*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.
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”
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.”
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. 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.
Activists persist in claiming the multiply debunked dogma of pay discrimination against women, while men quietly and conveniently account for 93% of workplace deaths.
In most countries males comprise the vast majority of workplace fatalities. In the EU as a whole, 94% of death were of males. In the UK the disparity was even greater with males comprising 97.4% of workplace deaths.. Piling onto this, regardless of who earns it, women control the spending of 65% of disposable income world wide. 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.
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, 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.
 Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62
 Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71
 Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680