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


The Futurist


There are several faulty assumptions in your comment, but the most glaring is the notion that misandry and misogyny are equally prevalent.

Misandry is vastly more common than misogyny, since there are many laws that are outright misandric, but none that are misogynistic. Also, for every man who is a misogynist, there are thousands who are the opposite - pedestalizers, as in those who will excuse a woman for behavior a man will not be excused for.

There are no comparable group of women who defend men from misandry.

Your entire comment seems to go out of its way to avoid seeing how so many laws are extremely anti-male, despite the fact that the article details them.

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?

I have never heard a man say that. Again, you are attempting to make equitable two things are are incomparably different in their prevalance.

Misandry is real. Misogyny is imaginary in the West.


The Futurist,

I should think that misandry and misogyny are equally prevalent, your opinion is not the only opinion worth stating, or worth looking at.

You wrote your reply as if you were sitting in a expert's chair...but you are not. Your statement that misogyny does not exist in the West is such a glaring flaw on your part that I fear you are not writing from a open mind, but one firmly closed against the evidence that it does so! You clearly display irrational thinking.

Both misandry and misogyny are umbrella terms to denote attack, suppression, exploitation upon 'gender' only. They are not of a personal nature, but of a social one. Yet, in your polemic piece and responses to comments, you seem to show a failure on your part of your own misogyny, and I suspect you do so deliberately! You fail to see that you can only respond to misandry with misogyny! Which is equivalent to bringing a gun to a gunfight.

The only true objective stance (understanding) to be taken is to perceive that both terms denote polarity towards opposite gender.

You state, "...there are many laws that are outright misandric..." I fail to see this to be the case. By your statement, you are saying that those laws to which you pertain to be misandric were specifically written with a targeted hate of the male gender. That is utterly preposterous, and unprovable! I await your evidence (not self-evidence) to counterclaim my rebuttal. For your claim to stand and be accepted by any reasonable thinking discernment, you have to prove that the debaters and the writers of the laws specifically targeted 'hate' towards the male gender.

I could accept that there are laws that are misandric-like, but are not in themselves misandritic or misogynistic. Laws do not have 'gender', but subject both genders to the principals they contain.

That you claim for yourself having never heard another man generalise dislike to 'all' women, means absolutley nothing! It is a redundant statement...an off-the-cuff aside to no one in particular. Yet you state it as if it carrys the weight and certitude of fact that no man ever states such a thing...I'm sorry but they do.

I have a colleague at work whom is going through a messy divorce. He generalises a dislike of all women everyday, not just to me, but to other colleagues. "Women are all the same!" he says, echoing a similar derogatory sentiment stated by some women that "All men are the same!" Of course, neither are.

By the way, pedestalism is not the fault of gender, but an obsequious and sychophantic display of uncontrollable idealism deriving from an unconscious sense of unworthiness...it's not just a man thing, women suffer from it, too.

The Futurist


Your statements are absurd. I have pointed out many examples of laws that are overtly rigged against men, while no such laws exist against women. Also, a woman can say things about men that men cannot say about women.

Just one of many examples is VAWA - the Violence Against Women Act. It openly states that violence against women is a worse crime than violence against men or children, and anyone who attacks a woman faces much more severe penalties than anyone who does the same to a man.

And another example is that there are tons of men who attack a man who says something negative about women, but no women who attacks a woman who does the same for men.

Welcome to reality. Misandry is real, misogyny is imaginary.

alex camron

Here is some Canadian justice. A man was sent to because of the following; One evening he was sit quietly and very drunk. His girl friend's 4 year old girl by an other man, unzipped his trousers and procedder to give him a hand job. He got 4 years in jail. No mention of where the child learned this behavior. No mention of the mother's part in this. After all this is BC, our most politicly correct province.


Beth, I commend you...I'm afraid women are NOT, let me repeat that women are NOT going to get this, and that its going to be very catastrophic, because they don't even listen to the facts a lot, I hear one of like two or so responses from women when this is brought up, leading me to think they're just parroting programmed responses. One is,"men and women are both abusers", another is, "you hate women don't you?", and the third is "quit whining"...and and the close. Even when you tell them that if they have any children who are boys, they will have a good chance of having false accusations made against them and will likely have everything taken from them by the system. All I can say is the female ear on average cannot seem to hear these facts. The few who can don't seem to take it seriously because it doesn't affect them as women, so they just don't care.



As a man, I have to commend you. I had to rewrite this because the first time I wrote it, I was in a hurry, and I messed it up...but as I was saying, I don't know if you've noticed, but women in general, and not all obviously, because you're on top of it, but in general they have a HUGE blind spot to this, and I think it stems from the fact they have been told that they are the victims all their lives, not men, so it couldn't POSSIBLY be the other way around. Now, it seems, they just think anything they do, even lie, is justified because men are just scum. Its the old machiavelli attitude of the ends justifies the means, mixed with complete hubris. As a gender they have worked so hard to gain so much, and now they are abusing it, as they say, pride cometh before a great fall, so they may lose it all if this creates a backlash movement from men who are sick of being raked over the coals with lies. When I speak to women about this, I get one of three responses from women who disagree, which is very telling, and I think may just be the parroting of programmed responses. They don't address the facts, they just say to you,"oh you hate women, don't you", or,"both men and women are abusive", which has nothing to do with the topic of false allegations, or they say,"quit your whining".

So keep up the good work, shining light on this topic. Thank you, so much!


This is very well written, and I would agree on some, if not most of the major points it relies upon. However, there is one problem--as I have started looking at the HBD/Manosphere/Game sites, I notice--the vast majority of those reading/commenting think of themselves as "alpha" males. Is this a problem?

The Futurist


It is not a problem, because of those blogs which are savvy to Game, the men writing them actually are 'alpha', meaning they are more attractive than 80-90% of men. If the knowledge they are imparting is helping other men learn, that is a positive.

Comment sections can get tedious, but you have to find which sites have a commentariat you like (quite often, the commentariat are very different from the host, like in The Spearhead, where the host is one of the nicest, most professional, and most polite people, but a good number of commenters are deranged, jealous, and very loserish).


Cham,"I'll defend Suze Orman. She's a faiancnil adviser, not a family relationship manager."Then tell her to stop acting like one. I have heard her on numerous ocassions telling women who call in to leave a man and get a divorce stat. She doesn't know the circumstances or what may be going on. If a woman takes the family money to shop and overspends on credit cards, she coos sympthetically, "girlfriend, you are trying to fill yourself with shopping. Are you upset at your husband, life etc.?" A man is expected to be responsible for his debt no matter what. I have heard Orman on very few ocassions tell a man to watch out for a girlfriend or mother who overspends his money, but it is rare. She talks a good game about "power" for women but in reality she sees them as helpless, irresponsible and unable to separate emotional from faiancnil decisions.


NOW and the feminist monvemet have always been overrated; female equality has been the result of a culture that evolved with a free market economic system, and the resulting technical advancement and division of labor. This is also true of other advances, such as the Enlightenment, which was really the result of the evolution of Anglo-Saxon culture in a free market/commerce based society. The Enlightenment was not driven by intellectuals, except for the the failed French version.


This why no man should ever marry woihtut having a prenup.For some reason people shy away from prenups because they feel like they take the romance out of the marriage. But the bottom line is that prenups just override the the laws that dictate how the assets are distributed if you decide to split the sheets in the absence of one. You are just agreeing to the State's formula. Hardly anyone actually understands those laws when they go into a marriage.Not having a prenup is exactly the same as not having a will. Without a will, you are simply agreeing the you want your assets distributed according the the State's formula upon your death.Virtually everyone has a will, but hardly anyone has a prenup, including myself; but I got married when I was young and idealistic.I keep trying to get up the nerve to ask my wife for a post-nup, but so far I have been a big chicken.


Perhaps reality has a point seerwhome after all. Maybe many women are nothing more than hookers, giving it up for and to the hubby of the highest bid.I know I'd never marry a virgin. I would definitely need to view and test drive that stuff first. If it ain't any good enough, throw it back. And now, with the way the feminist movement is going on about things, I feel free to toss in they need to be good at oral sex as well. And with absolutely no guilt feelings, or male pig feelings about it. Turnabout is fair play. It ain't men bringing it on. It's them. I don't believe I'll every feel guilty of wham, bam, thank you ma'am ever again.

Adam Martin

What drivel.... You manipulate statistics, misconstrue history, all to support your viewpoint. You're no better than the feminists you attack. The root of the matter is that throughout history you have sermonizing buffoons claiming the end of the world has arrived because of such and such inequality or sacrilege, when in reality life carries on. The courts in most western countries (the US is occasionally an exception due to its ridiculous elected judges and partisan supreme court) have very fair judiciaries, and individual discussion in a business setting is rarely biased.

On a personal level, I feel that I have heard more anti-female sentiments than anti-male, but that could well be because I'm more attuned to the former. Regardless, almost every 'fact' you stated here reeks of anti-female bias, and revisionist views on history.

I have to admit to only making it about halfway through your piece, but I doubt it improved very much. You should remember to apply the same critical view to your own work as you do to others.

The Futurist

Adam Martin,

All the statistics are cited from reputed sources. You just don't like unpleasant truths.

Check out the poll. The readership agrees with the article by a landslide margin.

Misogyny is imaginary. Misandry is real.

Lesbian Feminist Hive Mind

It's true, it's all true.

I am one of those evil lesbian feminist misandrists and we have been plotting as a hive mind collective for several years now, the subjugation and elimination of all of the MALE gender for the benefit of the great mother earth our ultimate objective!

We forsee our lesbian female paradise to be a reality even earlier than you predict - 2018 to be exact. Or is it earlier? Maybe I just want to keep you on your toes, not knowing exactly when or exactly how the great bloody revolution will come, letting you instead toss and turn endlessly through sleepless nights, the better to wear down your resistance for when our mighty uprising comes into being!

We will first make of all beta men dysfunctional eunuchs, good only for rubbing our feet and doing the household chores.

The alpha men we will put to hard physical labour, occasionally choosing one with which to breed - not sexually of course, instead simply milking him of his seed for artificial insemination, leaving him unsatisfied and forced to turn to other men for fulfillment!

All existing male children will be raised as female, with the necessary hormones and surgeries to complete this.

Meanwhile, our sciences are so advanced that we can engineer all future children to be female, thereby ridding the earth of the pestilence known as man for good! Finally, the great mother earth will be able to breathe freely!!!

We have these plans in place and they are developing at a rapid rate, even more rapidly than we had dared first believe. So many of us have ensnared rich men from whom we ruthlessly take money, adding it to our collective kitty towards the great cause whilst feigning that we are going "shopping". So far, foolproof.

But you, dear Futurist, what of you...? Well, your prophetic visions have alerted us to the fact that it is dangerous to allow any man to run around thinking his own thoughts and speaking his own mind. Whilst there is literally nothing you can do to stop the coming revolution, still we have set our sights on you first... we are coming for you... we are coming for you first. We want to be there when your first hopeless screams rend the air as you witness the end of mankind and the rise of the gynocratic age! Don't sleep... don't ever sleep!!!


You have put too much thought into all of this. It isn't some pissing contest over who has been/is oppressed the most. Life is difficult for different people in different ways. You seem to be suggesting that there is only space for one type of 'victim'. The presence of misandry does not negate other forms of discrimination against women, various ethnic groups, economic classes e.t.c.

Ms. Ann Drew Bubble

The Misandry Bubble is being critiqued here;


Ms. Ann Drew Bubble

"For those misandrists who say 'good riddance' with great haste, remember that blogging can still be done from overseas, and your policy of making the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes that your utopia requires depends on that top 1% agreeing to not take their brains and abscond from Western shores."

If they retain American citizenship, (and who wouldn't considering the freedom that comes with being a US passport holder, shit we don't even need visas for 6 month stays in the world's best countries), then they still have to pay taxes to the US.

Ms. Ann Drew Bubble

"Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry"

Are you kidding me? Have you seen the land whales that marry each other these days? You need to amend that to, "...who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry THE MOST HANDSOME AND WEALTHY MEN."

The average and below average folks have never had an easier time finding each other, dude.

The Futurist

Ms. Andrew Bubble,

Your comments are incoherent and poorly formed.

And your so-called 'critique' of The Misandry Bubble was pathetic. You pick about 2 sentences out of the entire article (ignoring the other 99.9% of it), and even that you argue against strawmen that have not been said or even implied.

If you think that is a 'critique', that is, again, pathetic on your part.

For one thing, you think feminism is 'great' without even being aware that it has passed laws that have sent thousands of innocent men to jail, without due process or compliance with the US Constitution.

You know very little about the concepts of Men's Rights OR Seduction.

Furthermore, you seem to think US citizenship is the only one that enables '6 month visits to many countries'. A lot of citizenships enable the same. Get a clue.


I'm amazed at this article, it covers a lot in a *relatively* concise and very informative treatment!
As an economic analysis, the bubble comparison is brilliant.
FTR, I've only been reading any serious MRAs for a week or so now.
One thing I've been saying for a couple years about "Women's Liberation" as far as entering the workplace, amounts to workload. If women wanted to share the same workload equally with men, that would be wonderful. A fifty-hour workweek could be cut to twenty-five each, leaving much comfort and satisfaction for both -- of course, for couples who wanted to do that.
But entering the workforce for the same workload as the male is not a cooperative effort. It is competitive in that if exhaustively implemented it would fully double the labor pool while maintaining the same number of consumers in any environment, therefore halving the value of labor for everybody. The only context where it could be more productive for the couple would be if they were themselves employers, and the more they employed themselves the more that would be true, but at the expense of doubling everyone else's workload with no gain in real value.

I am inclined to understand that your political persuasion operates along the mainstream left-right political continuum (which I believe is in itself an insidious elitist power grab for the sake of molding the debate in arbitrary pseudobinary or at best one-dimensional terms), and that your own position along such is proudly dextrous.
I was able to take this with a grain of salt, but many intelligent leftist readers I know, who could be persuaded along the angle of this thesis, will jump at any opportunity to dismiss this piece on purely popular political grounds. Tne recommendation I have for future compositions is to try to minimize anything that isn't directly relevant to this. "Socialism" means so many things to so many people that just uttering it is its own can of worms all over the place. (Which is why 'air quoting' 'feminism' helps a ton, since it means everything from 'equality under the law' through androgynism to matriarchalism!) One as well-thought and written as you should be able to cultivate this to greater precision.
And for someone as good at recognizing sinister and oppressive agendas, it's hard for me to believe that you seem to consider the War on Terror a somehow worthwhile or necessary pursuit, when I see it as a massive transfer of wealth and power from the USAmerican people as well as an imposition of the dollar by force onto the oil trade when, for all we know, in a free market (which libs or cons wouldn't know one if it bit them in this ass which, incidentally, it does every time they meddle with it) oil would be nothing but a dinosaur. (Even though it kind of IS like Soylent Dinosaur Fuel). Anyway that last one is off topic so feel free to e-mail me. Just an example of things that might alienate otherwise receptive converts!
Thanks again for a great article!


Manhood Academy has been saying this for ages. It looks like the experts are finally catching up: www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4


This article has changed my life. Thank you.

I've always had this sickening sensation of being emasculated by modern society, and feeling as though my natural male tendencies were somehow "wrong". This explains everything perfectly.

I am a 25 year old male who has never even been in a relationship, and of course every woman I meet would describe me as one of the nice guys. I have been such a schmuck all this time!

Well, I am off to attempt learning the Venusian Arts. I've ordered "The Game" by Neil Strauss, and hope to make some progress towards evening this divide in which there seems to be double standards for every aspect of life now.

Call me a misogynist; I simply don't care anymore. I am fed up with trying to find my soul-mate in a distorted society. I hope we can achieve true equality, rather than what is labeled as equality but is most certainly not.


I read this article and have to agree with everything. The one thing I have to disagree with is the comment that suggested moving to Australia to get away from the misandry in the US/Canada. As an Australian male I can only suggest that you don't as our system is just as bad as the US/Canada, only about ten years behind you.

2011 saw the introduction to the Domestic Violence Against Women & Children Act that saw basically the same laws as the VAWA laws brought into Australia and ignored 30% of victims of DV: men. With the act there now only needs to be a 'fear' by the woman of the man and that's enough to remove him from ever seeing his children without trial. They also made it so it's not a crime for a woman to make false accusations of DV against a man. Oh, and our 'Act' was co-written by a woman who actively participates in SCUM, kind of like having a white-supremist helping to write immigration policy.

We're also about 10 years behind collapsing because our debt levels haven't reached the point of collapse that the US has. We've been riding high on the resource boom that's kept our debt levels to manageable (although the government is doing it's best to spend like it's going out of fashion).
Our Universities still treat men like they're rapists just waiting for opportunity, our airlines have policies that assume all men are pedophiles just waiting for opportunity and our family law when it comes to custody could easily rival the US or Canada for equality, or lack thereof.

It's possible that our aging population will present problems, but we've had very high immigration for many decades which may lessen the impact of the aging problem.

There's another problem that Australia has that I don't know if the US has, which is non-mandated, but socially coerced preference for hiring females over males. One only needs to look at many well-paid government departments to see over 90% women working there. The feminist groups still argue that "the top positions are more than 75% male", but looking at the top positions one only needs to realize most of them are over 50 years old and will be retiring in the next few decades making the clear successors their current subordinates: their mostly female staff.
The biggest problem though lies in the private sectors like Engineering where big companies, the ones that have mostly male staff over 50 years old, are hiring female graduates only to try to 'balance the numbers' only to have the women leaving for more family friendly companies when they start having children, leaving the companies to have to train up replacements. This wouldn't be such a problem except that by only hiring female engineering graduates they leave male graduates either going for leftover jobs in smaller companies, sometimes in rural areas (in Australia a rural area could be five hours drive from the nearest city) for not a lot of money or not able to work and get experience in his field of study, forcing him to find an alternate vocation.

They are trying to do little things to try to slow down the drain (recently they made it so that single mothers will get less money once their youngest child turns eight years old to encourage them to get back to work) but they're facing backlash from every women's group there is. Fancy a government thinking they could expect a woman to return to work once her child is school full time!

In Australia the suicide rate is of roughly the same proportion as the US is, only instead of our government spending any real money on it ($800k promised to mens issues in 2012 Federal budget) the government led by our female Prime Minister proudly announced that the Australian government would be committing $320 million dollars to other small island countries to help women in those countries develop their careers. That's right, the CAREERS of women who aren't even citizens of Australia are worth more than the men who ARE citizens!

So, in summarizing, so sorry for the long post, but I feel Australia and the US/Canada have much in common with regards to their situations and attitudes, but Australia is ten years behind with everything and may be able to ride it through while other countries are falling. Our country has a poor history of seeing what other countries do wrong and seem to repeat those mistakes with the belief that it somehow will work better for us.

P.S. This doesn't really fit into this message, but I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on what you think might happen if a major World War were to break out and men (including those who have been disenfranchised with the system that treats them like dogs) will be expected to 'man up' and go to war.
Personally I see this being a major shortcoming in our country's foresight because how many men are going to want to put their lives on the line to defend a country that not only has a history of treating them like s**t, but also of treating returned servicemen like s**t? This has certainly been the case in last few wars.


This is the best article that I heave read in a long time....you are a STAR!....I am getting ready to leave North America also....fuck the Feminazi losers...let them starve!

The Twentieth Man

I spent the entire day reading this post - hunting the elephant. I'm sure you've heard the expression about "ignoring the elephant in the room." No elephant. While I appreciate your labors and envy your energy and writing skills and both agree with and learned from your post; I must point out that you've utterly neglected the role of the mass media in the Feminist Movement.

It is amazing to me that hundreds of millions of women across the globe have been infected with and joined the movement and not one of them bothered to look up the word "feminism" in the dictionary. My dictionary says it's a cult. If you have an old dictionary lying about - your grandfather's perhaps, you can verify this.


The elephant in the room that no one recognizes is television. Television is not a member of your family. It was my misfortune to be eye-witness to the mass brainwashing of America. You were cuckolded by your best friend. Your wife ran off with the TV. Television is the Alpha Male in everyone's life.

While hypergamy is an astute analysis of female behavior it is the behavior of feral women - women stripped of all culture.

I see women as victims as much as perpetrators; they are simply parroting slogans burned into their memory banks by advertising campaigns.

Complexity devolves to simplicity and labor unrewarded is abandoned but the mass audience television so brutally abused no longer exists and Pandora's Box has been opened; the women can't massively be deprogrammed, so it may take generations to heal this social disaster, if at all.

Sexual Equality is an oxymoron and an unattainable goal.

This post was recommended to me by my son. I wish I'd seen it sooner.

The Twentieth man


I just had to forward this article to you:


This is in Australia where apparently "in 2050 an extra $60 billion will have to be found to look after our ageing population".

The article mentions about how "what may come as a shock to many is that, according to Newspoll, young people are more willing to be the bread winners for their parents' twilight years."

I'm not sure if they mean that young people today are willing to look after their parents, or whether they SAY they do (knowing the old-age pension is safe for the next decade at least) but want their own children to look after them when they're old.

No mention at all for who's going to pay for childless people to live in old age...


I think you missed an important point.

Feminism creates revisionism: Let me explain.

Feminists make girls believe that men have always had the chance to choose what to do, to have a carreer, to study or not... but they forget that before the "class revolution" in the mid 20's (depend for which country we talk) and before, men had NO choices: education, university, choosing your carreer was not an option for 99% of the men. Only a small percentage of the elite could actually do that. The rest of them just had to work (HARD) to survive and earn enough money for their familly. Truth is, feminists present men work like 'fun', like a choice, while it was no choice, it was an obligation, a hard obligation with the pressure of failling that was forbidden! They also seem to forget that jobs were moslty physically hard and dangerous...

So no! working before the industrial revolution and before the birth of the Tertiary (and higher sectors) sectors was NOT being on a computer with a mouse and a phone!

feminist totally forget the 'class revolution' that gave men some rights, before that, men were tools and had a way more diffult life than women!

Another important point: in Europe, women and men pay the same amount of their wage for their retirment (state retirement). How is this possible when you know that men still live in average 8 years less than women!!!??? so basically, men pay now for women' retirement... men offer 8 year of free retirement for women, this should be reflected in our wages!


you are using a faulty datum for Life expectancy.

If you look at the life expectancy charts prior to 1920, They virtually always include infant and child mortality figures. Prior to the 1900's infant and child mortality was extreme, and out of a dozen children born (or stillborn) you could expect an average of 4 to live to reproduce.

Once you account for insanely high infant mortality rates and a much higher rate of deaths due to 'misadventure, starvation, and murder', you will find that healthy adults actually had a slightly HIGHER life expectancy than today. Adults that never had any accidents could be expected to live to 80, and an end age of 100 or higher, while unusual, was actually a higher percentage of the senior population than it is today.


This is an amazing read, true to its core. I'm only twenty one years old and I've been single for over three years. I had plenty of chances hitting it with different girls, but they all felt 'wrong', so I pushed them aside. I'd also like to add that I wasn't exactly sure why they were wrong for me. It was just a gut feeling.

Having read this article and having time to reflect, I realized that these girls were either gold diggers, uncaring, self centered, or simply vicious cunts.

The best we, as good men can do for the rest of our brothers is to spread this message and open their eyes to the harsh realities that they may be subjected to.


You just know you're reading a truly great social treatise when the work in question features a picture of the Fonz. Why, I believe Thomas Paine's seminal Rights of Man originally shipped with a cover etching of MacGyver.

Also, Macho Man Randy Savage would kick your ass for using the definite article with his name. A minor point to be sure, but it's as worthy of serious analysis as anything else in this essay.


i read your article many times but can't totally understand it.I understand the basic premise of misandry bubble.I still don't understand how it will burst.
USA can print unlimited dollars,can sell trillions of dollars of treasuries,can spend a trillion per year on military and nothing seems to happen to its economy.US can still give free food,UE,SS,medicaid.Many goods are imported from all over the world.In fact,any other country might have failed but US is holding very well.There are no food riots,trains,planes are running on time,cars and goods are still sold,malls are full,restaurants are busy.Sure there is unemployment and underemployment but the country is running well.Even the police in smallest town now have military grade weapons.
So in nutshell,recession haven't hit US bad as many predicted.
And economical problems don't suggest change in societal laws which benefit lot of angry power hungry feminists,judges,lawyers,police,politicians.
The business is win win for the above-mentioned people and they don't see any disruption.Feminists are going to be even more tyranical when real dictatorship gets established in USSA.
My guess is USSA is going to become a full matriarchy when feminists start toppling white men from their jobs.The demographic trend suggests women will be 60 % of total population and they will be in majority for very long time.No social change or law change will happen because of power of female voters.

Next Luxury

Wow this was a super, super long read but well worth it! Overall, amazing would describe it. I believe it would do great good for young males these days to read this, and have a solid understanding of what it means to be a man. Most importantly the explanations you give offer a lot of answers we face in modern culture when dealing with women.. Time to do some fact checking, but I love how you really did your research this one. I run a men's magazine myself and love coming across articles like this one! ps. "What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex'" I couldn't agree more! Thanks!, Brian http://www.nextluxury.com

Eric Young

Absolutely amazing article. Definitely opened my eyes to what the problem of modern society is. I always felt that something was wrong, and now that I know I should do something about it. Either that, or just move to a different country more supportive of men. Which countries would you suggest to accomplish this?


Myth of female oppression my ass.

Yes, it is a myth, as explained in the article - The Futurist . Either debate the actual points, or shut up.

Francis S

Wonderful article. I love that it's now 2013 and so much is coming true. Looking forward to the collapse.


Haha! This is awesome. The long, slow, pathetic defeat of manginas like myself has a URL. Thank you for consolidating so much of the whiny, entitled, sadness of the death of misandry in one place.

I particularly enjoy your predictions. Everything you "foresaw" is either picked off the pages of Time or Newsweek or out of the mouths of other sad, white men who have been crying similar cries since before the Women's suffrage movement.

The good news is that you, like they, will gradually lose. Women will gain more legal protections, more (well-deserved) professional esteem and more freedoms. This will have complicated sociological effects on the world. You won't like some of them. I might not like some of them. Women might not like some of them. But overall, we manginas are the ones who are going to lose.


Futurist, I'm going to have to disagree with you that 10-20% of children are not the biological offspring of their putative father. That's the number of paternity tests that come back negative, and if a man got a paternity test in the first place, it means there was already some suspicion. According to research, the average worldwide cuckolding rate is much lower, with a worldwide average of 3.7%. Interestingly, this research reinforces your point that women are hypergamous; paternity fraud is more likely to happen in impoverished communities, to men of lower social status.

Otherwise, excellent analysis. I just hope you're right and it will collapse by 2020, this shit has gone on long enough.



Whiny loosers.
It's just beautiful to watch evolutionary forces in a process of eliminating me as a failed woman.



[[You are merely stumped by the solid logic of the article, which is why your visceral reaction contains no intelligent counterpoints. Your reaction is that of someone who has been intellectually outclassed by a huge margin - The Futurist.]]


Hello mate,

Just stumbled upon your article, I would like to thank you for entertaining me with such fallacious thesis. You match the exact definition of a demagogue, making stats talking in your favor, picking "friends" website who are already drawn to your cause and so on.
I genuinely believed at first that you were ironic, but turns out that you are a 100% serious about it.
I am tempted to re-read this and write an anti-thesis and post it here over the week-end, but given that you have a better command of English than me, I do not wish my time to go to waste.
One thing that disturb me, you speak of America, your arguments are relevant to the US and a few things about the UK(where I live, and are by the way, totally wrong and misconcepted). Yet you mention the Western World in its whole. Could you please tell me, is Europe included in that Western world ?
Do you seriously believe that everything you stated for the US should apply de facto to Europe ?
I am a French citizen, and let me to tell that none of what you have writen is relevent to my country nor to Italy where I also lived.
Nevertheless, who would worry about the opinion of a cheese eating surrendering monkey anyway ? (Which is offensive, if I was a monkey I would file a lawsuit for being compared to French people ;))

Have a nice day and just meet a genuine nice girl, not one of those fake money-hunting city girl who'd resort to prostitution for getting anything they want !

[[Your message is not even coherent, nor does it even address the points of the article. At any rate, the poll in the article overwhelmingly agrees with it, and your inability to rebut specific points or even avoid the pre-emptive description I make in the article about people like you, proves it all.

You have no idea how much someone like you proves the solid logic and irrefutable facts in the article. - The Futurist. ]]


God Damn. Excellent article that I wish I had found sooner. Thanks for taking the time to write this!


This is the most ignorant, wholly unprecedented, pack of bologna lies that only a weak willed, uninspiring, crap-brained person could every possibly believe is any where near a logical assessment and conclusion in any framework of scientific thought.

For the love of all that is Holy, GO TO COLLEGE.

[[Go to college? Frankly, if someone wanted to make feminists look angry and unintelligent by pretending to be one, they could hardly do a better job than this comment - The Futurist ]]


Don’t forget ancient China. Men were forced to be altered into eunuchs. Then they were despised for being mutilated. If that isn’t oppression then I don’t know what is.


Hi - excellent read.
Why do you sound so negative about Britain in your conclusion please?

The Futurist

Hello Phil,

I get the impression that in Britain, misandry is even more coded into the law, and that since Sharia courts are allowed, many men are opting to go there for, frankly, a better judicial outcome.

Also, the tax hike in Britain saw a significant wealth exodus, that is not quite as easy to invite back.


Somebody pointed me to this article after i created this post.


It's almost uncanny how much i ended up coming to the exact same conclusion you did during The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation section.

Your page is required reading for all inductees into the sphere.

[ Thanks! - The Futurist]


While this article is mainly written about the US I feel it applies to all first world countries. As an active MRA for almost a decade (often fruitless activism but with small successes that are worth it in my opinion) I see it happening in Europe too but more so the Islamification of the culture. Already 11% of British men are converting to Islam and this is something that is largely unreported by the main stream media. Even the demographic winter is nigh unstoppable now as far as I can see. While the same market forces in the US may not apply to Europe, I see it heading in the same direction. I do however feel that it is going to get a whole lot worse before it hits bottom. In the UK single motherhood is now approaching 80% (as in other urbanized areas of other countries) and the laws have become even more draconian. Men in France cannot get paternity tests as they are banned, catcalls carry huge fines and prison time and fathers have lost almost all rights to their children and the list goes on and on. The Bologna Process (established in 1999 but on-going) has instituted a new academic policy this year of reducing mathematic entry levels into STEM fields for women only while maintaining the higher standards for men, this coupled with quota places for women only and affirmative action policies making a comeback surely means that Europe is heading in the same way. The London School of Economics has issued a study last year showing that men and boys in education are being marked harder than their female counterparts. Germany has also given serious thought to implementing a bachelor tax on men and once Germany does this the other EU countries will follow suit. The union of universities I attended has also introduced women only scholarships at a time when women outnumber men 65% to 35% in third level education. As a nurse (who is a woman) of 10 years I see a growing problem too with the medical professions as more and more women are being given (quota) places over men to study to become doctors yet in my experience they last no more than 10 years in the profession before they drastically cut their hours leaving male doctors or foreign (mostly male) doctors to take up the slack (and male doctors are in the minority now in the profession). I suppose the same scenario applies to other professions but I will only speak of what I have observed. The fact is that men take less out of the system across all spheres and contribute a hell of a whole lot more yet more and more they are being marginalized by the very system they have helped create that women benefit from (because feminism and women en masse want more and more government goodies which are being funded by men). I can only describe what I am seeing as a form of parasitism and men are the host keeping women and the State floats. But the men are leaving now and extracting the parasite from the body in growing numbers, numbers that should truthfully alarm both women and governments. I hope feminists enjoyed the party because they will be one big mess left and no one left to clean it up but women. I'd like to leave a quote from a commenter on another blog from a few years ago that sums up the situation as I see it.

"I did predict that Islamisation of the West will occur over 6 years ago. More and more western males will also embrace Islam as it will give them protection and power over women whom in Islam are “half that of a man.

The future looks grim for the white male, Christianity, agnosticism, atheism and other non Muslim faiths. You speak of anarchy, but that will not happen when Islam is the majority.

However, one thing’s for sure, either way with Islamisation or not feminism is f*cked and worse still, women really don’t know just how big a hole their digging for themselves. The horrors we hear of the sex slave trade of Eastern European women will happen to them and there will be no one prepared to protect them. We will certainly see the rise of misogyny on a tremendous scale as no forgiveness will be given, to a once pampered, protected and respected part of the fairer sex within the west, who had it all, we gave a yard and they took a mile. One thing goes without saying and that is if you f*ck with nature, nature will only do the same back. The bond has been broken between male and female. The respect for women is disappearing faster than a chicken in Ethiopia. Being a man who once put women on a pedestal, I’m now the complete opposite (although certainly not a misogynist) someone, who’d never go to the aid of a “damsel in distress.” Why? Well they’ve created the state, so let the state protect them. They’ll find that an even more impossible event in the future, as more and more men will no longer feel the need to treat a part of society that treats them like sh*t.

Women are about to enter a new dark age, either with or without Islamisation and I hate to say it, but they’ll have created it and brought it tumbling down on top of them like a tonne of bricks, themselves."

On a final note, I do have a good male friend who works in an EU research think-tank for academic and societal issues (as well as a senior lecturer at my old university) and he has essential expressed the above views (the Futurist article I mean) as well as clearly indicating that those n political power are well aware of men's marginalization but they are in a catch 22 situation. Governments need the vote so they have to keep women happy but by keeping all the goodies going they are causing the implosion (one beyond anyone’s imagination in my opinion).

This is the way all of Europe is going so take heed America and Australia.


@Nuala, I work in a University in administration and I can attest to the growing sexism against men that is being perpetuated mainly by women. This is now a growing trend in some universities in English speaking countries from what I have observed while working at two universities and from stories from other colleagues. I have done and still doing my part to battle it but it is a losing battle. I have seen male applicants being put to the bottom of the pile for places in courses even though they were vastly more qualified for the place, in terms of grades and extra curricular work. Not just in STEM subjects but in humanities as well. Some colleges are calling for exam papers to be separated in to male-female piles and when the female pile's average is below the male average they will bring up the marking for all female papers in that pile to normalize it. This is suggested for STEM subjects to attract more female graduates as there is a high dropout/transfer rate. I guess in the future this will eventually make it's way into the mainstream media but as I see it no one cares about discrimination against males. It is practically lauded by some of the former women's studies students who now work in administration and the upper tier of the university system do not care as long as they have the numbers and funding.


(Please don't mind my grammar). But as I see, the scenario might be different in future. I can feel that in future even if males disengage from this so called feminist society and discover their new ways of living such as in video games (which is currently male dominated), in the end it would be men who would get downplayed again, if we don’t do anything. Feminization of video-games has started to happen, and just like governance, academia and all the other areas (which were erstwhile male but now are dominated by females). In future we may again see video gaming market and other male spaces (which at present is very few) bending towards females as soon as they enter it and start demanding for themselves. Well that is not the problem either, but that fact that very engagement of females with males which has been disastrous often may become true here too. I see the feminists constantly blaming patriarchy for all the wrongs that have been done to both women and men. But I suppose they are wrong. Totally they are wrong.
PATRIARCHY HAS NEVER BEEN AND WILL NEVER BE. PATRIARCHY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE. Same applies to matriarchy as well. It all depends on what we believe in, and how we think about it. WHAT FEMINISM HAS DONE IS EXPOSE THE HALF REALITY - ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. I am a resident of a developing country, which is not rich enough. It was raining heavily today (2/8/13) whilst I had gone to the market. Parking arrangement was not in order. I being male was strong enough to park my bike, however I saw most women were constantly asking the park keeper (a man) to park their scooters, and hand lift them in case of congestion. Viewing this I started with my retrospection. I might say, well without conformity, that a 100 years ago or so most western world would have been similar. These tasks which most women didn't want to perform did not do it. At that time working outside, etc. was really dangerous and hence most women preferred to stay inside. Now claiming that patriarchy made them stay, made them dependent is just a false statement intended to misguide people. Actually even in those days it was men who had a worse deal. Men were literally thrown out from the comfort of their homes to protect women. (Only those who remained were the alphas, old or children just like today’s alphas who do have a good deal). What did most men do with that, when they were thrown out literally? They, unlike most women, didn’t complain. They made altogether a new world, on their own. A world of their own which we what see today, before it was invaded by feminists, who brought with them all ills to men. And now that these feminists own it, I see men again building their own new world as in video games etc. Once this world becomes a phenomenon, I can see women again invading this world in their fucking name of fucking EQUALITY.
Point I must emphasise it we as men must fight for us. This world will be created by us, through our hard efforts, HARD EFFORTS OF MEN. And this time we are not going to let this world go into female hands so easily, who do not understand the meaning of sacrifice. Why should we give it to them, when it’s known that most of these women will again try to downplay us as the history tells us? Let this time, there be a REAL EQUALITY, and not just EQUALITY!! And if these so called feminists influenced women really want their choice, their freedom, go on! Go, enjoy your life! Foo those women my advice is: “why don’t you leave us alone if were are so troublesome, so monstrous, so freedom restricting? Instead of complaining all the time and winning why women can’t have it all, why don’t you too make a world of your own without our help. Stop invading our territories!!”
Right to live is a fundamental right. All what is needed for men is the right to be left alone. Obviously our right to be left alone. But stop complaining, be accountable for your deeds, start working harder! (I know how much hard you have worked to become strong independent women. Really! I must acknowledge that! INDEPENDENT, EMPOWERED WOMEN who depends on state funded schemes, alimony, female only scholarship, male invented technologies, taxes which are mostly paid from men’s side and the list goes long). You! “Consumer women”, if you really don’t want to depend on “Producer men” go and make world of your own if you really find men troublesome, stop invading our world (Men’s world), and IF YOU DARE INVADE OURS ABIDE BY OUR RULES!


I realize this is an older article, but I feel the need to give my 2 cents still, even if no one ever reads it.

I was under the impression VAWA covered men too based on a few articles I read when it was up for renewal. Regardless, I always felt the name of the act was rather ridiculous. Violence is violence is violence, no matter who it's committed against.

Not entirely sure why people are bitching about men fearing cuckolding more than being raped. These men are not saying cuckolding is worse than a woman being raped, for fuck's sake. They're saying they themselves feel more worried about being cuckolded, which may very well be because it happens more frequently to men than rape does - I'd have to check the statistics on that though before I claim that is the definite truth.

What I have seen in the US is that these groups who feel they have been oppressed gain more power, evening things out. They then take the lead from their "oppressors" and do the same thing, claiming it's ok because, well, the "oppressors" (who are now the ones being oppressed) deserve it. For all the sexism I've experienced in my life, I do not want to perpetuate that cycle. I do not want ANYONE to experience that.

I used to identify as a "feminazi." Now I don't even call myself a feminist, but an egalitarian instead (and yes, I'm well aware there is no major movement associated with this term, but I also think mass social movements employ mob mentality far too much as it is). I think hardly anyone is free in America, so I'd like for us to establish freedom (in reality, not just on paper), and for EVERYONE to be allowed it, no matter the gender or race. I do think women are more oppressed in certain areas of life, but I also think men are in other areas.

I think modern feminists (in general, not all) are effectively weakening a woman's sense of agency. I do not ever want to be hired for a job because I'm a woman. I want to be hired because I am competent and fucking awesome at the job. I do not like that feminists tell me my opinions are a result of the patriarchy or men's influence on my life. These are my opinions, and I often arrive at them after doing extensive research (that is, reading information written by both men AND women). It is so easy for them to discredit other women's opinions when they disagree just by saying they aren't really their opinions - that they are being subconsciously controlled by men. This is especially ridiculous in my case because I was raised by a single mother and grew up with my two sisters... I had very little male influence growing up (and I actually repeatedly had it banged into my head that all men were shit), and most of the men I knew were not worth a damn. This formed the basis of my opinion about them.

So what swayed me? Well, first, both sexists and feminists like to behave as if women have no appreciation of logic (I seriously have read feminists saying logic has no place when discussing sexism, as if it being an emotional issue automatically excludes logic - this really offends me). This isn't true in my case at least. Logic and extensive research into statistics are what solidified my belief.

So what made me even consider looking into the research? The fact that as I got older, I met many men who were respectful, kind-hearted, and some of the best people I know (including my husband). If feminists want to call this patriarchal influence, then fine. I call it the melting of my icy feminazi heart thanks to the existence of good people in this world.

My best advice for men? Use logic and kindness. In the face of hatred, be rational and good even though it is difficult. Any acting out by you will only strengthen their "cause." It's not fair, I know. Just be aware that you have sisters who show solidarity; I am not the only one.

Dean Esmay

As a point of information (someone else may have mentioned this and if so I apologize but I see this so often I can't stop myself from mentioning it, I see it too often and I think it leads a lot of guys to an unnecessary despair they don't need):

The numbers claiming that historically 80% of women reproduced but 40% of men did. In point of fact while men to engage in competition, there are dominance hierarchies, hypergamy appears real, it is possibly to grandly exaggerate these things, especially if you accept bad numbers.

The estimate on historic male/female reproduction were based on the "Most Recent Common Ancestor" for both males and females. When it was printed that two women reproduced for every one man, that number was between 50-100 thousand years ago for our most recent common male ancestor and for females was 200,000 years ago, leading to a 2 to 1 split favouring females.

Revised studies have found that for males it's about 142,000 thousand years ago and for females is around 177,000 years ago.
This means that the 2:1 conclusion is way off. There is a slight skew towards female ancestors, but not that big. Also, some of this may be accounted for by female exogamy and the fact that women have children earlier then men do, and also there is (some) evidence that exclusive same-sex attraction is somewhat more common among males. Although there is reason to believe that there is a slight reproductive benefit to being female on the whole, the 80/40 split can lead us to wild conclusions that are not easy to jibe with other features we see among humans.

Some useful references:

The original article asserting the 2:1 reproductive advantage

TMRCA for females estimate:
TMRCA for males estimate:

Something fun to think about regarding the differences in historic male and female populations:

(Note: None of this means we can completely throw out the rest of it, and there is probably room to continue debating the numbers and their significance. Just, as with most scientific information, try to avoid sweeping conclusions from a single data point, especially when that data point may later be called into question. Thanks to my friend Alison for digging up this research.)


Hillary Clinton, a woman, a feminist, is going to become the next president.

You're gonna write an article about it? I don't think so. Hahahahaha


The only thing I don't see happening here is when you pointed out that one of the Four Horsemen - the adult entertainment industry - could somehow force women to re-evaluate the stance of feminist misandry and the need to reaquaint themselves with the art of "making a man feel loved". This will not develop for 3 reasons:
(1) the adult entertainment industry will eventually catch-up and cater for female needs also, perhaps even allowing women the option to set robots in 'ultra virile' or 'rapist' mode to satisfy their lust.
(2) Japan provides us a live example of what could happen when females and the State make excessive demands from the male populations without giving nothing in return. In Japan marriage is still solid business with divorce rate lowest compared to all other advanced economies but it suffers from the same misandrist bubble as in America. Yet females haven't learnt how to make men love them the old fashion way. Far from that, in fact they rebel even more and push men down even more and demand even more from the Government, threatening conception-strike! Instead what happened in Japan was that capitalism stepped in to fill in the gap; despite prostitution being as illegal as it can be in America, Japanese entrepreneurs have found all kinds of loopholes to cater for this needs - hostess, paid-date, masseuse, escort, and the ultimate premadonna of seduction, the Geisha, there's virtually a girl to satisfy every sexual and non-sexual companionship need a man could dream of overthere without the need for commitment! Add to this: video clubs (masturbating hotels), online brothels, and live-size sex dolls! Today Japanese married men abide by their misandrist wives' rule - they don't cheat, they don't expect them to cook, don't expect them to leave their jobs, don't prevent them from prioritizing their girlfriends, in fact they don't expect NOTHING from their wives at all. The man is entirely satisfied with masturbation and intimacy with one of the above mentioned "experts-therapist". While in the West a pissed wife may send her hubby on the couch and expect him to crawl back the next day or so, in Japan, less she begs him back he never bothers to come back! Some marriage goes sexless for over 20 years like that before the wife decides maybe 'she' needs to crawl!
(3) the above two, and your whole article should have painted a clear picture of women's mentality (i.e. mental - ability)! Tell women they should be polygynous and polygynous they shall be. Tell women they should be polyandrous and so it shall be. Tell women to be monogamous and monogamous they shall be. Tell them to be virgins before marriage and so they shall be, tell them the opposite and so they shall be! Tell them the family is a myth invented by men to imprison them, and so they will believe, tell them gender is a fictitious social construct and so they will believe. Tell them it was rape and this man raped you and they will believe you. Tell them all penetrative sex is in fact rape like Andrea Dworkins and others have argued, and they will look at you all amazed and bewildered and believe you! Tell any beta man to take a drug that would sterilise him (preventing him from producing sperms) for 24 hrs in order to fuck a beautiful woman without the risk of conception, you are sure he will turn you down; tell girls not to ovulate for periods sometimes as extended as 20 yrs in order to be "equal" to men and so they will without questioning! Put them on the pill for acne or irregular periods (a natural sign of fecundity) or to prevent cervix, overian, vaginal and God-knows-what-other cancers and so they will! See what is happening here??? The Biblbe puts it this way: as Christ is to men, men is to women (1 Cor. 11:3). And the Bible was right. Woman will obey blindly any individual that shows even the slightest Alpha Male authority! In some cases people who never even had a family on their own, or biological children or were even heterosexual for that matter, people like e.g. Kate Millett, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkins, Gloria Steinem, Simone De Beauvoir for instance had tremendous success in passing their misandrist, anti-family and sometimes unscientific claims as proper policies for heterosexual family women, just by acting Alpha!!! Believe it or not but a woman would obey to the letter everything an Alpha individual would tell her, deviating only occasionally to check whether the Alpha's claim to Alphahood is (still) valid! In this respect even if the Misandry Bubble collapses and women are devalued feminist will still blame it on men and women are too gullible to stand against feminists' Alphahood. As you mentioned in the Four Horsemen their husband, the State, may get fed up with them, but we must not underestimate these Ultra Lesbian-Alpha feminists. They are very alpha, assertive, vocal and strong in their attitudes, they can easily sway female voters in their direction even in times of economic crisis, and with a bunch of White Knights in their ranks, it is not impossible that by then they may occupied half of all parliamentary seats either through direct vote or through the help of affirmative actions! They may even occupy the majority of government-elected seats by 2030, thereby controlling the State itself!!! Given the direction Japan has taken I find it difficult to believe that women will just rescint their case overnight especially with Female Supremacist Feminists speaking with Alpha authority in somewhat similar manner the Talibans speak to their followers!!!


Last month I turned 65. I have seen the rise of 2nd wave feminism (and the new more misandrist form in 3rd wave feminism) and misandry and once called myself a feminist. Being a young woman when first introduced to it, and the numerous branches, I bought into it because it felt good. It made me feel good emotionally as a woman. I am older and hopefully wiser now and I can tell you that it is toxic in the extreme. I see countless younger women buying into it with fervour without any forethought or critical thinking and they become more sexist then any man could ever be. My life was fortunate, I worked for a major pharmaceutical company, worked my way up through the ranks (to an executive position) and saw (and in the beginning felt) that sexism was holding me back but in truth it was my sense of entitlement and lack of respect that I showed that held me back. Men inherently know that respect is earned, women, sad to say, we expect it simply because we are women (often with attitudes and never acknowledging the things men have done or do). A friend of mine often compared it to dancing and sadly we women have forgotten the steps or rhythm of how the dance even goes, completely putting the whole thing out of whack (as she would say).

I look around me now and see all we take for granted and oh what an age we live in where everything is convenient for us. Maybe I am maudlin in my old age but I look around me and see technology, roads, buildings, simple conveniences like running water, electricity, cars, the simple logistics of the very conveniences like food in stores and the houses we live in and they were in the vastly major part built and put there by men. A lot of women get angry when they hear that but I say to them; Stop, look round you and tell me I am wrong, you may be able to point out the things that women have done but why can’t you acknowledge what men have done and are still doing. Women in the past and even more so nowadays show no appreciation for men; there contribution and women (I include myself) bought into the feminist nonsense much to our own detriment. I have so many friends, as you tend to have when you get to my age, and I see all my female friends divorced, single, some without children but all unhappy because we never really learned to form proper relationships with men or understand that men’s needs matter too. So many of my friends put off having children until it was too late or put off marriage (even just meaningful relationships because they bought into the career woman mantra). For some women it’s what they want and good for them, women are the ones with all the choices and men are the ones with all the obligations, but priorities change as people change and the one thing men knew long before women did is that you might tell yourself that you live to work for your job, your career, but at the end of the day you (even if you are a woman) are nothing more than a drone and expendable (“here’s your gold watch now don’t let the door hit you on the way out). Loved ones, family, the people we care about are what are important. I have seen it so many times now. Jaded colleagues, jaded women who tried to take on the world alone and wind up truly alone. I was lucky, I worked my way to the top, retired early, worked alongside some fantastic men (the odd old school dinosaur which was rare) and but mostly truly duplicitous women, I have a family and I had a loving husband who like most men carried far more on his shoulders then most people (especially women) acknowledge men do or even realise they do and all for their loved ones and family. The great works of art, poetry, grand gestures and the romantic things that men do were done for those they loved, for the love of the fairer sex (a now dead concept thanks to feminism and its toxic by-products). Men did not do all of it for sex like women so easily say nowadays, it wasn’t because of objectification or patriarchy. It was because men inherently care about women but sadly I wholeheartedly believe that the majority of women do not inherently care about men, there are always exceptions but we have bought into the feminist dogma that men are to blame and always at fault. We have ignored women’s choices and actions and even biology to the point where no one mentions it anymore and there will be consequences to it all. I can already see it happening but try as I might to advise younger women they do not listen nor care. It is so much worse nowadays and younger women do not even realise it until it is too late. This blog does a great job or connecting the dots as to what is going on but there is so much more that it does not mention.

The thing women haven’t quite caught onto yet is that men have learned (and are catching on fast) from all that has transpired these past few decades and they no longer hold women in the high regard that they used to, or at the very least are more weary of us. Both sexes are going to suffer because of all of this, women more so in my opinion simply because we ignored our part in all of it and men( a growing number of men) will no longer have our backs when things get bad. To those women who scoff at that and say they do not need them well that is fine "for you". But society, civilization needs men and to any woman I say, stop and look around you, look at the city, the world, the relationships, the very interplay that has held us together and gotten us this far.


Gave you some link love. Plus a little about my first girlfriend who taught me "game" in 1962. Richard Feynman also gets a mention.


BTW love your comments over at The Spearhead.


We are very much in agreement on "game" etc. .

BTW a Met Life agent who is a very close friend also thinks Obamacare will put us in recession.


Not so sure about Feminism being left wing. She dumped that Socialism guy back in the 80's when he kept going on about the workers rights and trade union meetings and hooked up with Capitalism. They've been going steady ever since, she helps provide cheaper labour in the growing service industry and he empowers her as the new aspirational middle class. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal


Very thought provoking treatise. Thanks for all the effort you put into this.

The "manosphere" comes to late for me: I'm in my late fifties and realize now what a chump I have been played for. But it is not too late for my son who doesn't realize that he is playing a rigged game.

Knowing what I know now I marvel that there are still young men out there getting married in 21st century America.

Richard G.

As to all of the previous references to Islam, the following is something that I just heard so I cannot verify it as I am not Muslim, do not plan on becoming Muslim, do not even live in the country I've heard this about, nor ever been there.

That being said...In Afghanistan, the Taliban instituted a strict male work outside the home/women work at home, because of the scarcity of jobs AND the women, if working outside of their home, are not obligated to share the money they earn with their families the way that the males are. This means that women would directly take jobs away from other families if she worked outside of the home by taking away a job from a male. She could customarily keep the money for herself without sharing it with her own family. This might or might not be an Islam custom or just Afghani custom or none of the above, but it does have a certain verisimilitude to it. I would prefer truth to the appearance of truth.

What this means is that women are customarily relieved of the obligation/responsibility to provide monetarily for their families, whereas the male MUST provide protection/money/resources to the family.

I would hope that this can be either confirmed or denied by a returned US Veteran or even better an Afghan that reads this blog article.

mark fennell

I wish you had written more about agency in the prevailing misandry. It has occured to me that it is at root political. Simply put, women don't really get politics. The more women are promoted as anti-thesis to male thesis, the more dilute and compromised our democracy grows. In the UK, where I live, the levels of disengagement from the democratic process would be a real concern,if it wasn't deliberately precipitated. I think men are too busy with personal survival to bother with something as intangible as elections, and our acquiessence is allowing the nature of our nation to be changed beyond recognition, very little of it for the good as far as I can see.The promotion of sexual inequality in favour of women is serving the interests of the people who are profitting from the changes. I believe it is socially engineered, and the idea that it is being done out of a moral imperative is going to be exposed quite soon but still to late.

Pablo Gustavo Rodriguez

So far I have read only the executive summary and I agree with the main claim. In fact I thought I had invented the word "misandry", but now I discovered I had not. I would like to know who´s the author of this article, to be able to cite it. I could not find its name inspecting the site.

Simon Sheppard

This is a very extensive overview and makes some enlightening points. There are also some serious faults. For example, the author very perceptively points out that historically, sexual access to a female was through her father, and this is something which might need to be considered in an evolutionary analysis of our behaviour today. I doubt however that chivalry derives from this (i.e. a need to impress the father). Steve Moxon in 'The Woman Racket' calls it 'deference' and quotes a study of certain (Marmoset?) monkeys in which such behaviour is evident and innate.

Most seriously however, is the classic omission of how we arrived at the lunatic situation in which we find ourselves today. The author's scheme--

Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman

should really be--

Jews > Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman

Sorry, but that's how it is.

Simon Sheppard


Awesome article, I couldn't agree more! Thank you so much for articulating so perfectly everything I have come to realize myself! I am a good looking 29 year old male with a good job and I will never get married because of the horrors you described about the current state of marriage! American misandry is totally out of control and the feminazis will take it even further if they can! Men and moral women need to take a stand against this soon or America will continue it's tailspin! I recommend that every intelligent person (men and women) read this whole article! Thank you once again, awesome job!


Author...what happened to you man? Your views are so profound, so learned. I wish I could be more like you.


You are once again proven correct with what happened in California just this weekend.


I would like to subscribe to this blog but FeedBlitz isn't working.


Damn, this really solidified my emerging views.


Spot on. It's happening guys. It's happening.


A tour de force...thank you.

Tigeress Araya

The article was interesting,
Albeit a little morose. (Like end of days prophecies)
I do enjoy reading perspectives on society, and seeing predictions.
The thing is, if less people are reproducing and getting married, it means there will be less people.
Population will decline.
When studying statistics (and yes I concur on also having seen the male perspective on cuckolding being more emotional damaging) it is important to look at the actual curve of how people act/react. Only 10% of the population deviates at any given time, 5% being criminally deviant, the other 5% being uber-moral...

I don't think there is anything wrong with having less people in society. Are there less happy people in society these days?
Maybe men may not feel the need to buy bigger homes, and get lesser paying jobs, but conspicuous consumption is not only due to the shopping of females. Single men getting higher paying jobs to get bigger and better trucks to impress their peers and to show that they are attaining success is still a motivating factor.

Changes in society happen all the time, reflecting changes in values, and reacting to the situations people find themselves in.

I do like that you elaborated on your views in a way to be able to take a look from your perspective, i was intrigued and chose to read the whole article.

I am curious as to how you would rate Canada against the United States as to the social inequities you are trying to address.

Thank you


It would seem many who support MRAs or MGTOW are engaging in the same shaming tactics as feminists. Go take a scroll through any video on feminism or MRAs where they show up and it is all shame, shame, shame.

It was bad enough having to deal with all the BS of feminists but now we have to deal with the opposite who reflexively bleet WHITE KNIGHT, Mangina, or some other repetitive drivel and throw around hateful, inflammatory crap like a monkey with IBS.

The only plus is the joy I can take knowing that both groups are driving each other nuts. I'll take my schadenfreude where I can find it.


Feminists want the power to order U.S. Male Soldiers to fight and die imposing feminism in all countries.


I thought I was a lone wolf... seriously.. Now that I found this I have had a renewed strength. I see the author has been mia lately?? I hope "they" didn't find him and have him killed for preaching truth. I did notice a couple of posts lately by women and I wish I could talk them into talking to a couple of womens groups. Adriana has a great after the fact view.

divorced dad

Great article. I'm one of those no-fault divorced dads in the 83% tax bracket. I pay 33% to the government, and then 50% of what's left over to my ex as "shadow alimony," even though I have my kids nearly 40% of the time (not complaining about that--I love them and was against the divorce).

You absolutely nailed it with this article. Thank you. I had been thinking of starting a blog, something like www.nofaultdivorceddad.blogspot.com (made that up--not sure if it exists), but frankly you have said everything and I have nothing to add.

So what I'm going to do, instead, is link this article to my friends and family who I think can stomach it, and print thousands of copies and start leaving them in public restrooms, etc, like you proposed in the related post.


I cant wait! It seems like there are still too many men out there simply adhering to the status quo. Men need to wake up. And I hope it is going to be soon.


Women destroy everything, because of their infurious greed, constant lying and egomania. They are inhumane creatures, because they have no humanity within them. Also because they dont contribure any sort of significantly to civilisation and never have.

This is why islam WILL win and take over.
Just a fact. YOu can choose to further ignore it - and i'm sure yu will - but that doesnt help you in any way.


This is one of the most pathetic and self-indulgent rants I've ever read in my life. Your entire argument falls apart at the premise and then just continues to glide downhill from there.

This concept of alpha and beta males and living within a codified patriarchy is drawn from nothing other than assumptions you are making about how our society should be structured by observing the social organization and behavior of some of our closet primate cousins - in particular gorillas, who have polygamous societies centered around male dominance.

However, what any biologist will tell you is that our closest relative is the bonobo, and bonobo society is much different than chimp and gorilla society. For one, it's largely female dominated, with blurry lines between "alpha" and "beta" roles among and between both males and females. You know, kind of like human society. It's also less aggressive and more peaceful, not like human society, because we still effectively live in a patriarchy.

The reason I am a feminist, despite being a man, is that it is indisputable that women are superior in all ways.

I mean, have you ever wondered why humanitarian work centers so much around educating and empowering women around the world? Could it possibly be because so much research has conclusively determined that societies are more stable and more functional the more social and economic clout women possess?

David S


Your ignorance is impressive. For one thing, bonobos only exist because a river protected them from predators and competition (chimpanzees). If not for the island, chimpanzees would have eliminated them. They are not our closest relatives.

You could not rebut a single statistic provided in the article, and every 'point' of yours was already heavily debunked. Why are you not troubled that 99% of military troop deaths and 93% of workplace deaths are of men?

You only refer to rigged 'studies' designed to dupe suckers like you.

For a 'man' (and I use that term loosely) to be against some fictitious 'patriarchy' is the height of being pathetic.

Anyway, a 'male feminist' is always a creepy predator in disguise. Women know this, which is why women avoid 'male feminists' at all costs.


It seems, things have begun to change. With little fanfare, states have begun changing custody laws to default 50/50 and the feds have proposed eliminating imputed income and proposed minimum income allowance for child support payers. Once again, you gentlemen are dead on in your accuracy. It is not surprising, given the spinelessness exhibited by our current weakened politicos, that these changes would occur while the public is distracted by the presidential election. Hopefully, more is to come....




This whole article is the reasons why MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) exists, because of everything listed here. I might send this to that MGTOW YouTuber Sandman.


If 70 percent are filed by her and female adultery is as prevalent as male adultery then why wouldn't you subtract the women who were forced to divorce their husbands by their husbands actions from the total? Shouldn't the number be like 55 percent then?


Wow! I just became acquainted with Khan's writings. This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time. Khan is a brilliant thinker and writer...evidenced by all of his articles in this blog. He has taken great risk publishing this 2010 thesis, and I commend him on his observations, research, and conclusions. He is like a lone voice crying in the wilderness. It is now 2016, and I find nothing yet that contradicts his predictions.

Imran Khan

Thanks, Jimmy.

Margaret Bradley

What is the word for a woman like cuckold?

Imran Khan

Margaret Bradley,

Technically, a woman cannot be cuckolded, as she carries the fetus. It can never be the offspring of another woman. A man, on the other hand, can be lied to about paternity.


Only just came across this. This is a remarkable and insightful piece of writing. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced about your arguments relating to marriage but they sure made me think. Thanks.


While reading your mind-opening article, I was repeatedly struck by how often your statements were validated by an old TV show, the Public Broadcasting Service's “Frontier House.”

Going back and re-watching the final episode (https://youtu.be/OAAv5raZBbU) was instructive, as long contiguous segments of the episode consist of cast members saying nearly-verbatim statements confirming the truth of your arguments in the Misandry Bubble.

The premise of “Frontier House” was that it intended to be an MTV-style reality documentary of a 5-month experiment demonstrating what it would be like for three 21st Century married families to be transported back to an 1883 Montana homestead, using only period-appropriate materials and methods.

It quickly morphed instead into a gender war.

If the people in the show had had the benefit of the terminology and philosophy you present here, they would have better understood that leaving the 21st Century necessarily also meant stepping back to a time before the gynocentric world existed.

Every adult on the show expressed clearly seeing what happens when stepping outside the Misandry Bubble. The men and children thrived, while the women were miserable. All of the men experienced genuine contentment and gratification for the first time in their lives, despite challenging physical work and risk, simply by being freed from Gynocentrism. The women experienced: hell, repetitive drudgery, forced labor, being stuck in the kitchen.

All of the women resented the men for enjoying contentment. Strangely, they also appeared to resent the men becoming physically fit.

One wife said, “This place is like a men's playground, like a men's dream come true.” The women felt “like support staff” to the men's word.

Another wife said, “Men are so much less complicated than women. Women want more than just shelter and food. They want something to look forward to. They want to be entertained. They want a break from the monotony. In five months, I've only had about probably only 3 or 4 meals that somebody else prepared. All the rest, I've done. It's almost like I was transported to a labor camp for 5 months. I have experienced depression here on the frontier. I have never been depressed before in my life. I've never had to deal with that before, and here I've probably been depressed easily 3 times a month for a day or two, where I felt like all I wanted to do was go back to bed and cry.”

That same wife, upon returning back to civilization at the conclusion of the experiment, showing off a washing machine said, “To me this symbolizes, definitely, freedom.”

Interestingly, all of the children thrived in the artificial pre-gynocentric 1883 world. They all expressed enjoying the work they did on the homesteads. After returning to civilization, all of the children said they were “bored” doing nothing all day. The teenage girls said, “you get kinda tired going to the Mall all day.”

Since the female children thrived in this environment, while the adult women did not, one must wonder how much of the women's “hell” was simply the withdrawal of the windfall of gynocentric deference which they experienced as “normal” since the day they were born.

At the conclusion of the experiment, the youngest husband had streams of tears running down his face at the prospect of leaving. Both of the older two couples got divorced after the show. It's unclear whether it was the females who initiated the divorces.

The wealthy wife said that she experienced “lonliness” while her executive husband was away traveling for business (to support their lavish Malibu home). Her husband re-married a younger, beautiful Vietnamese wife (perhaps because she's from a non-gynocentric culture?). See, http://erahouse.tumblr.com/post/45248000405/where-are-they-now-frontier-house.

With the other couple, it's possible that after metaphorically swallowing the Red Pill and seeing the true nature of reality for the first time, the other husband just could not force himself to go back to the Matrix of 21st Century urban society. For a few years, he returned to the same homestead (albeit with modern conveniences this time), performing work for the ranch owner, and writing in his spare time.

Thank you very much for your insightful article. I shall ponder it carefully while awaiting the forthcoming popping of the Misandry Bubble. I'm doubtful that this will occur as soon as 2010, as I envision the status quo tenaciously hanging as tightly as possible on until the bitter end. But, as the wife above said, it's nice to have something to look forward to.


This article is funny... because it turns out to be pretty relevant after all at at the tail end of 2016. I just finished a self imposed four year hiatus from women and dating in general because I just felt tired of being treated like a dog all the time and had given up.

I am attractive, good at sales, and so "smooth" and capable of attracting them, but just decided I was better off on strike.

I recently have seen misandry rampant in almost all media I can find, and the dating scene was worse than it's ever been. I'm so shocked, I realized it was time to beef up on my reading(I'm a good dork, when I realize I don't have a constructive understanding of something, I hit the tomes). I googled to find out what the male version of misogyny was (because of course I didn't know, who does?). I read the articles, followed links... And here I am.
Note to author: as you claim, your article ended up being very relevant years later after all. You should probably think of all the words people might use to find the word they are looking for, Misandry, ex "opposite of misogyny" and use them as tags.

Emelio Lizardo

"Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, ..."

No, it is not for reasons stated in the article but not considered. The primary motivation for women to marry is economic.

Once they seriously enter the work force, particularly at high status positions they replace men who could support families, create a virtual desirable male scarcity, and promote wealth inequity by creating super couples and impoverished single moms.

The displaced men have no social prospects and no incentive to be productive or to be fathers.

With 'equality' in the work place there is no commensurate equality in the home in that no woman wants to marry mr. mom.

Daniel Hildebrand

And here I thought I was the only man thinking about these issues for the last many years :) - outstanding essay!

Dan Abshear




Sadly the article speaks the truth...

Mary Whitfield

To quote Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory, " Bazinga ".

John Smith

MGTOW is the only way.

Stephen murray

We are three quarters the way through - and I think we are on track. Its clearly exponential now, with other trends distrustful of the status quo (such as nationalism, libertarianism, trumpism, altright) getting entrained and carried along with the same force, heading towards god knows what conflagration by 2020

its also germane to notice the rise of young female conservatives hooping on the anti misandry bandwagon, such as here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFW0z0Y5TR4

Sure sign that anti misandry is now mainstream.


I disagree with some points, but the overall gist is generally true.

Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the decade, however, as usual we've encountered some odd happenings that could not have been predicted.

For example, the release of, and the rather large acceptance and appeal, of the movie "The Red Pill" - a documentary made by a feminist studying the men's rights activists who ended up shedding her feminist label due to such, or that the honey badgers would spring up. The concept of a men's rights anti-misandry group forming which had actual power was outright rejected by the author, but he made a fundamental mistake - he assumed that no woman would ever realize that she was screwed with how things were going.

No one cares about what men have to say, and as stated in the article, men are called losers who can't get laid (despite most MRAs specifically became so specifically BECAUSE they got laid - having their children taken forcibly away from them, false rape accusations and so on), or called misogynists and so on. But... society in general wants to protect the women in that society, and when the women start fighting for men's rights, then things potentially can change. This has led to things like the ICMI, which had not been predicted.

The rapid devolution we're seeing with literal riots, anti-fa, BLM, and other extremist groups, paired with those extremist groups blatantly taking over less extreme groups - examples such as BLM taking over Bernie Sander's own presidential candidate speech, or the more recent application of brown and black stripes onto the LGBT rainbow flag, or college campuses going to such extremes as to holding their faculty hostage - is also forcing average, normal people to realize that maaaaybe there's a problem after all.

A large part of the misandry bubble, as it's so eloquently put, is that it's a problem which gets ignored. By its nature, it will inevitably pop, however. There's no real getting around that, and I don't believe it'll pop for nearly the reasons which were cited. It'll pop because of the inexorable trend towards greater extremism, which will cause moderates to back down from their support of these things, and for average people to recognize what they'd tried to ignore. It may very well lead to civil war, as well, because other issues, such as the wealth distribution bubble, will become volatile under these new conditions.

That wealth distribution bubble normally breaks when 87% of the wealth of a country is controlled by the top 1%. We're far, far past that and are now over 99%. This has never happened before, but we've gotten good at distracting individuals by having the average wealth levels just high enough, with cheap costs for entertainment, that the average person doesn't notice. With certain things becoming hyperinflated, namely things like movie tickets doubling in cost within just a decade, TV becoming obsolete with the vast majority of people 30 and younger not bothering with TV any longer, and other such tools which had kept the populace sedated, that's also going to change things massively.

These are, of course, caused partially by the issues brought up in the article though. The increasing costs of maintaining an ever-bloating bureaucracy with negative population growth and a declining tax base as men move away from working to their potential, was destined to inevitably lead to the point we're now rapidly approaching.

The biggest issue though, is that most people haven't really understood the causal link. Most are under the flawed assumption that it's the shift to communist extremism that led to this, rather than the misandry bubble which is less obvious than the communist riots we're seeing.

To some degree people realize the SJWs are in the forefront of things, but they assume they're a symptom rather than a root cause, and in a way, they're correct. The SJW mindset is both the cause and the symptom - it's a self-reinforcing cycle which generates more of the same issues.

Other things which could not have been predicted, such as the election of Donald Trump, or Brexit, or the UK's botched election with May suggesting things like bringing back fox hunting and insane internet controls, have also heavily altered the cultural landscape and acted as minor pressure release valves.

These will slow the inevitable, but they won't prevent the pop.

I would argue that we're going to see things accelerate from this point on, but as we've seen, there's always some odd, unpredictable major events which can shift things rapidly. History is centered upon keystone moments, large events which allow for dramatic shifts in policy and public demand. An example of this was the picture of a drowned child from Syria washed up on shore, which led to the immigration explosion in the EU.

Riots alone haven't been enough to cause such an occurrence with the misandry bubble, and to be perfectly blunt and honest, there's probably no event which could cause people to suddenly have a large shift of empathy towards men as men can't really be viewed as victims due to how our society is structured.

As such, I'm predicting here that the pop will be indirect - it will probably be the SJW/anti-fa/communist bubble that pops first, because someone's going to try to assassinate Trump sooner or later -- and they'll succeed. Or some other similar leftist event will push the right far enough that they lash back, and though I'm a left leaning individual myself, it's pretty obvious that the left is absolutely screwed if the right decides to fight back. Pushing them too far will be a slaughter because the left is simply not fit for fighting people who actually push back, only for the stereotypical act of like a woman who punches a man repeatedly then acts surprised and breaks down crying the first time he hits her back a single time, or even so much as dares to threaten such.

They can dish it, but they can't take it back, and that will be where things turn around. Not because of the misandry thing, but because something will happen which will push full-on extremist right wing politics to the forefront again and you'll see a return to traditionalist values even if they don't understand why those values worked, but it will probably stabilize things considerably after that breaking point.

And for my final prediction - I don't honestly think the world as a whole, nor the governments involved and so on, will ever truly understand what they did wrong that led up to this situation. They'll return to traditional values without any comprehension of why they worked previously, which will inevitably lead to a second collapse a few decades after, because those traditional core values are no longer applicable in the modern day, and they won't be able to adapt them for the modern issues that are faced.

And as one group falls, the overcorrection will take its place, and we'll probably see the left rise heavily in its place, and what we see at this moment as bad will be nothing compared to how they'll react in the flip after the one we're about to see in the next few years.

We shall see what happens. It's too chaotic to predict fully - not in the sense of random, but that it's strictly ordered and with 20/20 hindsight, we'll see clearly how one event led to others, but we can't currently see the major keystone moments that will shift history because those particular moments are too complex to be predicted accurately. We can only gauge the general trends and direction, not the specific moments that tip the balance.

Kartik Gada

but that it's strictly ordered and with 20/20 hindsight

No pun intended..:)

Paul Jensen

"Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness.  What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why.  No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission.  To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon.  Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior?  An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'."

I'm not too dimwitted to comprehend why. But as a Christian what can I do?

Stephen murray

Further sign of the exponential raising awareness. Check the savagery in the comments here

Men are Misandry aware now - I even see that word used in the comments.

By the by, same article is also a sure sign of how worthless the Mainstream Media is now. Garbage news.



The comments to this entry are closed.