, rather they are the amplification of female personality traits which afforded women a survival advantage throughout human pre-history. In a world of scarcity where humans often died of starvation, women with the attributes of innate selfishness and skill at manipulating men meant increased survival for themselves as well as their offspring.

Unfortunately, those hard wired characteristics don’t simply go away in a modern setting where food and shelter are plentiful. Our modern culture, with its prevalent feminist ideology has exacerbated these characteristics in women, and our mental health professionals who’ve classified the manipulative, and selfish behavior patterns as if they are disorders and the women displaying them victims – this serves to amplify these behaviours in our culture to the point of toxic, parasitic malignancy.

One recent manifestation of this occurred in suburban Chicago where a 6 year old boy slipped, suffering a broken leg and head injury. The boy’s teacher told him “You’re a big boy — I can’t carry you”[2]

Describing the teacher’s actions, the boy’s mother said: “She told him to walk back, but his leg was broken so he fell again and then had to crawl at least 200-300 feet back to the school building.”[3]

Neither the un-named teacher nor other school employees took any steps to summon medical attention to the 6 year old suffering from cranial trauma and a broken leg. The boy’s mother, picking her child up from school said when she saw her child — with a lump on his head and complaining of dizziness — she took him to the hospital.

Due to a persistent ideology driving domestic policy and law for the last 50 years, our society now supports and provides incentives for psychopathy in women. A doctrine of the mythological innocence and eternal victimhood of women, and the imagined innate malevolence of men is used to justify legal discrimination against men under the friendly sounding banner of affirmative action. In an increasingly male-hostile education system, men’s diminishing success rates are addressed by female academics with sadistic triumphalism.[4] In her 2010 TED Talks lecture, “The End of Men” author Hannah Rosin openly gloated over an increasing trend of male marginalization, she also played a video to the TED Talks audience in which her own 10 year old son was instructed by his younger sister, and silenced when he objected, that due to being male, he was inferior[5].

Activists persist in claiming the multiply debunked[6][7][8][9] dogma of pay discrimination against women, while men quietly and conveniently account for 93% of workplace deaths[10][11].
In most countries males comprise the vast majority of workplace fatalities. In the EU as a whole, 94% of death were of males.[12] In the UK the disparity was even greater with males comprising 97.4% of workplace deaths.[13][14]. Piling onto this, regardless of who earns it, women control the spending of 65% of disposable income world wide[15]. Where are the feminists working to reduce male on the job death rates? Where are the feminists working to reduce the over-representation of men by a factor of 10 in the homeless?

Meanwhile, national organizations like N.O.W. canvass to assist the female homeless, a demographic comprising 1/10th of those living on the streets. Anti-violence campaigns similarly indulge in a nearly religious attachment to the false dogma that partner violence is male dominated. The overwhelming body of peer reviewed research indicates that men and women engage in physical as well as psychological violence against their partners at least as often as men[16][17][18][19][20].

A broader inventory of examples of culture-wide systematic sociopathy is available on this website [here].

A century ago, prior to the pre-eminence of feminist ideology as society’s governing narrative[21][22], social conventions existed which dis-incentivized enactment of sociopathic behavior by women. The singular self interest and absence of empathy characteristic in a writer listing human rights issues, then condemning the men working to resolve them, is possible because those social conventions have been dismantled by a century of ideological activism. The present social landscape is one in which women have no disincentive for antisocial behavior, and in which men cannot logically trust women to do anything except exploit, betray and harm them. This unfortunate social reality is explored in some detail [here].

The phenomena of feminine sociopathic characteristics doesn’t mean women are inferior, or innately evil. The singular self interest is an evolutionarily driven mechanism of reproductive success. For men, the ability to kill, to overpower a competitor and to be the first to crush a competitor’s skull with a stone to gain access to scarce food, shelter or status are all abilities present in stone age men, as well as modern men. Yet modern men socialized to function in a modern society don’t engage in any such murderous or psychopathic behavior, or when they do it is most commonly considered abhorrent and criminal. A feral, unsocialized behavioral mode does not manifest in men within civil society because male human beings are socialized against such antisocial conduct, also because absence of an ethical compass has never been a strong reproductive advantage to men.

Excepting a tiny minority, it appears that Western women, through a failure of socialization, are trapped at the socialized developmental level of a 4 year old child, or a chimpanzee. Female chimpanzees, however, are not known to abuse their own offspring.

In practical application, this doesn’t indicate an impetus to indulge in hatred or dislike towards an entire sexual demographic. Rather, it indicates the survival imperative to recognize and mitigate risk in dealing with a predatory animal.


[17] Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62
[18] Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71
[19] Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

About John Hembling (JtO)

John Hembling is Policy Director and Editor-at-Large for AVfM. John is also the founder of the American Human Rights Education Foundation, which is dedicated to the human rights of individuals through justice and compassion. As "John The Other," he is also the Sword of Damocles, dangling like the promise of death above the ideas of gender ideologues, white knights and other social diseases. JtO is FTSU personified.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Zorro

    “I’m not suggesting here that women, as a demographic, are immoral, although a surface reading of behavior might sometimes lead to that impression. Rather, they are amoral – simply lacking in a moral or an ethical compass.”

    I am prepared to swallow that hook, line and sinker, but I want GirlWritesWhat to tell me it’s true first.

    I get a very strong feeling GWW has a very strong sense of moral agency.

    …or am I just being annoyingly pedantic again? That has been known to happen.

    • Girl Writes What

      Do I think women, as a biological demographic, are amoral? No.

      Do I think women are socialized in our culture to lack real empathy, to seriously prioritize their own wellbeing over that of others (the woman who hates seeing an ex, so cuts off his access to his child, harming both much more than the “harm” of having to make awkward small talk with him for a few minutes on weekends, for instance), to believe they are special and therefore more deserving of consideration, and to make choices that unfairly burden others because “I want to”? Yes.

      Although I would like to mention that other female primates do abuse their offspring–usually through intentional neglect, if that offspring is sub-par, or if resources are scarce enough that they are not worth the investment. Infanticide is *everywhere* in the animal kingdom, though it usually involves neglect or abandonment. It’s advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint.

      And Dark Triad traits can indeed be an effective reproductive strategy in men, if they have the looks, social status and brains to pull it off (and don’t push too far and risk society’s punishment). These traits don’t exist in a huge proportion of men, because they only work under certain conditions, and because empathy is trained into boys a little more forcefully than it is in girls.

      Empathy does not necessarily create empathy. What creates empathy in a child is an expectation on that child to wait their turn, to share, to not always have their way, to not always be protected, to suck it up sometimes, to sit the fuck still and shut up while the dentist is working, to stop thrashing so the doctor can concentrate on stitching up your head without sewing his fingers to it, to be brave, to accept that hitting someone will get you hit back, to not whine and that tantrums and manipulations will not get them what they want because no means no, because THEY are not the center of anyone’s universe, thanks. Sometimes other people, and rules, come first.

      We do most of those things with our boys. We do WAY fewer of them with our girls.

      • Zorro

        I absolutely agree that we raise our girls in a manner that produces less-than-desirable results in the long term. I don’t have kids, and I know I would treat a daughter like a little princess…and that is wrong. I think many men have a weakness when it comes to their daughters. Don’t know if that’s what you meant, but your post is deadly accurate.

      • keyster

        “Do I think women, as a biological demographic, are amoral? No.”

        Believe me, when it comes to the delicate dance of mating behavior with the male, yes they are. It’s normal evolutionary self-preservation strategy for her to be dishonest, unethical and sometimes immoral in her treatment of the male.

        She only has so much time and so many eggs awaiting fertilization. Deception and manipulation are necessary if selecting “Mr. Right” is an urgent priority.

        This isn’t personal or misogynist.
        It’s demonstrable fact.

      • BeijaFlor

        What you say has started an old song playing in my inner ear – one from Rodgers & Hammerstein, and the musical South Pacific:

        You’ve got to be taught
        To hate and fear,
        You’ve got to be taught
        From year to year,
        It’s got to be drummed
        In your dear little ear
        You’ve got to be carefully taught.

        You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
        Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
        And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
        You’ve got to be carefully taught.

        You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
        Before you are six or seven or eight,
        To hate all the people your relatives hate,
        You’ve got to be carefully taught …
        You’ve got to be carefully taught.

        And of course, that is “what’s happening” here.

        Boys ARE taught to share, to wait their turn, all those “socializing” lessons and behaviors that you list, GWW, before they are “six or seven or eight.” “Little Princesses” are NOT.

        Later, in school and throughout school, girls are taught to hate boys, and boys are taught to hate … themselves.

        Is it any wonder Men Go Their Own Way … ?

        Thank you, GWW, for your perspective!

      • justicer

        Amazing post, crystal clear. Many thanks, GWW.

  • Zorro

    …also, no need for “in” in the statement “simply lacking in a moral or an ethical compass. Neither do you need the second indefinite article.


  • Robert Full Of Rage

    I will never be able to look at women the same way again. Picking apart and analyzing the female psyche has made me realize that women view men as disposable appliances. I understand that women are selfish by nature, but this does not excuse them. We all make choices in life, and we have to face the music sooner or later if we engage in deplorable behavior.

    It is in men’s nature to be white knights, but we fight against our own nature with the hope of freeing ourselves from our biology. Feminism became popular because it catered to the worst parts of the female psyche. Women didn’t have to embrace feminism, but they did it anyway. They will have to answer to the MRM for their actions.

    I gave up on the fairy-tale “love” long ago. Women “love” men not for who we are as human beings, but for what usefulness we can provide to them. I refuse to be treated and viewed in such a disgusting manner. I would rather be alone the rest of my life than to be with a woman who will skip town if circumstances became less than ideal. I will never respect or be polite to people who can’t think of anyone else besides themselves.

    Women like to say they are not emotional train wrecks, until being emotional train wrecks suits them. I want nothing to do with modern women and I will continue to boycott them. All you women need to remember one thing: it isn’t always about you.

    • keppler22orbust

      Howdy and G’day. Wow! up until a week ago I thought
      I was all alone in the World. A few years back, I’d given
      up on a friend of twenty years who just can’t get his head around what Feminism really is. Interestingly, I’d
      gotten’ into the MATRIX subtext and repeated the fact
      that Gloria Steinem is a CIA operative. Nothing worked.
      He is a true believer and a useful idiot; done deal

      So after, I think the term is lurking, (I’m a late adopter)
      for a week on these blog sites I’ve decided to chime in. There are a lot of good minds out there and I have a proposition: A SHOWDOWN with the FEMI-NAZIS!

      We have reached the point where this WILL NOT heal
      of it’s own accord. With my own personal experience
      (Which I might share anecdotally if anyone is interested) as well as the TRAVESTIES I’ve been
      reading about; the time for action has come! We have had our DUNKIRK and now we must have the intellectual equivalent of D DAY! We need Airtime on TV. What I’m thinking is putting up a dozen of our best against a dozen of theirs We select maybe three team leaders (JTO here as well as Paul Elam +?)
      and elect a roster from which they pick the rest of the team.
      As to Team Evil: We have their falsified statistics.
      We have the files posted by the incredibly courageous AGENT ORANGE. A.O. you must take care; there are
      some real pieces of work in the Femi- NAZI movement
      I am from one of the Hearth Zones of Feminism and
      had the displeasure of watching this foment over the
      years. I did what I could against them but theirs was a
      Tsunami like surge at the time; even standing my ground, its surged around me. Time for a rebirth!!!!

  • Dr. F

    One woman in ninety nine is decent with a robust moral compass and appropriate empathy for the other half of the population.

    The rest with their flouncy vain ways and their self serving behaviour really can go and get rooted.

    Pardon. I don’t normally talk this way but sometimes I just really get the shits you know ?

    JTO, sorry for being a grumpy bum, your article here is bloody marvellous.

    • BeijaFlor

      I agree, Dr. F – “The rest really can go and get rooted.”

      But not with MY root!

  • mongo

    Two common feminine behaviors that demonstrate an inability to see beyond themselves:

    “Men shouldn’t care who the father is” (ie She doesn’t care who the father is, so why should you?)

    “She cut his penis off! Ha Ha!” (ie she doesn’t have a penis, so how could this possibly hurt?)

  • Kimski

    Thank you for putting a big fat line under my XX-chromosome thesis, JtO.
    I wish I didn’t have to fight this language barrier, because you have just said everything I’ve been thinking about for a long time now, as well as mentioned on a few occasions in here. Brilliantly written and explained, and thank you for that.

    I would also like to hear Dr.T’s take on this. Are we dealing with an inherited flaw in the social/empathic wiring here, or is it a combination of these factors along with the increased lack of teaching social and personality skills, in the way girls are raised today?

    Either way, it’s no wonder that the outcome turns out to be so disastrous to the people surrounding these individuals, and even more disastrous to seemingly democratic societies, where these flawed individuals are allowed the right to vote.

    It’s no secret that little girls get away with a lot of stuff that boys are not allowed, and I’m thinking we are making a huge mistake in allowing this behavior, if the social/empathic wiring is somehow more or less disconnected in the first place. It would explain the much more strict way girls were raised in the old days, along with other cultures, and I don’t think this can be written off as just the fear of early pregnancy. There seems to be an understanding of the female mind in this, that has been overlooked, downplayed or simply forgotten in most western cultures of today.

    And I truly agree with you on that last part, JtO. We ARE dealing with predatory animals here. Nothing more and nothing less.

  • White Cloud

    That Hanna Rosin video made me rage.

    • Zorro

      I’m with you on Rosin. That woman absolutely delights in men’s suffering. She has the empathy of those funeral-busting yahoos from the Kansas church.

    • Kimski

      Think of it as a morally bankrupt child teaching another child something that is truly despicable, while at the same time pretending to be grown up and in the right to do so.
      It works for me.

  • Fidelbogen

    Tory Shepherd will have a merry time dancing with this. . or dancing around it.

    • John the Other

      I hope she brings her “A” game. So far her writing and rhetoric has been weak and sloppy.

  • Tawil

    “The site compares “feminists, manginas, white knights and other agents of misandry” to clansmen, skinheads and neo-Nazis.” is true, but implies such comparisons are unjust… Interestingly the italicized list of bad actors is lifted by Shepherd from my own by-line on AVfM. Hello Tory.”

    JTO, in going after your comment it appears Tory is not selecting randomly among hundreds of posters but has a desire for going for the top brass… she is aware that you play a leading role and is targeting you as if your were an Achilles heel of the advancing AvFM site. I’m sure that after reading this reply she will be questioning her own wisdom on this maneuveur.

    And a very helpful examination of her short, clichéd remarks for readers here, several of whom would have arrived here looking for more information after reading Tory’s unremarkable article.

    • James Huff

      HA! I’d like to see her try to dance around any of the regular writers here, especially Fidelbogen.
      The fact of the matter is that the we are beginning to shape the battlefield, and this scares the crap out of the feminists. They are all in a tizzy, never knowing what angle we are going to strike from next, who we are going to expose to the light of day, and how far we are willing to go to in all of this.
      I look forward to the future with a kind of zeal that can only be compared to a kid’s feeling on the last day of school. It also reminds me of the nervous anticipation I use to have before going outside the wire in Iraq or Bosnia.
      We have some top notch talent here, and more that has yet to be tapped.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Tory Shepherd is the court jester of journalists in Australia. Most of her readers know that already but they read her articles because she baits people and they love the reaction when those people bite. She’ll most certainly try to lampoon this article and any others she can find that give her an opportunity to raise a ruckus, as she does with everything else that doesn’t agree with her internal narrative. Expect to be taken out of context in every way imaginable.

    It doesn’t matter one little bit though, as the window of opportunity she’s opened will allow the exposition of important red pill ideas before her mainstream audience. Her readership is already well primed to argue against feminism and misandry so this is an excellent opportunity to steer the discourse back to the centre. No-one takes Tory Shepherd seriously, so there’s nothing at all to lose by engaging with her.

    She’ll fall over herself trying to dance wearing those pointy-toed shoes with the bells on the ends. Make hay while the jester falls on her ass, I say!

  • lensman

    Absolutely brilliant article JTO and scientifically sound.

    It’s really interesting, because Darwin in “The Descent of Man” argued that characteristics such as altruism and ethics were a result of sexual selection [1]. Females in old times seemed to select for altruistic individuals and communities with more altruism and ethics seemed to fare better than others.

    And here’s where things get really interesting. According to the Price Equation (the best mathematical proof of how characteristics such as altruism multiply within a community -altruism being defined here as a trait that lowers individual survival but increases group survival), whenever groups with individuals altrustic traits get at odds with each other, the one with the higher amount of altruism tends to prevail, assuming that the population of the groups is similar in size. When, however, there is no between-group selection, individuals with lower amounts of characteristics such as altruism tend to prevail due to in-group competition [2].

    What we are witnessing now is, essentially, the real-life confirmation of the validity of the Price Equation. We live in a culture where between-group competition is not directly linked to the survival of the group anymore, like it was in times before the advent of atomic weapons. As a result, individuals with lower empathy, lower altruism and a lower sense of morality tend to do a lot better today. In the old days, a psychopathic individual would be quickly selected off the group. Nowadays, he can become rich and influential, as evidenced by the book “Snakes in Suits”, where the authors secretly tested a number of high-ranking CEOs in major companies by using a cleverly disguised questionaire and found them getting high scores in the psychopathic scale[3].

    Furthermore, as evidenced by a brilliant article at, the feeling of power tends to fuck people up. It tends to increase their ego, makes them better liars, better hypocrites, gives them a false belief in their own abilities and lowers their empathy significantly [4]. Women being less empathic, amoral and hypocritical seems to be a natural consequence of their higher empowerment -which, ironically was given to them, both socially and technologically, by men. Women, as a group, as a whole, now have the power to literally destroy a man with the pointing of a finger. And, if a false sense of power can fuck up a person’s morals, as evidenced in the the cracked article, one can only imagine what the *very real* sense of power over men does to women right now.

    So to summarize:

    1) Ethics and Altruism tend to thrive when there is competition between groups which is directly linked to survival.

    2) Amorality and Sociopathy tend to thrive when in-group competion is high and competition between groups in not directly linked to survival.

    3) The sense of power tends to fuck up an individual’s morality, increases their hypocrisy and self-entitlement while lowering their empathy.

    4) Women now have more power than men, being able to get them fired, jailed and stigmatized with just their word as evidence.

    5) Do the fucking math (I am looking at you, Tory)

    OK, references:

    [1] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1st Edition, pages 163-168 found at

    (I apologize for using Wikipedia, but the article here happens to be good. “The Altruism Equation” by Lee Alan Dugatkin provides a more credible source, but I can’t find it right now to provide a proper reference. I recall that it’s in pages 40-55 but memory is messed up due to marriage. Sorry!)

    [3] Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Paul Babiak & Robert D. Hare, 2007, pages 190-195


  • Alfred E

    I don’t see where men lack a manipulative and selfish capacity. Men for eons have had both of those qualities in order to survive. I also don’t see large groups of men stepping forward now and having the moral courage to confront the massive problems that men face. Women are far from being the only ones who are silent about men’s issues.

    There is something going on here that is evolutionary for both sexes and for our entire population. Almost no one can muster compassion for the state of men and boys. No one. The only ones who are able to see it clearly are largely the ones who have been crushed by the system. Trying to single out a sub-set of that pervasive group and blaming them is not really very helpful. What we are up against is, well, EVERYONE. Fuck sake.

    • dejour

      I agree. Mostly what we’re up against is a society which is more concerned about the well-being of women than it is of men. This suggests that all people are less empathetic towards men than women, but it’s not clear that women are less empathetic than men.

      One research study suggests that women and men are equally empathetic (though women self-rate their empathy more highly than men do).

      In an environment where people try to mischaracterize the MRM as misogynist, I think it’s important not to provide fuel. Casting the vast majority of women as “amoral” and contrasting them with moral men doesn’t really seem to be supported. Yes, Ms. Shepherd seems amoral. Yes, many women with personality disorders are amoral. But then, many men are in jail for immoral acts. I’d need to see some carefully designed research before accepting the article’s thesis.

      JtO writes a lot of brilliant articles. I’m not sure that this matches up with his past work.

      • Kimski

        I politely have to disagree, without wanting to get into a fight over it.

        The amount of women with BPD’s and women that kill children is way higher than that of men, and their lack of empathy for men is just the other side of that coin. I have never read or heard about a man who resorted to genital mutilation of a woman, without being utterly insane in the first place, or heard or seen men laughing about something like that on national television.

        I’ve also never heard of a man claiming to be a victim after drowning his own kids. Or a man who systematically burned his girls with cigarettes for not being boys. Or a male teacher drugging his female students because they were too passive. Or a man doing to his daughter what Hanna Roisin did to her own son in the video mentioned above.
        And the list goes on and on and on…

      • Alfred E

        Yes. Agree completely. We face a foe larger than Goliath and it is comprised of both men and women. Best to not be like the feminists who have consistently perseverated and placed blame only on the “evil males.” We can see the hate and folly of such a one sided judgement. Let’s hope we don’t start doing the same thing.

        • Kimski

          ‘Let’s hope we don’t start doing the same thing.’

          I agree, and I would like to point out that I’m not trying to pass judgement here, even though I might come across as doing so at times. I would really prefer that more level headed women took care of that part. I’m much more interested in finding a reasonable explanation to the ‘why?’

          If the ‘why’ could be identified more clearly, it would help a lot in the interacting with women in the daily life for many men, and as such I think the discussion and the topic is more about acquiring a better understanding of women and their motivations, to get some effecient tools for self preservation, rather than who is the ‘better’ or more morally superior gender. That discussion is more or less pointless, as it only leads to trench wars.

        • Paul Elam

          We are not doing the same thing, IMO. Not at all.

          The problem with feminists is that they made an examination of the male psyche with a predetermined outcome that men are inherently flawed, with little or no redeeming value.

          Does this mean that no one can ever investigate and explore aspects of both the male and female psyche, because feminists did a bad and biased job?

          We make it our mission here to explore these things honestly. I think JTO has done that here. Was his assessment of women complete? No. Is there room to argue several of his points. Certainly. And it is those points that need to be argued, not wheter he should make them.

          I would argue vehemently that selfishness in women, or amorality if you prefer, can be rather easily explained by reproductive strategy and the need for species survival in a hostile environment. The same arguement can be made for male disposibilty and self sacrifice, at least through the evopsychological lens.

          That much is more or less common knowledge in the MRM, yet we have no debates or disagreements about expressing it.

          With all respect to Alfred E. and Kimski, I think these conversations need to happen. It is the only way we can sort this stuff out, and we cannot wait for a particular sex to do it.

          It is a critical area, where feelings run high and opinions can get heated. I trust that it will come to a good finish though, and that I attribute to level headed people of both sexes.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Many-if not most- men are in jail for simply having mental problems.

        You are much more likely to encounter a mentally unbalanced woman roaming freely than a male.

        A male with rather mild mental problems can be jailed for some small infraction, then end up with an extended stay because he can’t “comply” with penal regulations.

        There is no mercy for a “troubled young man”.

        There is nothing but leniency for “troubled young women”.

        • Bewildered

          ” You are much more likely to encounter a mentally unbalanced woman roaming freely than a male. ”

          They are feminism’s staunchest supporters and the reason why it’s not dead as yet.
          Society is paying for its own stupidity,the great tragedy is that as usual it’s the innocent who suffer.

      • ghebert

        I think both men and women have the ability to be amoral, manipulative, etc. There’s no question that men can be masters of manipulation or deceive for their own self-interest. I believe that what it comes down to is that we live in a society that not only enables, but encourages women to be like this. This is why we have shorter jail sentences for women if they even get jail time at all and why a group of women can have a laugh-fest on daytime TV about a man getting his dick cut off and still have their jobs at the end of the day.

        I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the majority of women are like this.

        We all have a hand in how women are products of the environment they are brought up in, from the mother teaching her daughter to be “independant and strong” one minute while making daddy pay for dinner the next to the boyfriend or husband who just shrugs, bows his head and whimpers “okay” while his wife proceeds to walk all over him because she’s been taught her whole life by seeing how people around her behave. If no one ever bothers to teach young girls that this is wrong, is it any wonder that they turn out the way they do?

    • The Watcher

      I think we are dealing with something deeply rooted, possibly biological. Historically, men compete with one another for the privilege of mating, as well as for power and dominance, which lead to the former. Males gain comparatively little in terms of their own genetic survival by forming a united front. Those in positions to dominate other males all too frequently capitalize on the opportunity, often ruthlessly. Consider, for example, the historical practice of keeping eunuchs as servants or slaves. This provided male labor, without the worry of sexual competition. When one considers such reprehensible practices in one’s worldview, the whole notion of a patriarchy comes flying apart like a house of cards in a hurricane.

      If anything, history teaches us that societies are ruled by elites, usually self selected groups with extraordinary privileges, composed of both men and women. Those who aren’t members of that elite are disposable to a great extent, but males in particular. They are often seen as a threat, as potential rivals for “our women.” It is not accidental that members of any designated underclass are often portrayed as oversexed, lascivious, and carnal. (Note how this has been extended to males in general as we are more and more seen as the underclass.)

      In the modern western world, the elites have managed, to a remarkable extent, to place themselves above the law. One law for the rich, another for everyone else. Therefore, they have no worries about passing draconian laws that criminalize the very act of being male. If nothing else, it enlarges the population of the prison labor force, a very profitable business indeed.

      • Alfred E

        Now there’s an interesting idea, that present day men are actually eunuchs who have been castrated by a two tiered system of laws and customs. You know, in some animal populations the alpha male is fertile but all other males are infertile. Interesting eh?

        • Alphabeta Supe

          Very interesting indeed. So we’re all being played.

  • operationoptout

    “However, this empathic ability seems notably absent in a major subset of western women.”

    Nailed it JTO, most western women have zero empathy. When they are not busy taking advantage of or hating men they turn there aggression towards each other.
    On the occasion that they do rally to another’s defense it is never about the person they are helping. They are simply feeding there own narcissism while they assist in destroying another persons life. The moment they perceive other women as having more, looking better or gaining attention they turn on a dime. They covet, they deceive and they gain at the expense of others. This can only be described as hate.
    Nothing inspirational happens in the presents of hate. Hate never changes the world for the betterment of mankind. If it did every man, woman and child would have feminist tattooed on there forehead. If you want to experience blind hatred ask a women this,

    “Name one obligation that women have towards men?” Jean Valjean

    After you ask, RUN!!!

    • Kimski

      The fact that you even have to suggest running, in fear of physical retaliation just for ASKING that question, really says it all.

    • Booyah

      “Nailed it JTO, most western women have zero empathy. When they are not busy taking advantage of or hating men they turn there aggression towards each other.”

      I know im the new kid on the block here but when you read that it says how right MGTOW really is. Were sick of being attacked, let em kill each other and walk away with a clean conscience

  • Bombay

    I think there is an element that is learned. One day my daughter came home from college telling that women can multitask better than men and feeling delighted about it. You know the line. She learned this in class.

    I told her to think about it and asked if she ever knew a woman you could out multitask me. She said no. I told her that abilities are person and not gender specific. I would also quickly correct her direction if she got caught up in other feminist type thinking/actions. The combination of being told feminist lies and no fathers/men to give them a reality check is not a good mix on young minds.

    • Kimski

      The multitasking claim, along with the statement that women are more intelligent than men, have been debunked years ago, but none the less you keep hearing it time and again. A lot of the baiting from feminism is based on telling young girls that they are superior to men in one way or another, and like the rape numbers most frequently used, it amount to boosted information or just plain lies under closer inspection.

      The statement about women being more intelligent, as an example, were based on the examination of 9 different brains, which is equivalent to claiming that all players in the entire american football league are vegetarians, because one or two of them are.

      The enlistment of young girls into the feminist movement resembles the way the nazi party got young boys to join the Hitler Jugend. You just start out with telling feebleminded that they are superior to the ones they envy, and you got the ball rolling. Basically tell them what they want to hear, even if it takes lying to get there.

    • justicer

      I hold to the view that there are cognitive advantages that can be called sex-based.
      I rather doubt, however, that multitasking is one of them.
      Also, the sex-based advantages cancel each other out.
      Tell your daughter to keep a wary watch over what she is being taught, but that effort is required to succeed.

    • Booyah

      I have noticed with my 3 yo daughter if she is left with me a few days she goes from shrieky, whiney and demanding to quieter more proactive and happier. She goes back to mum and back comes shrieky, whiney and demanding. I think fathers missing from young girls lives is a huge tragedy and one that men dont face as much since its nearly always mothers that have custody of a child. I have very strong negative feelings in this area about this as do most of you but me carrying on like a 3 yo girl or having a sweary tantrum isnt going to help anything here. lol

      In a way I think feminism and the matriarchal nature of family court is doing women a grave dis service in this dept. Young girls need good male role models. Heck all kids need a healthy relationship demonstrated in front of them. Of course this is now so sadly not the case but I think in some ways the loss of fathers is worse for girls than boys. A girl grows up loving a father like a boy does a mother. It teaches us how to love the opposite gender. Just a theory. Just hashing out ideas really in a discussion. I was lucky enough to have my unhappy parents stay together till I was an adolescent.

  • Perseus

    An utter triumph JtO, top to bottom. I having been struggling to properly address the pathological lack of empathy exhibited by modern females, and once again, you have appeared as a knight in shining armor ;) This is a profound work.

  • justicer

    In many Western jurisdictions, there is now an entire generation of women who have been educated in a male-hostile, pro-female culture. Self-gratification is a key to that.
    There have to be visible consequences, right?
    About 5 years ago, I noticed a change in drivers’ behavior. Driving in 3 different jurisdictions, widely apart, I began to notice a difference. The females were the vast majority of the dangerous drivers.
    At a rate of perhaps 80%, I was being cut off by female drivers, who vastly exceeded the speed limits and who invariably tailgated, displayed impatience and road-rage, and engaged in reckless behavior.
    It’s possible to draw conclusions from epirical evidence; if you are abused by 2000 drivers in a year and can identify 80% of the abusers as female, you can call yourself a researcher.
    Then, my lawyer piped up: “The vast majority of convicted traffic offenders are now female,” he said. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
    What’s even more interesting are the ages: although most offenders are 19-35, a large pool of them are older.
    Now, there isn’t a jurisdiction I’m aware of that actually records the gender breakdown, so it’s suppressed. But my lawyer has confirmed it.
    So the rocketing bimbo is now an extension of Empowered Femalehood. She is free to ‘express herself’ by speeding and by offending. She can harass you by tailgating. She faces no consequences, because she’s sitting in a locked vehicle behind you. She thinks she can escape any confrontation by just zipping on out.

    The above allows me to believe that most females are, in fact, oblivious to the consequences of their own desires, and amoral on many levels (not all).

    It’s also true that cars, roads, and driving itself are all male inventions and male constructs. Can we get these bimbos off the roads?

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Do women still get discounted insurance because they are “safer drivers” if they are not?

      Do women get “dinged” for higher health insurance since they use it so much more?

      Sounds like grounds for a law suit.

      • justicer

        great questions, Cotton!!
        obviously, male actuarial practice may be stymied here — by the consumerist pressure tactics which women are so good at. So, in other words, if a company hiked fees for females, they might be driven out of business.
        I don’t have the keys to open that statistical door– yet. Will keep trying.
        By the way, one thing I forgot to mention in my post above. There were children in many of those cars being driven by Rocketing Bimbos.

  • AntZ

    I was reluctant to respond to this story because of my deep respect and admiration for John the Other.

    However, there is one way in which I think this kind of thinking weakens the MRM. With all respect towards a man who has done 100X more to advance the MRM than I ever will, this is what I think:

    >>> Talking about women at all is a mistake <<<

    Are women the problem?
    Is something wrong with women?
    Is "NAWALT" 99% or 1%?
    Why do women act as they do?
    Why do they think as they do?

    All these questions have one thing in common: they place the spotlight on the problems that women have, and neglect the problems that men have. Even when men are "allowed" to have a problem, it is through the pink lense of female reality.

    In my opinion, this kind of thinking weakens the MRM.

    When we talk about women AT ALL, women's actions become the problem of men. This is an extension of social and legal obligations that men already have towards women.

    Not only am I, as a man, legally required to endure, fix, pay for, and clean up after the decisions of women — now I should think about WHY they do what they do?

    With all respect, I don't give a rat's ass why women are what they are, do what they do, or think what they think. The world I fight for is a world where men have NO obligations towards women.

    Women's lives should be determined by women's actions.
    Men's lives should be determined by men's actions.

    Women already have ZERO obligations towards men — I fight for a world where men have, also, ZERO obligations towards women.

    My guess is, women's appalling indifference to the consequences of their actions (to themselves or others) has something to do with the fact that men are always ready to clean up after women's mess. To give any thought at all to "why" they act as they do, or what percentage of them act as they do, or how many exceptions there are to these trends, is to reinforce our male "utility" role.

    Men are already legally required to devote too much time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears to solving women's problems. The last thing in the world that I want to do is to voluntarily devote even one thought to the same thing.

    With all respect, and with my thanks and admiration for a life lived fighting the good fight: my opinion is, cut them loose, and as they drift off to sea, never question why they did what they did.

    • justicer

      That’s an interesting perspective, Ant, but I can’t agree.
      The entire field of psychological investigation, when it comes to women, used to be a male preserve. Women then joined it, which was good, and some of their objections to that science were interesting too.
      However, with the advent of misandry, talking about or studying female psychology became a genderized activity, taboo, and closed off to men, who are accused of male-chauvinism for even wondering about it.
      Also, gender-feminism’s most cherised myth is that females are a secret sect whose reasoning cannot be deconstructed by us men, so we’re just to shut up and accept whatever superstition and self-serving gloss they promote.
      Bullshit. Let the discourse continue.

    • keyster

      Yes, it’s important to know what drives the innate psyche. The subjective criticism and deconstruction of the female mind is something that’s been done on only a very limited basis. It’s considered taboo.

      The only people bold and daring enough to tackle it are MRA’s. I’d wait for the Sociology Dept at an accredited Hall of Academe, but well, you know how that is.

    • BeijaFlor

      Respectfully submit, Antz, that our greater understanding of women’s psychopathology need not be for their benefit. Au contraire!

      Understanding women’s amorality as part of the foundation of The Feminist Mistaque, we can cut loose of them and let them adrift with a clear heart.

      I think this quote from Robert A. Heinlein’s Time Enough For Love would fit my perspective:

      Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate – and quickly.

      Women are not “villains” in their own eyes. But too many of them, especially the vocal ones or those in power, are so insistent of “the villainy of men” that I see no way to make them our friends. Rather than violence, though, I figure that our best answer is to sail away from their hostile shores.

    • Booyah

      I so agree with you. Look at the mistakes femisism has made through hate mongering. Even implying they should be pulled off the road (although im sure justicer would have meant the offending category) but the lack of clarification will make it dicey. We need to make this about what men need and deserve not to speculate about women. Look how good a job the feminists did trying to reverse engineer us. Not inspiring results.
      They want to take us down theyre bigger meaner nastier and have the power and theyre primary weapon which is also a fallacy is we are “psychologically disturbed angry white men.” Don’t play into their hands..

  • TDOM

    It’s an interesting thought JtO, but I’m not sure I can agree. It’s worth exploring though. I think that women in general have a moral compass and the ability to feel empathy and compassion. One of their strengths is being nurturing. This particular ability, I think, comes naturally to most women whereas most men must learn it.

    Both men and women have their strengths and their weaknesses. Sometimes these differences are the same, sometimes they are different. In general I think men and women tend to be complimentary by nature. But I also think that both men and women tend to be animalistic and destructive. Culture and its traditions and rules have developed around controlling this animalistic and destructive behavior in both men and women. This is guided by the moral compass of which you speak, but it is possessed by both men and women. I believe that biology necessitates that it is different in men than it is in women.

    What feminists refer to as “patriarchy” is the cultural compromise that has been worked out between men and women througout the ages. This compromise has placed limits and values on particular behaviors performed by each sex and led to the develpment of sex roles as well as gender roles (there is a difference). Technology that began to emerge in the 19th century led to a breaking down of the gender roles, but not the sex roles. Feminism arose as a result.

    This female centric ideology began stripping away the cultural limitations on female behavior which has resulted in more animalistic and destructive behavior in the women who follow the ideology. This result has been the erosion of society and culture. To resolve the cognitive dissonance this created, feminists had to blame men and masculinity. This was apparent in the earliest forms of feminism as even the early feminists declared women to be morally superior (a major justification of suffrage). By elevating themselves to being morally superior, feminists can justify a lack of compassion and empathy towards men. No more dissonance.

    This has allowed the feminist woman to act outside the previously established cultural boundaries behaving in ways that would otherwise be deemed pathological. As a result, men, who have largely continued to act within those boundaries, have become lost and confused. Few wish to give up the limits placed on their behavior by the previously existing social boundaries. They have tried to adapt. Those who hold onto traditional values are the ones we call white knights. Others who have adapted those traditional values to support the feminist we call manginas (male feminists). Others have attempted to redefine manhood and masculinity in various ways with or without women, but still cling to many traditional values. Feminists add to the confusion by calling for and then demonizing all of the above.

    Technology tipped the power between men and women into the favor of women by freeing them from their gender roles and feminism has taken advantage to institutionalize their gains and tip the scales even further. The men’s movement is the beginning of the push to return to an equilibrium. This equilibrium will undoubtedly be in a different place than before, but it can be reached as long as we don’t attempt to paint men as morally superior to women. Doing that makes us no better than the feminists.


    • justicer

      Very interesting post, TDOM.
      Although I can’t agree with your general analysis, I find the theory very strong.
      Just a couple of objections.
      - I agree that women are able to empathize; and, that men tend to ‘learn’ that.
      BUT, you may be talking about the way the two sexes VEBALIZE this vital human cognitive function, not the way nature endows us with it.
      If that’s the case, then all we’re talking about here is socialization. Whereas, I believe JTO is talking about primal mental processes and deep-going biological differences.
      - you seem to be labelling “nurture” as a form of “morality.” I do not see how you can do that. I see morality as an entirely constructed thing, socially and historically constructed; you could never make that claim for “nurturing.” As JTO has said, women nurture by instinct; but then, so do men.

      • TDOM

        “I agree that women are able to empathize; and, that men tend to ‘learn’ that. BUT, you may be talking about the way the two sexes VEBALIZE this vital human cognitive function, not the way nature endows us with it.
        If that’s the case, then all we’re talking about here is socialization.”

        I don’t necessarily disagree with your statement here. From my perspective I view the “nature vs. nurture” argument as nurture acting upon nature. Almost all human behavior can be changed through socialization, but socialization cannot completely eradicate nature. In other words, as human beings we are born with a range of possible behaviors and certain tendencies towards those behaviors. Social interaction can contain or enhance those tendencies. It can be quite difficult, if not impossible to determine what is nature and what is nurture. But throughout nature, the female is typically the sex that nurtures the young in those species that parent their children. I think this is strong evidence that the capacity for empathy and compassion being innate in the human female. I also think that it is innate in the human male, but somewhat different and to a different degree and it takes more socialization for the human male to learn this behavior than for the female. But this is not to say that the female doesn’t also learn this as well.

        “you seem to be labelling “nurture” as a form of “morality.” I do not see how you can do that. I see morality as an entirely constructed thing, socially and historically constructed; you could never make that claim for “nurturing.” ”

        I agree that morality is a construct. But nearly every culture considers nurturing behavior to be moral under most circumstances.


        • justicer

          Interesting, TDOM.
          I see two forms of empathy. One is deeply embedded in the brain, developed in early childhood years, in both females and males. The other is more constructed and is subject to environment. Psychologically, girls develop at an earlier age than boys. Our culture teaches empathy to girls and models it for them. Our culture teaches a different kind of empathy to boys. Et vive la différence!
          I suspect it would be difficult to show that there is a superior inheritance for biological empathy in women, simply because the human female has nurtured children at home (therefore, is more attentive to subtle changes in mood). It would be easy to show the social need for empathy among mothering females, however. How much of that has created a biological inheritance?
          On the other hand, it’s hard to be a successful male if you are oblivious to the narratives of other males, particularly the ones you hunt with and work with. That, too, is empathy.
          But I’m ready to look at more detailed argumentation.

          • TDOM

            “I see two forms of empathy. One is deeply embedded in the brain, developed in early childhood years, in both females and males. The other is more constructed and is subject to environment.”

            I think both forms are the same, but different for boys and girls. I believe the environment influences what nature begins. But also that the female version is naturally more geared towards nuturing and caring for the young than the male version. I think this also gets reinforced by culture and the environment.

            “I suspect it would be difficult to show that there is a superior inheritance for biological empathy in women…”

            This is precisely the problem with nature vs. nurture arguments. There is no real way to prove them other than to provide some evidence to support or refute them and the evidence exists on both sides. I look at it this way, men and women are biologically more similar than they are different, but those differences are quite important and have influenced sex and gender roles within society and culture which has grown around those differences and reinforced and/or punished behaviors that compliment or contradict societal and cultural norms based on those differences. Technology has largely eradicated the need for those cultural and societal norms but it hasn’t overcome the biological need for those norms because that need is inherent in our genetic makeup as a result of natural selection. Feminism has taken advantage of this by creating a society and culture that rewards women who behave contradictory to those norms while punishing men for both maintaining and breaking them.


        • justicer

          Thanks, TDOM, these are useful tools to work with.
          I used that expression deliberately — working with tools is more our inheritance, as men, than it is women’s, not that a woman can’t handle a drill if she bloody has to.
          Men need silence, distance, solitude — even in the company of other men. Women need chatter, validation, and company no matter who they are with. This is not environmental, it’s all biologically inherited. But that’s where our semi-certainties end — it’s always only a theory.
          The problem of feminism is not that there isn’t a female specificity. It’s that feminism is about hating males more than it is about validating women; and, that its theory of females is a caricature of junk science, a supremacist cherrypicking, and a public-relations fantasy.

        • Adam

          I will grant that women are generally the primary nurturers of children. However what happens as children become adolescents and then adults? Does that evolutionary and/or socialised empathy extend that far?

          If an adult man asks an adult woman to do something with only an implied expectation of compensation, the woman is (anecdotally) far less likely to perform the task than if the situation was reversed. However you could take from that example the man wants favour (sexual or otherwise) too.

        • Raven01

          “But throughout nature, the female is typically the sex that nurtures the young in those species that parent their children. I think this is strong evidence that the capacity for empathy and compassion being innate in the human female.”
          This is incorrect TDOM. There are species where the males either share offspring rearing duties or perform all or the majority of this function.
          Failure to recognise this in the animal kingdom is due to our feminist/chivalrist cultural filters.
          This was even relatively common within our own species when the world was a more dangerous place. Mothers were lost in childbirth and accidents, and fathers took on both duties. I would hazard to say they did a better job of taking on both roles than women in similar circumstances losing a male mate, unless she replaced the lost mate and the new mate accepted her already existing offspring.
          We see the same talking up of women’s superior ability to “multi-task”, what is left unsaid usually is that even an excellent multi-tasker only performs functions at a mediocre level not many tasks at a superior level. When the truth is unpopular it is often ignored.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Finally, someone I can agree with.

      I know too many moral women and too many amoral men to accept this as truth.

      While men and women may both possess strong morals, Moral Men made The Rules because they had the physical strength to enforce those rules.

      Men of lesser morals complied because it benefitted them. Men of low morals are abberant criminals.

      Technology and the support of immoral benefactors has indeed caused a paradigm shift from Moral Male sensibilities and given rise to Mean Girls Rule.

      In the female world “moral” women are considered weak and foolish, while women of lesser morals or low morals rule for the same reason – it’s more beneficial to them.

      It’s hard to believe pandering elitest males (like Joe Biden) are morally superior. It’s Amoral men that have worked tirelessly to disempower Moral Males for their own selfish benefit, using women and children to bring them down.

  • keyster

    “…through a failure of socialization, are trapped at the socialized developmental level of a 4 year old child,…”

    But with sexual power over men; a power we assume they can be trusted with. Without this power, access to the almighty vajayjay and the ability to gestate our young, their standing in society would be blatantly secondary.

    They tacitly understand they have this power over men and society, but we’ve been hoodwinked into thinking they’re repressed. Nothing can move forward until this power and the abuse of it is exposed.

    It will take a Renaissance of the collective conscience of men to realize. We’re talking the breaking-down of thousands of years of conditioning. It’s deep stuff.

  • rexxthunder

    Nah, I call bullshit.

    I think the fact is, there are just as many asshole women as are there are asshole men. As men get older, I think the only women that are available are the asshole women. If you talk to women, all the “desirable” men are immoral assholes as well.

    If you are really intellectually honest here, there are a lot of women that are quite moral. Moral doesn’t just equal agree with MRAs. That’s that kind of mindset that cults use.

    This reads to me like a reverse version of the Rad-Fem blogs minus the killing talk. It’s a broad assumption not based in any fact meant to appeal to men that are simply angry and want to point fingers.

    This is the kind of writing that will only strengthen the position of proponents that want to push the “MRAs are just a bunch of angry men” angle.

    • blueface


      We’re all angry men because we can’t get a date? You read this article and that’s your conclusion?

      Some of the people on this site are women.

      Some of the people on this site are angry. Because either they or a loved one, like a son, were in jail becuase of false accusations of rape and other violence.

      Others are good fathers who, because of ideological court systems and vindictive mothers, don’t see their own children anymore. There relationship with their own children has been damaged or ruined for life.

      I know I am a good father because my eldest daughter told the lawyers and the court she was going to live with me and they could all go fuck them selves. She was fucking angry.

      I haven’t spoken to my youngest children for more than two years. This is because my ex has control of them and in my country she calls the shots.

      The truth is I am afraid to speak to them in case they, with their mothers manipulation, try again to put me in jail. That makes me angry.

      By the way I am currently married to a wife whom I love very much, so I am not complaining because I can’t get a date.

      My wife knows why I am on this site and supports it 100%. There was a time when those same kids called her “Mum”. My ex had dissappeared for more than a year and the kids turned to my wife for comfort. Now, like they say in the movies, “She’s ba-ack!”

      That shit makes my wife angry.

      Others are here because they got sick of seeing men being screwed over.

      What would be really intellectually honest is to have a long hard look at what is being written here. A lot of people leave links with their comments so that you can go to the source and find out for yourself. They might be worth a look, too.

      It’s not a question of agreeing with it all.

      I see this article, like the other articles here, as an attempt for the author to get his head around the issues.

      I’m not sure that I agree with all of his conclusions, either. But, he’s given it a lot more thought than you have. He has also spelled out his ideas in such a way that I can examine, reflect and comment.

      He also understands the subject matter far better than you. I’d say his efforts deserve a bit more respect than a cursory glance and “Bullshit”.

      BTW, those who are pushing the “MRAs are just a bunch of angry men” will do so anyway. It’s an intellectually dishonest position. What it really says is “Don’t ask why they’re angry. Who cares? They’ve got no right to be angry. Fuck ‘em.”

      If people were treating you that way, would that make you angry?

    • lensman

      OK, I green-lighted you because you seem concerned and to drive the point home that MRAs are not group-thinkers but individuals.

      I will also stand by my assessment that I agree with JTO and give you some food for thought:

      There is no way to measure the disparity of the level of assholiness between men and women. The DSM-IV-TR though does mention that a high percentage of personality disordered people, such as borderlines and narcissists are female. This doesn’t prove conclusively that women are bigger assholes but it does give us pause.

      Here’s the thing: The sense of power and entitlement, whether you are male or female, fucks you up. Royally. And the sense of power and entitlement has risen significantly for women in the past few decades due to feminism.

      Men face rejection daily whether it’s in business, family, society or romance. As a result they develop a heart. Women, one the other hand, especially today, don’t have to face rejection, at least not at the men’s level. As a result, their level of empathy is a lot lower. And, yes, this means that they are bigger assholes (i.e. less caring and more manipulative) than most men.

      Bear in mind that I am writing this from a standpoint of someone who states an alternative view that today’s decadence is a natural outcome of the modern way of western life. Countries with stricter moral values tend to have more conflict with other nations i.e. they participate in between-nation competition, therefore altruism and self-sacrifice increases, as evidenced by the Price Equation. They maintain the checks and balances that keep female hypergamy in check and oust male psychopaths/sociopaths because they can’t afford not to.

      Countries with little to low conflict on, tend to slowly but steadily lose their sense of morality, altruism and self-sacrifice. They also tend to lose the control over female hypergamy which results in, well, feminism, and power of women over men, which fucks their morals up even more and creates a vicious circle.

      Do you see the logic in this? Or am I wearing a tin-foil hat?

      • justicer

        lensman, I liked this post very much. Thanks!

      • BeijaFlor

        Your “alternative view” shows solid logic to me. And it’s a view that is too, too cognizant of the stresses on modern society – especially those that weaken, and even tear apart, a mature “empire” – level society such as we live in today.

        I believe we are born with a certain level of empathy, or rather that empathy would have to be innate to a species that lives in packs or tribes or family-groups (as we do). I believe that it can be reinforced by deliberate reinforcement, on the part of the parents and teachers – to put it simply and bluntly, by “teaching a child manners.” Or it can be allowed to subside, by “special snowflake” treatment that excuses a child’s anti-social behavior.

        We haven’t been teaching our children manners since Benjamin Spock, who persuaded the parents of the Boomers to stop doing so! (Reference: Baby And Child Care, published 1946)

    • John the Other

      “This reads to me like a reverse version of the Rad-Fem blogs minus the killing talk. It’s a broad assumption not based in any fact meant to appeal to men that are simply angry and want to point fingers.”

      Not based in any fact? – You mean of course not based in any fact besides the 21 cited sources provided in the article’s footer.

      Or maybe, because I took peer-reviewed research, science documentaries, mainstream reporting, then applied my own judgement and experience and produced a hypothesis of my own – rather than just parrot somebody else’s supplied opinion – thats what “not based in any fact” means ?

      Dude, are you just trolling?

    • scatmaster
  • RhettOrician

    “Narcissistic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, these are arguably not aberrations of normal human psychology at all, rather they are the amplification of female personality traits which afforded women a survival advantage throughout human pre-history. In a world of scarcity where humans often died of starvation, women with the attributes of innate selfishness and skill at manipulating men meant increased survival for themselves as well as their offspring.

    Unfortunately, those hard wired characteristics don’t simply go away in a modern setting where food and shelter are plentiful. Our modern culture, with it’s prevalent feminist ideology has exacerbated these characteristics in women, and our mental health professionals who’ve classified the manipulative, and selfish behavior patterns as if they are disorders and the women displaying them victims – this serves to amplify these behaviours in our culture to the point of toxic, parasitic malignancy.”

    I think this is essentially correct: female behavioral traits that were adaptive in previous evolutionary contexts are now maladaptive, and are ripping society apart.

    Well written piece.

    • justicer

      Yes, but…
      …you could simply say that females were always that way. It’s their genetic makeup based on the way their brains work in combination with hormones and physical systems. This would have nothing to do with ‘adapation’, nor would it mean we’d have to claim that men were “less selfish” than women.
      Saying that these were darwinian adaptations means having to examine an analogous species, whose females developed over the eons, look at their own forms of sex-based adaptation, and come to a conclusion based on comparisons. Not sure we’re in a position to do that.
      No, I tend to think that woman was always woman, man always man. In other words, it wasn’t the femaleness that evolved and was adapted; it was the work performed due to femaleness/ maleness.

      • RhettOrician

        An interesting view. I’m something of an ardent Darwinist, so I tend to think of all traits as evolved traits that were, at least at some point, either beneficial or at least neutral, and that those traits evolve over time. The human female traits that I tent to see as having run amok (acquisitiveness and hoarding; deception; hypergamy; narcissism) would have, I think, evolved long ago, likely before modern man.

        So in that sense, I might agree with you, those traits were probably fixed for as long as there have been women. But, at the same time, those traits did evolve sometime, and were not as radically maladaptive until recently. For that, I blame chemical birth control, as well as wars that killed off too many strong men, and left too many weak ones behind.

  • Dannyboy

    Another stellar addition to your growing library of articles.
    I have a single problem with one of your statements. It’s not that I believe you to be wrong it is that I believe you omitted something that imho logically follows. When talking about Tory / most women you wrote this:
    “It is a human being for whom their moral compass is simply absent, and for whom empathy ( for men ) is simply a strange abstract concept. ”
    (bracketed part in the above is mine)

    I believe that for the most part women express incredible amounts of empathy, but only for their own sex. We need only to look as far as the amount of protesting that goes on when women’s “issues” / feelings are broadcast via misandric institutions like N.O.W. Women are scurrying like cockroaches out of the woodwork falling all over themselves to be there and give voice to their sexes imagined or real injustices. It matters very little whether or not the issues are valid, whether issues put the male gender in a situation where they loose all hope to the point of suicide. It only matters that it is a woman / women that is the subject of the issue.
    This is why I say they are quite capable of experiencing / showing empathy just that for the most part they are only able to express it for their sex.
    To the female commentators and writers here at AVFM and other women out there reading my comment who actually understand the damage that has been happening for the better part of the last 50 years. It is your voice and comments which give men some hope about women and I thank you for it.
    Another spot on article JTO Many Thanks

    • Adam

      “I believe that for the most part women express incredible amounts of empathy, but only for their own sex.”

      Is that actually empathy or are those activist females simply seeking to increase their own power base and resources at the expense of another gender?

      I think you are right to an extent but I think my question above highlights the more fundamental factor.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        “I believe that for the most part women express incredible amounts of empathy, but only for their own sex.”

        Empathy only for their own sex IF they are in sync with the herd.

        Women who step out of line or isolate from the herd are dead meat.

        I have tried to discuss or give fair warning to other women about the injustice of our “Just Us” system, only to be viciously attacked. I have tried to point out how due process rights dating back to the magna carta have been destroyed, their own Constitutional Due Process rights shredded.”It could happen to someone YOU love”.

        Zip. Zero. Nada. Not having it.

        The comparisons to Nazi Germany and Jim Crowe are undeniable.

        As a woman, I can tell you, the last place I look for “empathy” is from another woman.

        If I hate my Daddy or want to recount my DV or rape traumas for the 1,000th time – good as gold.

        • Dannyboy

          Your ending where you mention about hating daddy or d.v. stuff illustrates what I was trying to say. If the subject is about an “injustice” against a woman they will roar and march in the streets. As soon as it involves an injustice to a man it matters not.

          OT I read about what happened to your son OHPC in one of your comments and I was severely pissed to say the least.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            My father’s mother was brutally abusive to him – he literally WAS the proverbial “Red Headed Step Child”.

            Yet he loved his mother and wouldn’t tolerate any criticism of her.

            He always said “Even a bad mother is better than no mother”. He was frequently shunted off with equally abusive relatives for most of his childhood.

            I guess it hurts less to be beaten by a mother you love.

            She didn’t attend my Dad’s funeral because she’d made other plans that day.

            My husband was raised by a man-hater. He, too, is a devoted and loving son to an incredibly abusive mother.

            His mother most certainly had a hand in helping his sister pull off a major coup. She was a secretary at Loyola Law School for 20 years, and was able to find out her daughter’s history of molesting baby boys and filing false police reports of attempted rape would be protected by rape shield laws.

            She could have saved my son by corroborating his accuser’s prior rape accusations and years of sexual abuse therapy, but she claimed she didn’t remember, then angrily said she just didn’t want to get involved.

            While he no longer speaks to his sister, my husband pretends his mother is an innocent bystander in the whole affair, and remains the devoted son.

            Not proud of it, but I’ve had to pitch a few crazy bitch wing dings to stop my husband from taking my other two kids to visit her as though nothing happened.

            I was shocked by how many men I met in the Military that truly hated women – and this was in the early ’70′s before things were so out of hand.

            “I joined the service to GET AWAY from you women!”

            I was truly shocked at the time, but I was very young. At this stage in life I’m shocked that more men don’t. My husband and sons do the “stoic man” thing and refuse to aknowledge it ever happened.

            I guess I do the hating for them.

          • Dannyboy

            While you mention you do not feel proud about ,
            “few crazy bitch wing dings to stop my husband from taking my other two kids to visit her as though nothing happened.”

            , I do not believe you should harbor any bad feelings about having done so.
            The alternative would have been to let a toxic woman have contact with your children.
            Since your “mother-in-law” was willing to sit idly by and let your son be put through the false rape accusation how could you know what else she would be capable of?
            I can only imagine the amount of suffering your family went / is still currently going through and yet it all could have been wiped away by your mother-in-law’s testimony. The fact that she sat idly by and did nothing, when she should have, when she could have, done something right speaks volumes about this woman’s character, moral and ethical compass.
            Imho your “crazy bitch wing dings” was the right thing to do. When reason and logic fail sometimes it is the last card you have to play.

            From a layman’s pov it appears your husband is suffering from Stockholm syndrome. I believe you will find that most men with abusive mother’s suffer from it. Speaking from personal experience I guess I am somewhat lucky in that I just didn’t and won’t put up with my own mother’s bullshit. I do love her but I will not let a lot of things slide when dealing with her.
            Yes it has lead to some brutal screaming matches and sometimes I feel somewhat guilty about it, but my guilt is not from my stand rather it is from how I said certain things.
            I can only express my disgust about the rest of your comment and the experiences you and your family has gone through.
            I believe AndyBob said it best much respect to you.

        • Kimski

          “Empathy only for their own sex IF they are in sync with the herd.
          Women who step out of line or isolate from the herd are dead meat.”

          Exactly the same behavioral pattern as seen in a bunch of grade school girls, and a lot of women never mature beyond that stage.

          The movie ‘Carrie’ which was written by Stephen King is a perfect example of that herd mentality, and is somewhat build on his own experiences from working as an english teacher in a college.

        • justicer

          Amazing testimony, OHPC. Reading your posts is exhilarating, to the extent that evil can be a thrill to read about.
          Passivity and anomie are the main male diseases, despite the macho stereotypes and current propaganda. My exposure was to female pschological abuse and extreme male passivity.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            My husband’s passivitity nearly did our marriage in.

            He pretty much drank his way through it. It was like living with a dead body that’s still breathing. He was just…gone.

            His passivity is also what saved my son from prison. The victim/therapists HATED me. I was “uncooperative”. Absolutely HATED me and let my son know he was being targeted harshly because of my unwillingness to cooperate with them. They wanted him to hate me, they wanted us to hate him. They seemed especially angry we were an intact family. EVERYbody MUST be divorced in their world.

            They LOVED my husband, however. As the son of an evil bitch from hell…I mean a “strong women”, ahem…he knew exactly how to navigate their treachery.

            “Yes, Your’e right.” ” Yes. My son is a criminal, yes I believe he did it, yes, you are soooo wonderful to be helping him. Yes he needs to be more cooperative.”

            My eyes would be bugged out of my head with anger, but through that anger I could see he knew exactly what he was dealing with. My son would definately still be in prison to this day if not for my husband’s passivitity.

            It was a horrible, bitter pill to swallow – “the wrong thing is the right thing to do” ” lies are truth, truth is a lie” is not something I deal with gracefully.

            His passivitity toward his family’s evil doings, his “sleeping with the enemy” were pretty much more than I could bear. A very decent, kindly man I met through a VOCAL hotline (Victims Of Child Abuse Laws) advised me to swallow it down, keep my anger toward my husband hidden our son, and don’t even think of divorce – your son will ALWAYS blame himself for it.

            I’ve lost touch with the guy, but I forever thank him for that advice.

            I never interferred with my husband’s relationship with his family in all these years. His mother calls frequently, I just leave the room. It used to make me fantastically bitter and angry until my son asked me to let it go.

            “If I can bear it, you can too”.

      • Dannyboy

        I think that depends on the feminist / woman.
        feminists come in many different varieties, from the Pamela O’Shaughnessy hyenas to the average woman marching in a take back the night demonstration.
        Also the studies that have been mentioned on AVfM about mothers disciplining their daughters less harshly than their sons as well seems to agree with what I am theorizing.

        While the rads are extreme in their thinking and about who they will have empathy for the garden variety feminist doesn’t appear to make that distinction. I agree the hyena is there to increase the power base.
        That being said thankfully the hyenas of the rad type appear to be fewer than the garden variety.
        Sure some of the hyenas are in the marches but the majority, I believe, are of the moderate type.
        I most likely should have carried the thought on a little further as I have above.

  • justicer

    Just wanted to add one more word, to Lensman.
    Lensman, sorry for some of the assumptions in earlier posts, which did not take into account the theory you posted. I have just read your earlier post, where you outline the business of in-group and inter-group competition. Thanks for that, it’s very interesting.
    This model is similar to a family doing vicious quarrelling, then pulling together when another family attacks it. I can see that.
    I probably would have difficulty buying the whole theory; first, I’d need a careful definition of “ethics” and “morality” and even “power.” Second, I can’t relate to the notion, that all power tends to corrupt morals and that the powerful cannot be empathetic.
    True, people in power cannot afford to emote gratuitously. True, people in power need to take hard and unpopular decisions. However, a successful powerholder is doomed if he or she cannot be empathetic, using the approprate means and vocabulary. In fact, I take from history that leaders lead by using empathy together with authority.

    Third, I’m not sure I’d describe women as “powerful” in any current society.
    I think, rather, that feminism, an ideology, is in favor with those who hold power. It has been put in charge of the protocols, and the armies and police forces, by virtue of a pandering media; herdthinking artists; craven politicians; the public-relations industry; and corrupt academics.
    It is kept in place by several dozens of millions of silent men. Silence is the issue– the power of feminism is a mediated reality, not a material one.
    So what feminists have is a very tenuous power, if very real. That accounts for how desperately amoral many women’s use of power becomes. Screaming for the cops is a desperate tactic when you have no legitimate reason to do so.
    Nonetheless, you’ve given us a terrific paradigm to consider, and many thanks.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Feminism is a house of cards buildt on sand.

      Like the “housing bubble” one day it will pop and those who didn’t buy into it will be the ones still standing.

      • Kimski

        And those who did will end up as old spinsters with noone to keep them company, but a dildo and a cat.
        And we all know that dildo’s dont do the dishes. :)

        • justicer

          True, but my cat has been trained to clean the dishes with her tongue.

  • Denis

    Interesting read but statistical averages aren’t very relevant to individuals as the variation in individuas is greater than the difference between statistical averages.

    Also, the comparison is qualitative rather than quantitative so the difference is up to individual perception.

  • Skeptic

    I have this image in my head -

    women for aeons living close together in bands of ‘nesting’ centers.
    Therefore being intensely together yet separate from men most of the time as men were more peripheral to the ‘nests’ being away hunting much of the time.
    In such conditions over many millennia women living cheek by jowl evolving to empathize with each other much more than with men.
    In a harsh world, where men went out to face considerable natural dangers women would need to be prepared to accept the loss of men to such dangers.
    This model seems to play out in women more readily bonding with one another yet lacking the wider political ‘compass’. Also of the vast majority of women having a propensity to treat men as disposable – hence modern day feminism.

    Men conversely, being the hunters and away from the ‘nest’ and out in the riskier wider world evolving the ability to think politically and economically on a much wider scale than women.

    Your thoughts?

    • andybob

      Very interesting Mr Skeptic. Can you imagine what a viper’s nest that would have been? The rivalry, envy, simmering resentments, vicious feuds and endless squabbling over the best rocks to sit on would have made Mr Ugg and his mates hang out with the sabre-tooths much longer than necessary.

      Turn your model upside down. Perhaps it was the compass which determined the conditions. Men went out to hunt and fight because Ms Ugg shamed and manipulated him into doing it. She sat around all day polishing rocks because she was lazy and lacked the empathy to care whether he came back alive anyway. The Uggettes may not have had welfare as we know it, but they probably pissed and moaned until the Uggs had some kind of safety net in place.

      • Kimski

        I agree.
        Actually, I can almost hear Ms. Ugg nagging down through the ages: ‘Now she’s got a cheetah skin and I’m still wearing this old buffalo rag. Get the fuck out of the cage and fetch me a cheetah skin, if you value me at all!’

        Mr.Ugg sighs: ‘-Yes, dear..’
        -And have continued to do so ever since..

      • Just1X

        Hey now, a man knows where he is with a sabre tooth…

    • BeijaFlor

      This is even funnier, to me, after an exchange I had on yesterday, regarding an article about MGTOW …

      “Spacetraveller,” the blogger, wondered if GTOW was a new sort of “initiation” for men, like the initiation-training that young men get in primitive societies. She finished up asking if “the men will return to the village…”

      A lot of us, men, MGTOW, put in a lot of commentary to disabuse her of that notion. In summary: MGTOW is not “initiation,” it is LIBERATION, and we won’t be coming back …

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        OK. That was…fun. Feeling much better now.

        Edit profile

        Edit Anonymous said… “Welcome back to the fold”? Are you KIDDING me? Obviously you have never seen the stacks of divorce papers awaiting returning soldiers. You have never seen the look on a man’s face when he finds out his wife is pregnant by another man during his absence. You’ve never seen the reaction to a Dear John letter by a man in a war zone.

        You obviously don’t remember VietNam veteran’s returning to be told how “oppressive” they are and how “unfair” to women their VA benefits are.

        Ever notice how many homeless “heroes” are panhandling on street corners? How many suicides have taken the lives of said “heroes”?

        Is Hillary Clinton a man all of a sudden? Women have NEVER cheered for war, or shamed able bodied men for not participating? It’s all just elder men’s doing?

        Remember the “Crazed Viet Nam veteran phase? Ever watch Nasty Grace tearfully feature a fallen serviceman just after bitterly dismissing PTSD for a “monster” who acted out? Or her bitter, bitter tirade against the Constitution to her adoring female fans right before she switches over to her Dead Hero monologue? That same dead soldier who took an oath to defend the Constitution she’s pissng on?

        -Not a “nice girl”, just an angry mother

        January 13, 2012 10:36 AM

  • andybob

    It is difficult swallow, isn’t it? The bitter core of the red pill. I reached much the same conclusion that Mr JTO does several years ago. I simply couldn’t understand why so many women that I knew never seemed to have any empathy for men, Yet so many men would willingly sacrifice their lives for women. Why?

    Why did women swallow so many obvious lies about men? Why did they never object to man-bashing on behalf of the men in their lives? Why did they revel in being disloyal to them and splutter in disbelief when I pointed it out to them? They would have been furious, and hurt hearing their brothers and fathers openly spouting misogyny. How could they be so oblivious to the blatant hypocricy of their mindsets?

    Women don’t have the moral compasses required to ask such questions. It makes them incapable of empathy and embracing adult responsibility and its consequences. Suggesting that women are innately borderline is likely to offend many. I knew Mr JtO would raise hackles with this position. I urge him to stick to his guns and let the idea sink in for a while. It explains a lot.

    Developmental dystrophy explains why feminists still cite the Rule of Thumb Hoax long after it has been debunked. It is the reason they side with evil sisters-in-laws against their own brothers in high-conflict divorces. It is the reason you cannot mention any issue that affllicts men without them instantly chiming in to declare that women suffer just as badly. It is the reason Tory Shepherd can refer to some of these issues and then instantly ignore them in favour of dismissing MRA’s as angry white men.

    Women have no real empathy for other people. Of course there are exceptions. There always are. But the likes of Ms GWW, Ms Cotton, Dr Palmatier, our Izzey and about 2 women I have met during the course of my life aren’t enough to debunk this claim.

    Some question the strategic sense in making this claim at all. It might make Ms Shepherd think we are being critical of women. Oh dear – let’s all log out and give up. I have no interest in persuading her or any of her ilk to come on board. We have a responsibility to warn men to be wary of women. Their ignorance of the core selfishness of women is what makes them so vulnerable.

    Young men need to know that in the likely event of a divorce, no woman is going to care sbout the suffering she will inflict on him. She will kidnap their children to extract maximum leverage. You all know the rest. Even the women in his family will side with his ex. I have witnessed this in my own circle many times (it is happening to three of my friends right now).


    Why are the women in their own families indifferent to their pain? It is because women just don’t care about men. Feminists know it and have used it to augment their power. You will never get to the core our misandrist society unless you understand this essental point. Mr JTO has laid out the ugly truth before our eyes and no amount of wishful thinking can change it.

    The only concern women have for men is how our welfare impacts upon them. They come out in droves to support random women (like blue bra girl in Cairo), but only to promote their own agendas and safeguard their own interests. Men only amount to an afterthought like when the protesters promised that their brothers would avenge them with their blood. Thanks sis.

    Adults have moral compasses. Women who blame some mythical patriarchy for their bad decisions do not. They are high-functioning children with the moral development of four year-olds – moral chimps. For every Ms GWW who actually is a grown-up, there are a thousand Tory Shepherds – an educated, well-travelled woman who just doesn’t understand why she should have to care about men’s suffering – and never, ever will.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Could the opposite of a “mangina” be a “fenis”?

      Not enough of us to formally name, I guess.

      • andybob

        Ms Cotton,

        “Fenis” is much too polite. How about “Fock”?

        (Your posts are always very enlightening. Reading about your son’s tragic experience is gruelling enough. Living it must have been a nightmare. Much respect to your for going in to bat for him – and all of us).

        • justicer

          Well, the Originating Feminists called them Male-defined Females. Since many of our ethical systems are male-based, let’s just call them moral women.
          Cotton, your posts never cease to delight. Particularly this:
          “Empathy only for their own sex IF they are in sync with the herd. Women who step out of line or isolate from the herd are dead meat.”
          - I believe herd-thinking is the key to what all women do, and that explains their penchant for State dependency and collectivism of the worst kinds.
          - On the other hand, history offers examples of independent and herd-resistent females. Working with, and competing with, males, not females.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I always read (mostly female) authors say how “cathartic” it is to write about a bad experience. I have come to the conclusion that it’s only “cathartic” if there is a book to be sold, a TV special to shill, or if I’m running for public office and need the attention.

          Some nightmares you can’t wake up from. It’s a harsh reality to know with certainty that sometimes there is no such thing as “justice” or happy endings.

          Kind of kills off the Princess…

    • Stu

      Agree 100% Andy. There may be about 10% of women that are not like that, and I’m being generous. I figure without the cultural and legal incentives to “be like that”, there might be maybe 30% that “are not like that”.

      The rest, well they will only not “be like that” if there are negative consequences. And there are, they just can’t see them because they aren’t on their doorstep yet.

      As more men avoid marriage, they make laws to make co-habitation into marriage…..when men avoid that….they make laws to make a long-term relationship into marriage…..when they avoid that…..they will make laws to make a casual relationship into marriage. And finally when men avoid women altogether……they will make laws to make all men married to all women. Never does it cross their minds that the reason men are avoiding… because it’s a shit deal……their answer to the problem is to make it a more shit deal. The whole reason is because men’s feelings, men’s rights, men’s health, men’s anything…..does not matter to them……period.

      The majority of women will only change course when they know that hurting men will hurt them. They will resort to any means of continuing to extract from men what they want……without any thought of men’s suffering……only when they know that their efforts will result in suffering to them will they stop.

      That is just what the vast majority of them are like. Whether they are innately like that, or they have been molded like that by a culture that encourages misandry is irrelevant at this point……they are like that…..and that’s all that matters.

      • Skeptic

        I partly agree with you.
        The fact that some MRAs are female tells us that NAWALT. Therefore to overgeneralize risks alienating potential female allies.

        However, as to men’s avoidance of women due to pervasive feminism, I don’t think it will be possible to force all men to marry women. For one, not all women by a long stretch would want it.
        As to men allowing themselves to be forced legally to marry women, that’s too much of a Rubicon even for blue pill addicts many who identify as libertarians valuing personal freedom.
        So I don’t see it becoming illegal to become MGTOW any time soon.
        Whats more it’s a part of feminism’s Achilles heel I reckon.
        For women can’t so easily exploit men who in effect go on marriage/relationship/fertility strike – a reason I’m such a strong advocate of the male non hormonal birth control pill BTW.
        As it is already a lot of women are bitching and moaning “Where are all the ‘good’ provider men?” and we’re only just getting started on striking.
        In the west we’ve a fair way to go to catch up with the millions of grass-eater men in Japan who are leading the way as MGTOW using a form of Zen by en masse opting out of traditional in harness masculine hetero risk taking provider roles, but momentum is gradually building.
        As an aside I visited Japan recently and was flabberghasted at how hyper-sexualised a lot of Japanese female street fashion was.
        Now I make some sense of that as I see it’s because with so many Japanese men opting out by becoming ‘grass eaters’ many women there are desperate to hook a man.

        You say – “The majority of women will only change course when they know that hurting men will hurt them. They will resort to any means of continuing to extract from men what they want……without any thought of men’s suffering……only when they know that their efforts will result in suffering to them will they stop”

        Yes, I agree.
        I think removing legal incentives for women to exploit men will hurt women.
        Laws won’t be changed any time soon though despite the considerable pressure from MRA – too many folks have a vested interest in the status quo.
        However MGTOW is legal and immediately hurts women. Then as is often the case it will be a case of politics and the law having to gradually catch up with changing social mores – in this case men’s.

        You finish by saying -
        “That is just what the vast majority of them are like. Whether they are innately like that, or they have been molded like that by a culture that encourages misandry is irrelevant at this point……they are like that…..and that’s all that matters”.

        I don’t entirely agree with this.
        I agree the vast majority of women are sexually exploitative and misandric.
        However, I think that it’s very important that the female psyche be continually analyzed – because as we discover what motivates female behavior we can devise ways to incentivize women away from misandry and towards supporting Men’s Rights. So to me JTO’s drive to analyze women is very welcome.

        With these thoughts in mind I encourage JTO to take take a slightly more nuanced approach in lionizing more the few very brave publicly visible female MRAs.
        I think by doing so he’d provide some incentive to wavering women as the message to women who visit aVFM then becomes “Hey be like GWW, Dr T, 100% Cotton and Izzy and you won’t suffer being alienated by increasing numbers of men. In fact you’ll be valued and move from alienation into being connected to a community”.
        That way he’d be using a nice balance of carrot and stick.

      • Booyah

        For 50 years weve been the oppressers remember? How are they going to turn around and say we HAVE to marry? All you men are rapists and rape supporters but you have to marry this woman? Surely even feminism can’t pull that off.
        Or am I underestimating the hidden facists again?

    • mongo

      “It is the reason you cannot mention any issue that affllicts men without them instantly chiming in to declare that women suffer just as badly.”

      The feminine aversion to any mention of men’s issues is too immediate and too universal to be a conscious response – it is more like an instinctive reflex.

      It’s more like a dog’s reaction should you try and take a steak out of its mouth (no matter how gorged the dog may be, no matter how hungry you are and no matter that you may have fed it every day of its life).

  • Just1X

    phoque is french for seal…cue the t-shirts

    maybe available in 100% cotton?

    • justicer

      Tiens mon beau Justix, tu ne les aimes plus les bébés phoques?

      • Just1X

        ouai les jeunes phoques sont tres chouette.

    • BeijaFlor

      Can’t keep up with justicer in French.

      I’d be too likely to “phoque up”.

      • Kimski

        He is just asking the good Just1X, if he doesn’t love baby seals a lot.

        Mais certainement, mon ami, mais je tiens beaucoup à mes VRAIS amis, qui sont avec moi dans les bons et les mauvais jours.

        • justicer

          Qui on n’a pas d’amis chez les phoques n’a pas compris les phoques, surtout les bébés.

          • Kimski


        • BeijaFlor

          Ce n’est pas que je ne le comprend pas, seulement que je n’ai parlé la langue française depuis que je l’ai étudié, pendant de les années 1965-1970, en une lycée en les Etats-Unis. Et depuis cela, parlant de l’espagnol y le portugais … j’ai presque oublié tout!

          • justicer

            n’empêche que t’es pas mal, Beija, tu te débrouilles!

          • Kimski

            Man, I’ve always wanted to learn spanish.

          • BeijaFlor

            Kimski, I do believe that the French lessons – and yes, in an American high school, where the language courses were abysmal – helped me learn Spanish and Portuguese.

            And I have problems there, too – I tend to mix the two languages. I get along very well in Uruguay and Paraguay – in fact, an erstwhile colleague of mine, Profesór Centurion of the University of Asunción (Paraguay), said I speak “excellent Portuñol.”

          • Kimski


            The world becomes a much smaller place with the knowledge of many languages. It seems like the more of them you learn, the easier it gets to catch up on the ones you haven’t heard before, because so many words are similar. Basically we’re all members of the same huge tribe, with distorted versions of the same language, although some of them are so far out that it takes years to get it.

            There’s nothing that gets so much respect from foreigners, as when you adress them in their own language. On a lot of different occasions I’ve gone from being a total stranger on the street, to being invited into people’s homes because some family member wanted to show off this strange white man with the blue eyes, that knew their ‘native tongue’. I’ve made a lot of friends over the years this way.

          • justicer

            And yet, and yet…
            …all it takes for Newt to destroy Mitt is a clip of Mitt muttering something in French (touriste French, at that).
            [sidebar to Beija: did your prof actually look like a centurion?

          • Kimski

          • Kimski


            Meget muligt, men hvis vi nu gør det på mit andet sprog, hvem tror du så får problemer af os to?

          • justicer

            Lol, Kimski.
            I glean from Google that you write in Danish. Wonderful!

        • Just1X

          malheueureusement j’ai passe beaucoup de temp sur les autre sites d’internet.

          I love swearing in ze French language, it is like wiping my arse with silk… (Matrix tribute)

          • Kimski

            LOL! I love to do it in Danish, when I’m out of the country. Remarkable shit you can get away with saying. ;)

      • justicer

        Lol. Beija do a Google Translation, it’s simple.
        Promise, no more French.

  • justicer

    And then, there’s the notorious theory of penis envy so credible a heuristic that all females hate the mere mention of it, recoiling like vampires at the First Ray of Daylight.
    What about the issue of liking your own body?
    The classic rad-fem hates her own body, considering it an over-complicated minefield full of boring little inconveniences such as menstruation and childbirth and obesity and bloating and hormones and The Pill, the Pause, and The Douche and god forbid I should know any more about this shit.
    Some women embrace this complication as the Source of Female Strength and Mystery (which in many ways it is).
    However, my theory is that most women truly hate being women (ignoring female life-expectancy, an advantage). Many women can’t stand the thought that men should even talk about female biology.
    Cue the idea of Penis Envy.
    This could tie into women’s lack of empathy for anything male: envy for men’s perceived biological advantage makes empathy a sort of betrayal.

  • .ProleScum.

    JtO, I have immense respect for you and your work. However, I cannot support this piece.

    I’ll bash out my objections here as best I can before my supper burns down to charcoal.

    1. Your mooting that women as a demographic are amoral is initially based on a critique of Tory Shepherd and the awareness/indifference to men’s issues that she demonstrates. Please keep in mind that Shepherd is, before and after what you so adeptly demonstrate her to be, a hack. 

    Just as there is a special place in hell for family court judges, Kohlberg created an extra stage in his  moral development model for ‘journalists’ like her. I think it is a stretch to speculate on the moral certitude of women as a demographic based on Shepherd’s example.

    2. Towards the end of the piece you return to the indifference to men’s issues, this time on a broader scale with the implication that women’s non-engagement with men’s issues indicates that women are lacking in empathy as a group.

    To this, let me relate the following:

    At the end of July 2011,  I had just under £40 left in my bank account before my wages finally went in. You will recall that this was the month that the food crisis in the Horn of Africa peaked and charities and humanitarian agencies were literally begging for donations. 

    So what did I do with my £40? I’ll tell you what I did.

    I bought The Wire Season 5 and two nights’ worth of junk food. 

    Does this indicate that I lack a moral framework? Well, arguably, yes. Viewed in the abstract, it was a morally repugnant decision. Does this trouble me? Nowhere near as much as it should, primarily due to:

    i) Remoteness. The issue seems so far removed from me that it is easily pushed from my mind by the petty catastrophes of my daily existence.
    ii) Consensus. I don’t see anybody I know freaking out about it, so on some level my lizard brain tells me it cannot be a critical issue.

    I would assert that this is broadly the present position of women as a demographic in relation to men’s issues. 

    3. Now, exactly how did one half of Europeans’ problems become as remote to the other half as the Horn of Africa? Well, that is indeed a can of worms. 

    Could evo-psych actually be a factor in this remove as you posit, along with the usual suspects of feminist education/media/governance, hypergamy and chivalry? Well…possibly.

    However, I question the usefulness of the MRM exploring this, as we run the risk of needlessly alienating women. I realise that I run the risk of NAWALTing here but please bear with me…

    NAWALT is true. We all know that. We only have to look at the likes of Dr T to be reminded. I only have to remember the Kenyan nurse who bed-bathed my barely alive, shit-stinking body and responded “Thank you, it is a privilege to help” to my croaked thanks, to be reminded.

    Enough Women Are Like That is also true. If it weren’t, the likes of Shepherd and Rosin wouldn’t be getting paid for opinion and analysis that your gratis work knocks into a hat. 

    I guess I am trying to say that generalising is not so much the danger here as is overgeneralising. 

    It only takes a relatively tiny group of individuals, working in concert, to catalyse immense change. The MRM is only one of many worthy movements out there, and there must be many more Typhons, Dr T’s, Izzeys, Christys and GWWs out there too. If we overgeneralise about women we run the risk of alienating potential female MRAs, whose consciences will take them to another, more female-friendly movement.

    Paul and yourself have made moves in the past that I struggled with at first, such as the rejection of support from SoCon women and the aggressive use of, and those always turned out be the right moves. 

    Based on this, I haven’t ruled out the possibility that with this piece you are presenting Shepherd your rhetorical chin to draw her into a high profile MSM debate (in which she would no doubt have her conceited, leathery, sun-roasted ass duly handed to her). If so, I applaud the strategy but fear the method may do the MRM more harm than good as outlined above.

    I salute you.

    • justicer

      Horsemanure. But I respect your honesty, in raising these issues.
      JTO’s piece is a speculation based on some theory. All it does is speculate on aspects of psychology that may be driven by sex-specific factors. As such, seems to me it’s not a gratuitous generalisation.
      We have a right to do that without fear, as we are not politicians.
      This is not Pravda or an academic-feminist conference; so conflicting views and partial agreement/disagreement are welcome, not feared.
      Women who read us are invited to use brains and imagination, not reflex and herd-think.
      as to your own witnessing,
      - whatever that frivolous expense you made was (sorry, it’s not clear outside your culture), it has nothing to do with “moral” decisions. Sounds to me like the time I threw away 50% of a starvation wage playing the ponies.
      But I was single, had no responsibilities to anyone but me-self.
      Were you spending your last farthing (this currency thing is a stretch for me) on wine and women whilst your own children starved, well, that’s another matter entirely.

      However, I’ll take you to see a casino in my neighborhood filled with unemployed women who live on welfare all their lives and who are supposed to be supporting two children –while their dollars tumble into the slots — if the vision will help balance your sense of gender.
      Also, I’ll tell you about the woman 8 doors down my house, a mother, who fleeced her landlord for 12 months, destroyed the premises, kept the neighborhood up at night, ruined property values, and, as she was being escorted off the site, was already talking to a lawyer hired from Free Legal Aid– to get her back inside.
      This I have witnessed. So let the discussions of such behavior continue.

    • BeijaFlor

      Generalities … are a problem. But watering down our message for fear of hurting the feelings of some very few listeners, that is a worse problem.

      There are a few women here who “get it,” who have proven their compassion for our pain, their understanding of our message, their respect for us as fellow human beings. What, maybe a half dozen? The three who come to my mind right now are One Hundred Percent Cotton, Izzey, and Dr. Tara Palmatier. I hope there are more whom I have omitted, and I apologize to them if they are here with us.

      But these are remarkable women who can look at our anger and see behind it to the outrage of justice that brought it out. Their response is remarkable among women, and I for one love them for it. (No, not that way. Get your mind out of the gutter.)

      It may not be that every woman in modern Western society is, shall we say kindly, “insufficiently socialized” so that they have the moral sense of a four-year-old brat. But we have this one immense trouble: Our politicians, our lawmakers, and our career bureaucrats who actually impose and enforce the laws today, are catering to those vocal and prominent women who ARE displaying the moral sense of four-year-old brats!

      There are several ways to deal with a brat: You can give in to her, you can reason with her, you can ignore her, you can “correct” her, or you can avoid her. (Are there any I’ve missed?) Which would you espouse? Which is most likely to lead to the goal that we need?

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        The problem is you CAN’T ignore “her”.

        There is an organized movement afoot to undermine and destroy The Moral Man’s Rule.

        We’re going from a United States Constitutional rule to a “Because *I* said so” rule.

        That means at anytime, anyplace, any where YOU can be dragged from your place of aloofness and thrown into prison “because I said so”, or imprisoned by poverty as a wage slave.

        Too often men back down from verbal sparring with feminist doctrine when they shouldn’t.

        Ignoring it, or backing away from engaging in battle (polite, civilized verbal battle) has only given rise to more porblems.

        Just speaking from my own perceptions and experience.

        Men speak VERY well for themselves when they choose to, and it DOES make an impact.

        • justicer

          It’s also a useful rhetorical stance, OHPC.
          The current feminism is not equity feminism, it’s female supremacy. That implies that females are superior, meaning, that if they have any mental-health deficiencies, it can’t be located in their femaleness, it’s either so what, everyone’s like that! or, all the fault of the patriarchal system, which manages to curtail all those glowing, life-affirming, creative, generous, empathetic, wise, insightful, and nurturing impulses with which anything female is born.
          This propaganda stance outlaws Freud, of course, but also, any neutral and unbiased discourse on biological inheritance and female socio- and psychopathy.

          All this doesn’t come out of the ether. Research inside academe is controlled by them, the man-hating feminists, by virtue of their power within university departments; their hold over the popular and scholarly media; their subversion of student governances (yes, the Chancellor listens to student bureaucrats, and no, a male, contrarian student has no support); and their power within the research ethics-review process, a censoring agency.
          For that reason alone, our lone-rider here, JTO, is empowering us, not harming us.

  • justicer

    Beware of the NAWALT suck-in.
    For those like myself who avoid acronyms, or struggle with using them, this link is useful:

  • TigerMan

    “Hannah Rosin openly gloated over an increasing trend of male marginalization, she also played a video to the TED Talks audience in which her own 10 year old son was instructed by his younger sister, and silenced when he objected, that due to being male, he was inferior[5]”
    The very fact that this disgusting bigot has any sort of career whatsoever after this public display of what a truly disgraceful mother she is, is in itself more worrying about what it says about women collectively than Rosin’s individual example. Let’s not forget that Larry Summers was hounded out of his job at Harvard for merely SUGGESTING that current scientific evidence tends to suggest that factors other than “discrimination” may account for differing career choices between the sexes can we even imagine what would have happened to him if he mirrored the extreme triumphalism and bigotry of a Rosin?? By the way if she is not already there I nominate Hanna Rosin for inclusion in the register!!

    • Skeptic

      Yes TM,
      I’d like to see Rosin registered as a bigot too. Her arrogant misandry at the wimmin only TED conference had my stomach turning. truly disgusting triumphalism.

      • TigerMan

        Yes Skeptic and it’s a pity because the TED talks are often of a high standard so it is a shame to see it tarnished with such triumphalist crap from the likes of Rosin.

    • TigerMan

      Sorry in my prior post I forgot to acknowledge that JTO had once more written a brilliant incisive article full of what was noticably lacking in Tory’s crude hatchet piece i.e. SUBSTANCE. :)

  • Open War

    IMO, discussing biological roots of problems is often misinterpreted by our eugenicist enemies as advocating biological solutions. Further, we cannot prove environmental or biological reductionism, because we cannot remove either factor in an experiment. Exceptions to nature and nurture can always be found because both play a role.

    What we do know for sure is that many western women exhibit common behaviors that will no longer be tolerated. I welcome both men and women in the fight to restore equal accountability under the law and expose radical feminists to the light of day.

    Whether women have a bitch gene or men have a white knight gene is unimportant to the battle at hand.

  • Roderick1268

    Fantastic article JTO.
    I agree with the biological amoral lean in most woman, I also think this lean has a slippery slope towards the immoral. A callous skin mostly gets thicker with age, cheating has huge rewards if you don’t give a damn and are above punishment or accountability.

  • The Grappler

    Reading this just last night – I’m new here – a thought struck me. The current situation where men and women are now competitors for jobs and such – of which quite obviously there are a totally insufficient number to go around – , PLUS the added requirement for a dual income family to make ends meet – have created a situation where the ‘lack of resources’ situation has been artificially created and enhanced- thus exacerbating the entire problem raised about women’s hard-wired nature. Thoughts?

  • paige

    Wow, when I heard about this website I came on it because I believed I had empathy for men I know who are being victimized by the court system over issues of child custody, child support and false accusations of domestic violence. I thought I was frustrated over the fact that my tax dollars are spent to ensure that my fellow females can continue to have babies with losers and degenerates and society will help them clean up the mess they made. Then I found out that I’m a woman who was raised in society, so apparently that’s not possible. Thanks for letting me know that I’m incapable of having empathy toward men because I lack “moral agency”. Good luck with your cause.

    • Paul Elam

      Oh yes, of course. You came to this site because you are outraged at the travesties committed against men in this culture, and you were all geared up for the fight because of all this empathy you have for men. Then you just happened to zero in on a single, month old article that pisses you off, and rather than issue any intellectual challenges to it, you now just wash your hands of the entire cause.



      Thanks for adding merit to the article, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    • keyster

      She had empathy, up until the time she was informed she doesn’t.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Paige, Paige, Paige.

      Apparently it never occurred to you that the “losers and degenerates” ARE YOUR GENDER, and your gender only.

      After all – it’s YOUR gender and your gender alone that is afforded the “choice”.

      That is a POWERFUL and AWESOME responsibility, and only the ones QUALIFIED to make any such “CHOICE” are the “winners” or “losers”…and those who make poor choices the rest of us have to deal with are the degenerates.

    • Bombay

      It’s all about being a Goddess. If you do not love me, then experience my wrath… LOL

    • Kimski

      You must have been last in line when empathy were distributed, ’cause you sure ran out of it fast!

  • Dose28

    Bravo sir! A superb article.

  • Jordan83

    This article clearly explains why I gave up dating and finding love in Canada. Women here are brought up to flaunt themselves and show superiority and show little empathy towards a man that may appreciate wanting to be with them. Western society has a created a class of women where being like Kim Kardashian is respectable and that behaving irrational and immoral is ok with little regard towards men’s emotional feelings. If your not making a lot of money you are considered lazy. If you don’t have a nice car or a house your not good enough. Why do women here have a checklist of what they want in a man. Why not just appreciate for who he is. Perhaps you will get out of your stupid shell and stop whining about never meeting quality men.
    Having said that, I found the most amazing woman in Mexico and she means everything to me. She does not give a shit about material wealth, whether I am fat or skinny, or whether my teeth are whiter than Channing Tatum.
    So for all you women out there in western society, why don’t look at yourself and realize your narcissistic attitude and lack of empathy is not getting you anywhere. Most of my friend’s will not date you or marry you because of what you have become. Stop accepting what the media norms want you to be and create your own self identity that makes you unique instead of copying others.

    • Dean Esmay

      None of my business brother but I’d be awfully careful about getting involved with a girl who seems really nice who’s from another country who frankly just may be looking for an easy green card. A lot of guy get played for saps that way.

  • Jordan83

    Dean believe it or not, she has no desire to move to Canada. She has been here and did not like it. She would prefer for me to live most of the time in Mexico. I know of people spend within their home country and the rest of the time outside with their partner. I am considering wanting to try it and see if it works. I have nothing to lose.