« The Publishing Disruption | Main | The Carnival of Creative Destruction »



"What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin"

Yes, really what if.


Okay, so you're cool with people slandering the character of male homosexuals, but doubt a single-bullet theory for societal decline you get moderated. Fine, bozo; I'll hit back where you can't.


I really like that article but want to point out 2 things. One was already addressed here: You say 90% of divorce are initiated by women. 70% filed by her and 20% forcing him by cheating. But if you add those 20% you must be fair to subtract the 20% (estimated) of cases where he forced her by cheating. In my opinion cheating women do more wrong than cheating men because they take the risk to get pregnant, and also the man is polygamous by nature. But adding those 20% gives critics a point to argue so I would just not mention this. 70% is enough anyway.
The second thing is about the venusian Arts. There is many different ways of those but most I see is just learning to adapt to women's already dysfunctional behavior. I don't know if you read this http://manhood101.com/principles101.pdf
In my opinion this is a much better way to deal with women.
(If you don't publish comments anymore, it would be nice to hear your opinion by email)

Max Kay

This post is so biased as it gets. It looks like something Glenn Beck from Fox Channel would have said. You clearly have an agenda which I just cannot pinpoint what it is. The author has been looking for data that confirms their worldview and denied research that shows other possibilities. It's classical confirmation bias in its rawest form. This shit doesn't help anyone and should be read by anyone since it is just negative and only shows one side of the coin. It's clearly some whining from some man who aint getting laid as much as he would like...

I recommend people to look for couples who are together, for marriages who are still working (yes they do exist, unfortunately for the author's worldview is shattered though).

People need to see the both sides of the coin otherwise this post is just as bad as any journalism in reporting "what is going on in the world". Stop whining n' approach women instead!

The Futurist

Max Kay,

It looks like something Glenn Beck from Fox Channel would have said.

Translation : Max Kay is intellectually outclassed, and cannot admit it.

Also, Max, this article is critical of conservatives too. You may want to work on your reading skills.

It's clearly some whining from some man who aint getting laid as much as he would like...

Yawn... I pre-empted this type of shaming language in the article, and predict it. Yet, you engage in it anyway, which proves your projection. That you do what the article predicts you will shows how stupid you are.

Plus, I most certainly do better with women than you - read the Venusian Arts section (the second time you prove you didn't read the article, out of cowardice).

People need to see the both sides of the coin

This is a very fair article that shows both sides, against the massive volume of anti-male bigotry. That is why this article is so famous and well-regarded.

Cecil Westervelt

I am actually starting a book about misandry and would love to have some email chatter with you.

Bob Norton

For a more in-depth discussion of these issues I strongly recommend Dr. Warren Farrell's books The Myth of Male Power and Father and Child Reunion. In terms of divorce there is much help for men, though I agree with the author's premise that men are less likely to admit they need help and seek it out. Specifically for divorcing men see: www.FathersUnite.org, Also www.BestInterestOfChildren.org to learn why sole custody in divorce is a form of child abuse and is literally destroying U.S. society and the root cause of most of 20 other social problems like drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, mental health and more. What most people do not realize is that all fifty states get paid by the federal governement to generate child support orders and collections. So every state profits from sole custody. This is BILLIONS each year.

Stacey Shoemaker

i keep talking about this issue with family and friends, they all think i'm crazy, thank god for this and other articles on the subject.

to me it all feels like a prison without bars or fences, there is no where to go that I can be myself, no where to go that I can be who I want to be, so i hide away, I work, pay bills, mow the yard and all that stuff, but that's it, once the nescessities are taken care of I go to my man-cave and stay there until real world things have to be taken care of again, i know it's anti-social but I can't help it, I want no part of this "new" world, I hate it.


I think it is a mistake to look at this from the point of view of which laws should be changed or which sex is most blameworthy. In fact I think either approach is completely pointless. I think there are much larger cultural and sociological forces at work, which I tried to articulate here: http://www.mypostingcareer.com/forums/index.php?/topic/155-the-limits-of-human-scale/

Faiza Akhtar

I agree with you that men are losing their identity and voice in society but you do take too harsh of a stance against women. And using Indian culture of mysogyny as an example, doesn't help your otherwise valid point.

The Futurist

Faiza Akhtar,

I am a Muslim.

Indian culture does not have pervasive misogyny (plus, you can't seem to spell that word, heh). Isolated incidents to not indicate that the entire culture is that way.

You are Muslim, so it is odd that you would call another culture as misogynist.

In America, however, there are actual laws that abuse and mistreat men specifically.


The article is quite comprehensive and thought-provoking. The only objection I would hold is with using India as a positive counterexample. That society is a backwater dump of misogyny, not as liberal feminists understand the word, but in its dictionary definition. Quite aside from the industrious history of American patriarchy, the Indian gender arrangement is more typical of Middle East male indolence.

It is the sole country I would volunteer whose gender arrangement dampens its economic prospects more than any Western country; despite adopting the political institutions of a nation (the US) which easily outpaces China - a nation 1/4th of the latter's population and 1/3 of its own - India is no threat to surpass either. Its dowry system alone results in a (gender selected) abortion factory to rival the US, the dowry's expense surpassing all but the most ridiculous instances of the male-indenturing engagement ring and bridepocalypse wedding traditions.

Anyone who works in the medical field has experienced this demographic wreckage firsthand. Indian med students in the American hospital are a farce to behold - Mad Men (minus libido and productivity), only to their female equals and even to superiors, and no later than first introduction. As you point out at length arguing the reverse point, no society that cripples the economic AND reproductive contributions of an entire gender can expect to compete globally.

The Futurist


India is not 'misogynistic' at all. It had a female prime minister decades ago. Plus, you don't see Indian women clamoring to become more Western. There are no mandated veils in India, so it is absurd to compare it to the Middle East.

It appears you don't have much direct experience with India - it appears that what you know is only second and third-hand, and thus inaccurate.


These links might be interesting for anyone interested in this article:

Man donates sperm to lesbian couple - lesbian couple sues him for alimony, just might get it. (Germany)

Man Receives Oral Sex, woman saves sperm and inseminates herself, ordered to Pay Child Support - WTF?

PS. On the topic of India... Hitnrun your knowledge of India is sorely lacking. The dowry system has been outlawed for quite a while now. Further, all clinics in India are forbidden to reveal the sex of a child from sonograms etc. under punishment of jail. Women in India understand what it means to be a woman. Even Hinduism dictates that women are not "lower" then men, but it certainly does say that they are different (as they are). Basically, you're an idiot.


This article deserves some sort of reward


As a young male I could identify with a lot of the points presented in the article, I do not have much information on this subject but this is one of the most comprehensive articles I have read on this topic. I guess I could be considered a 'beta male' since I don't chase after sex. After being mistreated by women my entire life, I gave up on them. I do not hate women, I am just very sad that there are so few who are not completely materialistic and capable of genuine love. I will not say all of them are mean or cruel, just I have never met a kind or nice girl. It is terrible to be alone, but even worse to be in an abusive relationship.

When the levee breaks...

More cracks in the dam showing up every day.

Here's the latest:


When the likes of Liz Jones starts to turn on Feminism, you know the Misandry Bubble is going down.

It's not a question of "if", but "when"...


I agree with some of what you say. Divorce laws do need to be rewritten for a modern world where a single woman is perfectly able to go and get a job and does not automatically face financial and social ruin. Most of your conclusions though are well off the mark. While deriding others for using false statistics, poor logic, name slinging and unsubstantiated evidence you do the same. I do not have time to point out all your errors, as this would be almost as long as your article, I will point out two of the most obvious.

According to the article "90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)." By that same logic 50% of divorces are initiated by men (he files 30% of the time and if we agree that men and women are equally adulterous and abusive (I do), he forces the woman to file, owing to abuse or adultery 20% of the time. That means 140% of divorces are initiated by men or women. Doesn't add up. OK, that still leaves women initiating most of the divorces, but it changes the picture. It is also a clear example of your "facts" being dubious.

Also, there is a difference between feminists and A feminist. One woman writing an article or blog, or even a small group, does not mean something is the view of the whole. To give an example: I am a "leftist" (socialist, expatriate (thereby America hating in your view) white night). I think abortion should be illegal. There is a sizable portion of "leftists," primarily Catholic and Jewish, who are of this view. Sadly it does not mean "leftists" want to ban abortion.

The Futurist


90% of divorces initiated by women.

I have linked to a source for that statistic. I would like a better source, of course, but even if the 90% number is shaky, no one disputes 70%.

Furthermore, the huge financial imbalance in favor of the woman also makes a number in the 70-90% range unsurprising.

There is much more support for the 90% number I cite, than the tired old lie that women are underpaid relative to men. If statistical accuracy is as important to you as you claim, you should be attacking that bogus stat.

thereby America hating in your view.

So you are ascribing 'views' to me before I have said anything. This does not build credibility.

On abortion, many on the right are abhorrent too, as they truly think abortion only happens because a callous man abandoned the mother (ignoring that the state will zealously make such a man pay the woman). The reverse is actually much more common.

The right's opposition to abortion is incomplete and cowardly at best, as they only oppose it to the extent that they can punish men, but never have the courage to consider women as capable of wrongdoing.

So your comment misses the mark, both on the article, and on me.

If those are the only two supposed 'errors' you can find (neither of which is an error), then this article is rock-solid.


I enjoyed reading this. I'd say there are exceptions to all rules.
I'm currently in my second frustrating year of a strike, as also suggested by Natural One above.

For me it is more a disenchantment with love, I now see females largely as functional reproduction engines, and they play a serious game. Falling in love is a weakness which can ruin lives, as I really cared about the girl I was with for years, and I miss our friendship still. I do not care for the responsibility of children, I prefer a hedonistic life.

I prefer to masturbate. It's easy to admit. It's the chemical release in my brain at orgasm I like. Women are a compromise, as their desires and needs are introduced to compete with my own.
I don't need someone to spoon me, I don't need a cook or cleaner.

I think concern over what parts of the world are breeding and at what rate is a sad point to make. We are all the same race. There is no human which would not flourish given the same opportunities as the first world. Let the breeding masses of the third world take the burden of parenthood, while we in the first can enjoy life. As long as human genetics survive, we all win.

No sane person can deny an overpopulation of our species on Earth. For each living woman to want to have a child of her own is a selfish and dangerous indulgence which our descendants will pay dearly for.

It simply doesn't matter what we look like physically in 200 years, or what colour.
Just that we live.

So if some men wish to judge women with numerical values, or amuse themselves with games, it doesn't matter. Just don't breed, and we all win.


Thanks for this article.
Would it be ok if I printed this stuff and showed it to anyone interested?

Alpha(from India)

Yes, proceed by all means.

gardens events

In reality, it is very long, but the reading is made up of all that I learned from MGTOW came to my attention. I could literally say anything to his argument, but to see all there (well, a lot of it, but not all) is just ... gives you an appreciation of what you have learned.


This is incredible. I came across this post when taking a class on modern social issues, and while reading the text book I felt a certain bias that compelled me to do independent research.

After reading your post and checking the sources I was surprised at how accurate your findings were and how well organized your ideas are too. I began to read commentary but realized there is still just as much in this section as was in the dissertation. I read a few in the beginning and then skipped to the end. It’s funny to see how there are those that nit-pick at your article, thinking that somehow they are going to knock loose a key stone that ruins your credibility. For the most part, anti-misandry articles are better researched, more accurate in capturing the ideals of regular people, and overall more well written, than the man bashing articles primarily because they are not based on hate and false ideals but rather take a defensive stance on promoting truth over falsehood. This is a prime example, and is something everyone should read in order to educate themselves on the truth about gender issues in our society. I have already shared it with two friends. I would like to say thank you for all the work in putting this together.

The Futurist



Please participate in the anti-misandry flyer campaign outlined in the 'It is Time to Expose Misandry' article at the top of tbe blog's main page.

That is a highly asymmetrical strategy that can escalate pressure against misandry very quickly, even if only a few guys are posting flyers.


There is one thing I am a little confused about, namely how social conservatives are aiding feminism when a social conservative is supposed to be promoting traditional values. They are usually the ones opposed to a lot of the feminism psycho-babble aren't they?

Sarah Palin for example, claims herself to be a social conservative feminist, and she is not the typical femi-nazi that believes in the genocide or complete submission of the male species, and is demonized by other radical feminists as she campaigns against them.


Ha, just realized I used my other post name Rickster, but no Rick and Rickster are the same person.

The Futurist


The thing about social conservatives is that while they want traditional values, they cave in whenever a woman shames them into going along with feminism.

For example, they have a pro-life position on abortion, but they think that abortion only happens because an evil man callously abandoned the innocent, angelic woman. Nothing could be further from the truth - many women actually try to trap men into pregnancy to get money from him.

4 times as many men are in jail today as in 1980, mostly for non-crimes, and mainly due to social conservatives wanting to appear 'tough on crime'. Hence the bogus 'deadbeat dads' myth, the myth that only men are capable of spousal violence, etc.

For more about how social conservatives actually propagate feminism, go to The Spearhead and ask a lot of questions about social conservatism in the comments.

Also, read this (particularly the last part) :


Thank you for pointing me towards that article. It makes a lot of sense since quite often people don’t know who they are voting for in the polls and are often mocked for getting what they thought their candidates policies were, completely wrong (such as with our recent election for presidency), after voting for the wrong side.

It also makes sense as to why all these unfair laws are getting passed that are indeed ruining our way of life. Most people are sensible enough to follow the conservative creed (traditional values) which is why conservatives get elected to hold more positions in the government, and yet they fail to follow through with their intended agenda. Its true we need to start winning more in the supreme court where all laws regardless of what the public vote tally is, can either be shot down or approved.

I also liked how you pointed out that people give themselves labels which are often far from the truth. I see that with conspiracy theorists, who dub themselves ‘truthers’ when quite often what they seek is in fact the opposite.

The kind of 'Chivalry' conservatives claim also reminds me of the guy who constantly mooches money off of his friends (liberals and feminists) and when finally a friend (the conservative) says no, he responds with the what-happened-to-you-man-you-used-to-be-cool speech, to which the friend replies “I‘m still cool,” and gives in, the whole time getting screwed.


I'm writing my thesis on men's perception of misandry and it's possible affect on leadership emergence. This is great stuff, I'm going to reference you. I'm glad I found your article, great job putting this together.

The Futurist

Thanks, kris,

Are you female? Please consider fighting against misandry even after you defend your thesis, and becoming a regular commenter on the blogs linked in the article (roissy, The Spearhead), as well as this one.

This is an important issue.


I found this post again after reading it months ago. This is still one of the best written, comprehensive analyses of the feminism situation. Good job. I wish such knowledge could become more widespread somehow.


I almost cried several times while reading this article. Thank you for doing such thorough research and eloquently describing what I am always trying to explain to people. I love this. Feminists should take notes from Heinlein... be useful, nice, and unashamedly female.


The chart of birth rate is interesting...

It shows that the feminists do not want reproduction.
And the population of Muslims is growing well.

Feminism can only destroy their own society.

Robert Sharpless

You need to think on terms which go much deeper, because after 60 years of empirical observations of experiencing life in a Commune, life in a totalitarian society whether it be by name of Communism or Democracy under a form of quasi Capitalism to meet the essential needs of society.

In addition, I have studies as an avocation & vocation for most of my life the theoretical underpinnings of many of the western & eastern philosophies coupled with socially engineered processes of cognitive science which have & now govern these societies to keep order & maintain the essential needs of their lives, it is my firm belief your Hypothesis falls under a more appropriate heading by looking at the institutions that govern western societies & now the global population, which is rooted in "Capitalism" that began 400+ years ago to replace Feudal Order at the dawn of the European Enlightenment, evolving eventually after World War Two into today's newer version of a much more insidious form of Neoliberal Capitalism we have today.

It is the socially engineered processes rooted in cognitive science to control human behaviors on a global applied basis to mans consciousness after almost 400 years of Capitalism in Western Society which has permeated into every aspect of man's cognitive functions *manufactured consent) that your hitting mostly on more anecdotal evidence & superficial causation that are essentially by-products not root cause of origination of how this nation & now the globe has moved onto to live to a new form of Human Capital exploitation to serve class distinctions through socially engineered processes rooted in cognitive science.

It is by design to serve a very small group of people who control 65% of the worlds wealth. Start looking around you in everything that you do, all of your energies what their spent on, what drives 98% of what you do & why & underneath all of lies not only Maslow's Hierarchy of needs which controls essentially those human energies but to who & what it is your serving to the need of Human Capital.

It's a big subject & I will be back as I just sideswiped your website. I have written a more comprehensive essay I posted on Huffington Post a couple years ago when looking at the financial crisis & what really caused it.


Good article. You illustrate very well how the leftist assault on marriage is an assault on civilization.
However:what I see is not so much men getting the raw end of the deal more than women, but the traditional, faithful people suffering at the hands of those living out the feminist model, of either sex. I am in my fifties, I have a law degree, and I have witnessed quite a few divorces in my immediate circle; and the ones who get scr##ed are not necessarily men or women, it's the one following the traditional rules who gets the shaft. The adulterer who wants out gets its all her/his own way.
For women of the traditional,faithful homemaker variety, apparently 20, 30 or even 40 years of help, work, sacrifice and companionship mean nothing and are worth very little, financially. And yes, unless they have family money, the women I know are hereafter either poor or in straightened circumstances for the rest of their lives.
Similarly, men who behave themselves and love their families are forced to watch another man take his place, sometimes in his own house (also enforced by our modern courts) , with the corresponding danger to his children. In addition, to add insult to injury, he is expected to finance this appalling arrangement.
I don't think it's worse for men or women per se, I think it is worse for men or women who play by the old, un-feminist rules. What I have observed, in modern day divorces- is that the bad guy wins - every time. Be it male or female. The laws are now set up to make it so.

Note: by the way, the reason women file for the divorce more often has little to do with her being the initiator- it is common procedure among divorce lawyers to have the women file first (at least in my state). I have no idea why- maybe someone can enlighten us on that.

The Futurist


It is not the lawyer who 'makes' the woman file for divorce first. Why is the woman going to the lawyer in the first place? That itself indicates that it is the woman who has started the process.

And despite what you say about traditional people getting the shaft, the costs of divorce are fully borne by the man, who has to pay money to the woman even if HE did not want divorce, and loses access to his own children.

You are correct in pointing out that women who divorce for short-term gain end up in poverty in the long run. This is the outcome of their decision.

Melody Brooke

This is exactly why we are making our film. My husband and I wrote a screenplay with the mission of changing how people view men and fathers. Our current family court system is prejudicial against fathers, and is corrupt in general. But to change the system, we first have to change how we see men. Seeing fathers as enept at best and downright evil at worse is the most normal way our media represents men. http://thatsnothowitsdone.com is in direct opposition to the current view of men. Check out our trailer by clicking on the yellow button on the top left.

The Futurist

Melody Brooke,

Excellent! This is exactly what I was hoping to see someone, someday, undertake.

Please connect with the various leaders of the anti-misandry movement :

Dr. Helen : drhelen.blogspot.com
Bill Price, who runs The Spearhead : www.the-spearhead.com

Connecting with these three will greatly increase the exposure to your film.

Please also check out my anti-misandry flyer campaign :

If your film is sufficiently direct in confronting misandry, I will personally spend dozens of hours posting flyers in high-impact locations to promote it.


and what happens if the bubble doesn't pop? if it does what will it look like what are the signs?


Socialism is not a tyranny.Feminism starts in U.S. which is pure capitalist country.Socialism has nothing to do with feminism and tyranny.


Can you please fix the Roissy references in your article? Roissy's blog is gone, but every single content is hosted in heartiste.wordpress.com

M. Simon

Robert Sharpless | June 24, 2011 at 06:06 PM

I live in an apartment with very modest rent. It has central air.

I have a computer that the WW2 computer guys couldn't even dream about. I have a 15 Mbs pipe to that computer - about $50 a month. I have a refrigerator. Something a King couldn't have in 1850. Hot and cold running water. etc. etc. etc.

Them rich guys sure have ripped me off.


I'm not sure that sharia law will be a fallback point for men in America, largely due to the stresses between the muslim world and America due to the War on Terror.

Maybe America is even further away than the rest of the world when it comes to battling misandry.

Still, I'm sending this article to people I know from various message boards as well as on facebook. Hopefully one of the major news TV networks gets a hold of this. There's no such thing as bad publicity, after all.


The Futurist,
thank you for your article and predictions.

I agree with you in many stuff. Specially this one:
"Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog. "
On TV, it is quite frequent to see a woman kicking a man on the balls, and everybody is laughing at him. Just reverse the roles, and put a man kicking a female on the crotch, and you'll see no one laughing, and probably some cops coming to arrest the guy. I find this as a double standard. If a woman is kicking a dog (a man), then it is funny, and it is encouraged by the feminist driven media. Violence, abuse, and aggression should not be encouraged for any gender.

What totally hit the nail on me was when you talked about how men work at full capacity just to be able to marry and provide for his family. I currently have a 8-6 job, and I also work on side jobs on my spare time. I probably work more than 85 hours a week, with almost very few opportunities to do things I like. My goal: getting a better life, and be financially capable of sustaining a family. Due to the state of the economy, it is impossible for me and my partner to be able to afford marriage [we live with our parents respectively][she wants a legal wedding, with very few people, not a 50K wedding], but we are working to be able to do it. I don't live in the US, and marriage here is not a ripoff as long as you have a prenup agreement. If I were to be an American citizen, I wouldn't feel that motivated for a marriage, neither for sustaining a family, because it is financially too risky. You loose on whatever you look at: whether is child care or alimony, men have to pay the ex-wife money [almost] perpetually just because her having a "Golden Uterus". Emotionally it is also risky, because you don't even get the custody of your children. It is a WIN-LOOSE situation, in which men seldom win.

I have known femists, feminist boys, and White Knights, and I always find their ideas creepy. Instead of having evolved thoughts, they just have very retrograde thinking, such as "women don't need men at all" , or "all men are sh*t", or "all men should be castrated". I really don't know what have suffered this women, but I don't really think they were completely innocent on what happened to them, and I also think they got involved with the wrong dudes. They all seem to be men haters. They sometimes speak of equality and stuff, but they take every opportunity to accuse of all male being misogynists [and stuff like that], and also treat unfairly men. For them, no man is good man.

I kind of feel like if feminists are fighting for rights they already have, but they seem to want more. It would be as if the black community on the USA would be making protests to have freedom [we don't see black guys demanding freedom... because they are already free!].

I knew a guy that he called himself the most feminist of the city. He had feminist friends, he went to public demonstrations, and recited very feminist propaganda. One day, a guy from a rural area asked him what was HIV and if having sex with his wife caused HIV. The feminist guy totally went insane, and LAUGHED out loud on the face of the rural guy, and started humiliating him for being an ignorant. I kind of admired at the time that guy, because how well he spoke his ideas. At that instant, this guy lost all my respect, as well as feminisim as a whole. I walked towards the rural guy, and explained him everything I knew about HIV. I kindly answered each and every single question he had about it. Without me explicitly telling him something to the feminist guy, I shut the fucked him. I helped this rural guy because I didn't want him, nor anyone, to get an STD like this, and also, indirectly, I'm helping his future female partners by educating this guy. Is a WIN-WIN situation. The kind of mentality that this feminist boy haves [and as well as many feminists] is a WIN-LOOSE mentality. I did what a thinking male beta would have done. I never believed any shit of what this guy told ever after.

When you talk about the Venusian Arts, I must confess I have read a couple of books about it. And, unfortunately, I haven't been able to put into practice this knowledge, so I don't know what it is to use it with most of the girls. Nevertheless, I have been applying some techniques with my girlfriend (we've been together for 5 years), and they seem to be working. I'm totally against manipulating persons, and the Venusian Arts can be used to improve your current monogamous relationship [without manipulation], or to manipulate woman to get in your bed. Even those who write the books say that they are against manipulating women. Before having a girlfriend, I felt like crap when seeing the alpha males getting most of the woman to bed.

When talking with feminists, they tell me that I'm a misogynist because I don't agree with their ideas. The don't seem to know the definition of misogynist, which is "a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women". I have never hated woman, nor disliked it, nor mistrusted them, nor mistreated them, ever. But that doesn't mean that I must agree with every idea they have, or if they feel perpetually like victims [even if they have not had bad experiences with men before ¬¬'].

Thank you very much for your insights sir ! :)



Leonard Dixon

Socilaisum is running rampid as the world productivity is in decline. It is as if a fast runner has stoped for a slower runner to catch up and has waited so long that he has lost his passion for running!


the author has many good points but with all things we all have different opinions. I happen to agree that misandry has ruled often in the shadows for over thirty years in the guise of womens rights, new laws to help society etc etc.

The misandry bubble is a great title and so true. We are seeing it start to get ready to pop already today just look at all the "man up" verbage all over the media now and that will only get louder as America realizes it needs the strength and conviction of men, and finds new ways to insult and shame men.

After Vietnam America and western countries were in an unprecedented period of peace and relative prosperity some call Pax Americana. This period of great stability seemed to make liberalism strong and conservatives weak. Feminism, yes feminazism grew like a weed throughout cultures because there was no great struggle going on and men could easily be forgotten, put aside, shamed, and robbed.

With the world economy just starting to crack, and perhaps in 10 to 20 years all hell will break loose. You will see all those liberals, feminists and man haters run for the nearest safety net held by men. But when the bubble pops dont think men will be appreciated or living it good. No society will treat men like dogs to do all the dirty work in the chaos and all you will hear is "man up" and "be a man" as they are marched to fight, work and die for their country.

I hope i am wrong and our nations learn to respect and appreciate men, fathers and husbands again.


Men have been born with the innate ability to keep sex separate from our emotions. Most girls do not have this ability. Once you have sex with a girl, she starts heavily investing herself in you. But it's up to you to keep your emotions well guarded when dealing with sluts. For most semi-intelligent blokes who've had at least some action in his life, this is quite easy to do. But it's not so easy for a young guy with his first few lays. This is when he might put his heart and soul into a bad apple (read: slut). He will get burned and then learn from it.

The real morons are the guys who don't learn and invest themselves again in a another slut and possibly marry her. Then they lose a lot more than their hurt feelings - they could be stuck with alimony, child support and even a lost house. Now that's a lesson they wont forget!

Learn some game theory and see how your mindset changes completely. You will be in power and every girl will just be another social experiment and possibly another conquest when you get good at it. You will understand women better than you can possibly imagine and use this new-found power to your benefit socially and in your personal life.


The Futurist, I really hope you're right about the misandry bubble. I mean I hope it will burst and not go on and on like North Corea.

BTW, some men do not feel very strongly about being cuckolded, as long as they don't get scammed financially. Wife-swapping was organized cuckoldry, and it worked for the men and women who practised it in the heydays (80s and 90s).

Roger Holmes76

"rising crime ?" I think you need to check your facts. Crime rates in America are at a 40 year low despite high unemployment and rising levels of poverty. I'm thinking if you got this wrong what else in your article is just your perception ?

Father Marker

For those who want to read further I'll provide a forward link to an article that the same author has posted on the same subject one year later to see where we are at right now.



The most glaring example of misandry is the condemnation of female genital mutilation while male genital mutilation is deemed acceptable, even a joking matter. Women are sacred, and men are fit to be cut apart.

A Hermit

I have to agree that this is indeed an impressive piece of work...in the same way that http://www.timecube.com/ is an impressive piece of work. It is impressive in the sheer breadth of dissociated, schizophrenic, ranting. I fear for my sanity having waded in these lunatic waters...

Real men don't anxiously obsess over their masculinity like this.


The author has wasted his time. The points he made about India are a blatant lie. This whole article is a sham. If you hate women so much please do us a favor and remain single the rest of your life. Believe me no woman is going to 'compete' with others for you even if she is a 'dying beauty in her 30s'. Then lets see just how brave you are to lead a life like that. When you are old and lonely lets see you waving the flag of 'male superiority'. At that time you'll be desperate for a female companion (assuming you a straight) and will more than willingly drop your 'male chauvinist act'. That goes for all men who share this authors point of view. BTW are these comments written by the author himself?

The Futurist


Your entire comment is the most childish of shaming language, which actually was pre-empted in the article. The reason you are so full of projection is because no man wants you, and thus you are bitter.

You are troubled because the article is true, and you know it (which is why you cannot debate specific points).

You are way too uninformed to comment on this topic, especially the parts about India.

The Futurist

A Hermit,

Your shaming language is pretty unoriginal, and has been pre-empted in the article.

Why so insecure? You are in fact so insecure that you want to let blatantly anti-male laws exist simply because you think it will someday get a woman to like you (hint : women hate suckups like you).

Masked Writer

Yes, any patriarchy works, and I believe it is a societal design that is more in keeping with the natural innate character of the human race. Ancient Feminazi societies such as the Sauromatians/Amazonians as described by Herodotus, never produced great empires, philosophical schools of thought such as the Greek schools of Aristotle, Plato, and others, or great scientists. Feminazi cultures have never produced beautifully engineered pyramids or earth-moving religions. Female-centric societies always have reduced birthrates, so in six or seven generations, male-centric societies accumulate a much larger population that eventually overwhelms any matriarchy with a lower birthrate. Even now, we see predictions of a Moslem majority in Canada in 50 years, and this trend can be seen in other female-centric countries in the Western world.

Another point that is significant when you research ancient Feminazi/man-hater societies is that they all survived on the enslavement of men. There is the story of one Amazonian queen who removed one eye of each male slave, and had the thumbs of the male slaves cut off, so they couldn't hold swords or spears well enough to rebel. This kept them easily controlled. Today's enslavement of men includes "Alimony Slavery", taxation bondage (taxes that go to support female-centric government programs, etc.), not-based-on-true-need child support, divorce settlement robbery of a man's wealth, men being used as cannon fodder in wars (men are about 98% of war deaths), men being brainwashed into doing the back-breaking work of society, and a lot of other ways that men are enslaved. It is time for men to have their own liberation or revolution since all the other groups in society have had theirs. Gays and Lesbians came out of the closet and got liberated, Feminazis came out of the closet and got billions in taxpayer money, so now men need to get liberated from the shackles of our current Feminazi Gynocracy. When will men be free?


Im late to this great essay. I just have 2 questions for you:

1. dont you think the technology factor will simply get better at covering up the TRUTH? Right now it seems like there is stil a lot of opposition from both men and women regarding the misandry factor.

2. With regards to leanring about women, one writer Esther Vilar who worte The Manipulated Man wrote some rather horrible vthings about women, and wanted to know if you are familiar with that book and if you agree with her assertions?

Please post vhere, and thanks in advance.

The Futurist


1) Technology increases information flow, and the side that is dependent on clamping down the flow of information always loses out the side that strengthens from the free flow of information.

So technology ultimately works against misandry.

2) Not familiar with it. I am not anti-woman, but rather an observer who points out that 99% of women and about 33% of 'men' would rather harm men to give benefits to women, than have a truly fair society.


There is indeed a men's movement. Anyone who thinks not has no clue to the status of men today. Any group of men, organized with leaders, will quickly find its leaders in jail for false charges, or sleeping under bridges from unemployment. So, men cannot have a conventional organization, period.

The men's movement today is fighting the only way it can, simply opting out of the traditional role, plus of course men like me who live in other countries.

Here are the marriage statistics for recent years.

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)

UK is at 18, and NZ is at 28.

If you don't think this is hurting feminism, and will not eventually have women listening to men, well, I am sorry for you.

This does not include large numbers of men who are simply leaving the Anglosphere. Several years ago, the UK census announced there were one million British men missing. They lied. They actually could not find two million men, but simply declared half of them were probably there.

Yes, there is a men's movement, and it is doing the only thing it can do without the F-16's being sent in.

The Futurist


No. Dalrock has statistically proven that there is no marriage strike in the US.

And no, there is very little real Men's Activism. And I say that as someone who greatly wishes there *were* real activism.

There is no Men's Rights Movement. It is a proto-movement, but is not a movement.


I personally don't buy dalrock's article that the marriage strike. I read the article Im not convinced. I believe that the strike is definitely on


You've had a lot of sex with attractive women.

Therefore your argument is far more valid than your celibate critics.

Joe American

You can check this out. We are in a long term slump.

The drastic changes in incentives of marriage and divorce has had a drastic effect on marriage and family life.

This has created a new fast growing underclass of poor.


While your points on feminism having become misandrism are true, this is not the fault of the left or socialism. Socialism did not cause the misandry bubble, but rather misandrists have exploited social policies for their own benefit. When divorced single mothers get government assistance, it is called welfare, yet when men ask for social equality, it is immediately grouped in with communism and considered a threat to the ruling class. This attack on socialism is exactly why the wages have stagnated since the Reagan era, and why housing is increasingly expensive and out of reach. Debt is good for wall street. Men's rights are not. Just like how infant circumcision is good for health insurance companies, but horrible for the men who have to bear its consequences.

The Futurist


Feminism could not exist without massive government spending (most of which is a tranfser from men to women). If government spending were to be slashed, feminism would shrink by that proportion almost immediately.



I just completed a stereoscopic 3D viewing setup for my computer. As I was browsing a site with sample stereoscopic videos, I came across this one.

http://www.3dvisionlive.com/3d_video/miya-3d (You'll need Silverlight to view this)

It's a Russian production and obviously also meant to be viewed with shutter glasses, but the acting is decent enough for you to tell what's going on.

The video is a bit surreal and can't be taken completely literally, but it mirrors your VR tech thesis. This video manages to display some of the nuanced aspects that you have described of the Second Horseman, especially with regard to the physical attractiveness of a real woman vs a virtual one.


I am a case study, fitting the bill of the beta-white-knight misled male thinking chivalry had worthy recipients out there.
Check my cellphone bill one evening and see over a hundred calls to one number.
Its an old high-school "just-a-friend" on facebook.
They talk, secretly meet for lunch, possibly have physical encounter.
The marriage between cheating spouse and I is in its ninth year, and we have a nine year old child.
Upon discovery of "elevated attachment" to this other man, my now ex-wife files for divorce, and after years of overspending and high credit card bills being racked up in community property, despite my agonizing requests to have her stop spending, I suddenly find myself responsible for over 15K worth of debt that combing through years of statements could clearly indicate the true benefactor of those bills.
I find myself facing many realizations.
1.) I have been reduced to a part time father, seeing my child in a drastically reduced capacity. My status is stripped away, the efforts of a decade of labor washed away, and the parental link between father and child is severely hindered by distance and confusion.
2.) I am suddenly in the position to have to locate, acquire financing for, and meet court obligations of location, a suitable form of shelter for myself and my child.
3.) No money exists for defense divorce lawyers, so within the biased scope of what a betrayed husband is allowed in courts, I must find some way to see my kid more.
I shuffle and trade money for time.
4.) My exwife earns appx. 30% more than I do every year, capable of tripling her retirement contributions due to the new "income" mandated by the state.
5.) She is currently fucking a man that lives across the street from the home I just purchased and moved into, so I have the added pleasure of seeing her vehicle over at his house. Yes, I remember replacing the brakes on that car, putting the roof rack on, oil changes, maintenance, repairs...
The old homestead sits amongst knee high grass in the yard. Unkept and dirty. The ex's mother now lives with her due to her own inability to manage money. Their two incomes, in one household, and I must still pay for support, with my lesser income.
I pay child support nonetheless as it appears to be for the best interests of the child, however I actually have physical custody for appx 50% of the time, as agreed between the ex and I formally. Food, gas, utilities, all are required at the same level as when she is with her mother the other 50% of the time.

Men like me find themselves awash in credit card debt, because it is not legal to strangle your wife into curbing her spending habits. Family emergencies occur, no money is available to address the emergency, and further credit debt is incurred. Spiraling into bankruptcy, without any recourse, I ultimately find myself somewhat relieved to at least have plugged the leak (i.e. divorcing the spender), but have nothing to protect myself legally thru the divorce or hiring of an attorney. The state gave her the title of primary conservator automatically, because sleeping around and infidelity is obviously not related to ones parenting skills?
So, as Ive heard so many times before, under the paramount effort of doing whats "best for the children" a father, having been the victim of infidelty by his wife, is suddenly thrust into or nearly into bankruptcy, is cut off from an effective and consistent presense in his childs life, is suddenly pushed into a game of competition for his childs love and affection with whomever the exwife decides to fuck around with, and must see pictures of his children sitting on their new "step-dad's lap" with happy smiles on their faces.
Clearly there is no competition financially, as the ex-wifes income has been boosted by support payments, and further advanced by the aid of the newest fling she involves herself with. One day after I pay off all this debt, I may be able to save up for a trip to Disney for my kid, but by that time, her mom would have probably taken her five times, and by the time I get any of this paid off, the kid will be in her twenties anyways.
Yes, I have considered suicide. Quite seriously.
I have no avenue of escape from the mountain of financial obligations I have suddenly incurred, whilst in tandem, watching my income reduced to hobbling levels and given to the woman that created this entire situation for me.
Chivalry is long dead. It is a wasted effort. How I had hoped so dearly that I had found someone different... sucker..


Futurist, the first time I read 'The Misandry Bubble' I said to myself: "Everybody must read this and realize the truth".

Almost one year later, I spent eight days translating your article on spanish and today, It is online for all the spanish talking people.


Futurista, la primera vez que leí La Burbuja de la Misandria me dije a mí mismo: "Todo el mundo debería leer este y descubrir la verdad".

Hoy, casi un año después, y luego de haber pasado ocho días traduciendo su artículo, ya se encuentra en línea para que todos los hispano parlantes puedan leerlo.

The Futurist


Eight days! I am honored! Thanks for doing that.

Carol Moore

What the article doesn't mention is that males have tried to bribe women into putting up with their wars and other BS by "promises" to take care of them. Or maybe, we'll support you on $100 a month so you don't compete with us and take our $1000 a month job. Males made the laws that gave women crappy and unreliable bennies, and they want to blame us for taking them. Statism is the problem, you stupid males. Freedom is the solution. CASTRATE THE NATION STATE...

The Futurist

Carol Moore,

'Their' wars? Are you aware of how many wars Hillary Clinton has started (Libya, etc.)?

Women are paid more than men for the same job, btw.

The rest of your comment is so incoherent and laden with projection and misandry that it proves the whole point of The Misandry Bubble.

This article is such crap

This article appears to have been written by a "beta-male" with a huge inferiority complex and fear of women, probably related to some mommy issues. Honestly some of the most poorly researched string of words ever put together in the English language, with incomprehensibly flawed logic to boot. This is the very definition of chauvinism - and now the male chauvinists of the world have a little forum that they can go to and harp on women as revenge for whatever scorn they have suffered.

Just one telling example out of many: when the author talks so positively about the Indian system of marriage, which protects against the female fleeing at the first signs of distress, which is apparently a common "psychological response" of the ENTIRE gender.

Your arguments are based on stereotypes under the guise of "primal nature." None of these claims have any basis in reality and only use the most extreme, inflated statistics (no citations I noticed).

On a positive note - it is fitting that you have labeled yourself as a Futurist: an openly and unapologetically misogynistic group that wrote crazed manifestoes.

The Futurist

Your unoriginal shaming language was already pre-empted by the article, yet you repeated the same parroting since you lack the intelligence to do better.

Misogyny is imaginary. Misandry is real. And this article has been well-received by some big-name people (linked) with no corresponding condemnations from other big-name people.

with incomprehensibly flawed logic to boot.

YOU talk about logic? LOL! A feminist talking about logic is like an obese person claiming expertise in how to win swimsuit competitions.

Oh, and having sex with a lot of women (as I have) does not increase respect for women. Quite the opposite in fact.

None of these claims have any basis in reality and only use the most extreme, inflated statistics (no citations I noticed).

There are tons of citings and stats with sources linked. Your outright lie is merely an emotional response to your incapacity to debate logically (let alone provide stats).

Your reaction proves that the article is exposes some deep-cutting truths and is exposing the evil hate cult of feminism. More, please!

26 year old guy

I agree with you absolutely 100%, especially about marriage and divorce. I saw it happen to my father and my uncle in their marriages when I was a little boy. I'm 26 years old now and I have NO DREAMS of ever marriage, it's very sad....

M. Simon

You want to do something about politics AND crime? Do something about PTSD.

There is a political party that caters to PTSD sufferers (drug users, the sexually ambivalent, the sexual deviant etc. ) the Democrat Party. Now I don't object to any of those behaviors from a principled stand point. They are adaptations.

What I do object to is that the Right is doing exactly zero to dry up the wellspring of its opposition. Child abuse.

Oh. The Right is perfectly happy to fight the symptoms. With negative results (how will the traumatized react to further trauma?). But dry up the well? Not even under the dimmest of consideration.


I have translated the Misandry Bubble on spanish.

He traducido la Burbuja de la Misandria al Español.

Gracias Futurist (The Fifth Horseman) por este gran artículo.


The Futurist, thanks, you know we have to spread the word to stop this misandrist cancer.


> People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50.

This is completely wrong. The marriage claim is probably wrong - check Gregory Clark's _Farewell to Alms_ on average marriage ages in England both pre and during the Industrial Revolution! - but the real howler is the 'usually died by the age of 50'. Er, no. Check actuarial estimates even back to the middle ages - if you survived to your teens, you had life expectancies easily exceeding age 50. So not even did people not 'usually' die by 50, the majority safely survived it!

Such sloppiness doesn't merit a detailed response but eh, I have a reference handy, so might as well:

> From the table it is clear that even in the middle ages, if the person could get through childhood and early adulthood, he could expect to live to 64 or so.


The Futurist


This is completely wrong.

It is not wrong at all. People in the West married by their early 20s well into the 20th century. A woman delaying marriage past 27 was very uncommon even in 1960.

but the real howler is the 'usually died by the age of 50'.

Life expectancy in the US in 1900 was 47. Even if you take into account infant mortality, etc. it pushed it into the mid-50s. Plus, from time to time, a sizable fraction of men died in wars (which is why widows were not so rare in the old days).

Sorry, but you just don't know much about human history.

Go back and do some research.


Fantastic article.


I like the gist of what i was reading. You are correct. Well done.

We must treat women as is befitting them, with kindness and support, butnot allow them to seek power over us or to tolerate insult to us. For they will do it because they want control. But they shouldnt want to control over their loved ones, nore their chivalrous wardens.
They are immature and easily impressioned, and have become twisted by corpratism, law, authority and feminism as biases. Sadly.

I heard that scientists have found woman introducing "vocal fry" into their voice for reasons unknown to them.
I know why, they are sounding more and more male-like.

Soon there will be almost no true women left. With womans voices, womans clothes and womans nature.
This is very sad to me.


Nice article

But there's an easy solution: marry Asian ;-)


"But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than ever after being inflicted with such misogyny. "

This may be very, very, late to the party, but I am very curious about this statement of yours. Do you also believe that traditionally female functions are also as highly regarded in society? Because I have often read otherwise, in other blogs where men have castigated other men for taking on traditionally feminine roles. These "Misogynists" (I don't use this word lightly, by the way) have also used these traditional gender roles to "prove" that women are historically completely inferior to men, as these "traditionally feminine functions" did nothing to advance society as a whole, were not -doing- anything outside the home unlike with the "traditionally masculine functions". I would like your opinion on those beliefs.

Also. if it is considered alright for females to take on traditionally masculine roles, would it be alright, in your opinion, for a male to, of his own will, take on a homemaker role, or some other traditionally feminine role? As you say they should both be celebrated.

The Futurist

Do you also believe that traditionally female functions are also as highly regarded in society?

In pre-misandrist societies, yes. Go to any poorer country, whether in Latin America, Asia, etc. and you will see how great the 80 year old grandmothers have it. They are visited by all their grandchildren all the time, are taken care of, etc. Way better than some lonely old woman in the West.

as these "traditionally feminine functions" did nothing to advance society as a whole

I don't agree with that. In fact, women in 1920 were doing things more useful to society than women of 2012. That is why chivalry existed - to reward women for doing this.

Also. if it is considered alright for females to take on traditionally masculine roles,

It is *not* alright unless they can do these roles as well as a man. Despite women in the military, they are not sent into dangerous combat situations. Female police get more people (including themselves) killed, etc.

And many traditional male roles are much worse than female roles. Working in a mine, on a dock, in a submarine, etc. is a lot worse than managing a kitchen and caring for children.

, would it be alright, in your opinion, for a male to, of his own will, take on a homemaker role, or some other traditionally feminine role?

It would be 'alright', but women tend to not be attracted to such a man, contrary to what feminists claim. Women are just not wired to be attracted to this type of role reversal.

Remember, gender is NOT a social construct, and there are very real differences in men and women. Feminists secretly know this, but are hypocritical by insisting women can do everything as well as a man, but then lobbying for special treatment/affirmative action for women all over the system.


I've just found this article today, and have spent the last few hours reading it, and the comments. It brings up some interesting points, although I do not agree with all of them.
I really feel compeeled to comment based on one false fact that many people seem to be mentioning, and that is the false rape claims. Someone (I think The Futurist in response to another comment) said that around 41% of rape claims are false. This is not true. False rape claims are no higher then false crime rates in general. The actual rate of false rape claims is between 3-8%.
I really just had to bring that up. I did find the article to be an interesting read, and a new perspective.

The Futurist


said that around 41% of rape claims are false. This is not true.

Nevermind that the article itself supports that statistic with a source. I will re-link the source here :


Also, just consider the number of celebrities accused of false rape. Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant, Tucker Carlson, DSK, Julian Assange, etc.

There is no way false rape is just 3-8%, given that other crimes cannot be exaggerated in the way rape can (murder cannot be exaggerated, because the demand for a list of dead victims would be the next step).

Your sources involve 'studies' by feminist groups that seek to redefine 'rape' to an extreme distortion (like the man become boring 2 weeks after sex), in order to convert false rape into 'rape'.


Any man who can say that housework can be compressed into one hour a day has never cleaned his own home.


HR Lincoln, I do hope your comment about rape vs. cuckholding was a joke; If not, I hope you never have to spend time in prison as you would live to regret your words.

The Futurist


There is a linked poll in the article in which men say that cuckoldry is something they fear even more than prison rape.

That is the point. That women, including yourself, trivialize cuckoldry, is a shameful indictment of moral emptiness on the part of these women.


The Futurist,

One of the sources I linked to (out of three, which is more then your one) included a study done by the FBI, not a feminist group. I think you really need to expand your sources, and be willing to see facts that contradict what you think. It will make your arguments better in the future

The Futurist


No, I already provided a more credible source indicating that it is 40-50%. Given the large number of cases even among famous men, it is quite obvious that rape is heavily exaggerated.

And feminists are working hard to expand the definition of 'rape', in order to conceal the false rape epidemic.

Your own link shows the McDowell research showing 45% to be false. That was only whitewashed by biased feminist judges overturning them outright, and even then managed to overturn only 65% of the false accusations.

You need to read your own sources better.

It will make your arguments better in the future

My argument was just fine. It is you who were stumped by the source I provided, and cannot come to terms with the facts.


Game does not exist. Sorry, but the Internet is not reality. Also, it is 2012 and I have yet to see this "virtual porn". Honestly, you are just as fools as the feminists. You are doing exactly what the feminists want: separating the genders. Sexbots are not the answer, and neither is game. Sadly, the MRM will not be taken seriously because it is run by ignorant individuals who put their faith in technology that does not exist.

Sexbots nor virutal porn will not help humanity. The feminists have already created a birth dearth, and this behaviour just furthers it. In the end, there are two losers: and the sorest loser is men, because of their inefficient solutions to the problem.

The Futurist


Game does not exist.

It does exist, and I personally have benefited greatly from it.

To be in denial of Game is merely the reaction by those who cannot do the work required to improve themselves. They pretty much repeat the same memorized, illogical lines.

As the article said, 80% of men just cannot grasp Game, and you seem to fit the bill.

Jacob Dixon

Yes, this is what I like to read.

IT's really sad that feminists deny that misandry is even a thing.

Hell, it's not even in recent dictionaries anymore.

Andrew Field

I realise I'm 2 years late but it appears your entire argument is thus: the onus for the stability and functionality of societies and the civilization comprised by them must necessarily be borne by the female gender through the subjugation of her wants, needs and desires.

I'm sure you appreciate that like any other grossly unfair allocation of responsibility this could only exist for so long. Feminism was the inevitable and eventually quite brutal backlash and although that has indeed wrought some terrible consequences for all of us (women included), there was never any logical basis for women to be placed in such a position in the first place - beyond the mere facts of our biology, which we easily transcended (or, at least, counterweighted) many years ago.

In other words, if patriarchy mandated women to be the guardians of wider social morality, if we entrusted them with such a burden, we must also have understood that women had the concomitant right to fuck it all up, and bring dissolution to the traditional family if they so wished.

That, however unpalatable and destructive the outcome, is logical and fair.

The Futurist

Andrew Field,

is logical and fair.

It is not logical or fair. For one thing, the average woman was never systematically oppressed to a greater degree than the average men (see the first section of the article).

Also, there are solid surveys linked in the article that show women of today to be far less happy than women of 50 years ago.

Note that the current state is very unsustainable and hence transitory. A society that alienates and subjugates the productive people (mostly men) cannot persist in that state for long.

Andrew Field

The Futurist,

It is not logical or fair. For one thing, the average woman was never systematically oppressed to a greater degree than the average men (see the first section of the article).

Every form of male oppression you discussed (labour, war and financial and legal culpability) is superficial compared to the oppression and partial extirpation of female sexual choice within our species. There have been few more wicked abberations in the history of human nature.

Female sexual selection drives evolution of advantageous characteristics in nearly all mammals. By fostering and maintaining a system where women would always be dependent on men for material resources we sought in effect to wrest this power away from them, to ensure access to sex and reproduction for almost every man regardless of his natural fitness as a mate.

Also, there are solid surveys linked in the article that show women of today to be far less happy than women of 50 years ago.

If you re-read my post I acknowledged as such. That doesn't mean it isn't "fair" in the logical sense.

Note that the current state is very unsustainable and hence transitory. A society that alienates and subjugates the productive people (mostly men) cannot persist in that state for long.

From a biological, genetic and evolutionary standpoint the most productive people are women and thus their processes of sexual selection the most vital. The genie is out of the bottle and unfortunately for substandard men everywhere it's never going back in.

Along with many men I think you are now appalled at the behaviour of modern women which informs the tone of your analysis. What you fail to understand is that women never were natural or willing moral guardians of sexual propriety in the world. They were merely paid by men to be such.


This essay is just fantastic. Every time I read it I am reminded of the thorough and excellent work that it is!


This was a interesting read, both for its logical content as well as its illogical inclusions. An effect will always follow a cause, but even the closest, most constant observation will lose sight of what the original cause was.

Misandry and misogynism are not traits naturally occurring, but are learned and programmed into human behaviour from variable sources. The cause for why a woman should become misandric, or a man misogynistic cannot be clearly defined, it certainly is not down to psycho-sexual dynamics, although these are clearly affected. Misandry and misogyny are opposite sides of the same coin, with the defining bridge that spans the chasm between the two being that of 'human'...being human is the battleground between the forces of both against each other.

Misandry and misogyny are usurpations of the perceiving social mind. The terms are not attacks upon a particular man, or a particular woman, but warped perceivings upon all men, all women. As you state in your piece, if you continuously kick a friendly dog over a long enough period of time, you will eventually gain an animal that has turned unfriendly towards you. That is where the usurpation of the perceiving social mind arises, and I thus wholeheartedly agree with you...one should only judge others by the manner on how they impact upon you. No other variable need be taken into account, including 'gender'.

Unfortunately, with misandry and misogyny, gender becomes the prime focus of the abberation in the perceiving...it specifies the target of hate, but remains a psycho-social abberation, not a psycho-sexual one.

How many times have we all individually stated in our lives..."I hate women!", or "I hate men!", simply because the focus of our affection has dumped us? We don't say..."I hate that particular woman!", or "I hate that particular man!", we include the whole gender race. When we generalise like that we are using misandritic and misogynistic terms, but of course, we don't believe the statements literally, we don't run away and cloister ourselves becoming nuns or monks (although one or two may).

No, we pick ourselves up, lick our wounds, and move on without turning intensely misandritic or misogynistic. Nevertheless, such experiences do plant misandritic and misogynistic seeds, that have the potential to bloom and flower after further bad experiences with the opposite gender down through the years, which eventually taint and abberate one's perceivings of them. Misandritic and misogynistic issues become resident in all of us over time and experience, but normally do not gain any expression, do not normally warp our percievings, do not normally become destructive.

However, misandry and misogyny are insidious possessors of perspective, and the 'possessed' habituate themselves and their mindset through looping, self-reinforcing feedback, with their behavioural response mechanisms to the opposite gender adjusting accordingly to that feedback.

The way out of this condition requires therapy that intercedes in the feedback mechanisms, that turn the extreme polarity of the perceiving into a balanced one. That is what is required, but is easier written then done. Balancing the polarity will take an extremely long stay in therapy. Breaking down the walls of the misandrist or the misogynist will be extremely hard.

The comments to this entry are closed.