Let’s Stop Asking If This is The End of Men

Soraya Chemaly wants us instead to find an equitable way for everyone to be considered genuinely human

Every post I write about misogyny and sexism in mainstream culture elicits emails from men accusing me of being a man-hater, blaming every man alive for the world’s dismal plight and women’s oppression. So, it was with great interest that I became involved with The Good Men Project, in which there’s a regular conversation about what makes men…good. Recently, this conversation centered on the question “Is this the end of men?” a question that Tom Matlack, one of the founders of the project, regularly asks. This week, that question overlaps with the issue of the presumption of male guilt.

I dislike the question for the following reasons: like many people the question suggests that women’s gains are men’s losses and makes no distinction between three ideas:

1) the end of systemic misogyny (i.e. patriarchy)

2) “the end of men” and

3) the end of a specific definition of masculinity.

The “end of men” question echoes Hanna Rosin’s 2010 provocative “End of Men” Atlantic Monthly article which did much to bolster backlash proponents of the “woe-to-boys-and-men” camp and contributed to a destructive misrepresentation of gender as oppositional and binary.

These distinctions are at the heart of the debate about culture and gender and are vitally important to a making society equitable. By failing to make these distinctions we continue to use outmoded frameworks for talking about change and gender-based dynamics. First, this question implies that “man” and “masculine” are interchangeable and they are not. Second, trying to answer a question framed this way often results in the conflation of male identity with misogyny. Third, and most destructively, the question almost always devolves into a “women’s gains are men’s losses” point of view.

We need to stop confusing sex and gender. We need to stop thinking and talking about gender in the language of extremes and competition. We should focus on the social effects of mutually beneficial cooperation. Instead of talking about rigid definitions of masculinity and femininity. We should celebrate the similarities between genders. We should be talking about gender confluence, instead of highlighting the differences.

I know men and women are different. But they are far more alike than they are different from one another.  There is no denying that we persist, though stereotypes in media, textbooks, religious instruction and other powerful cultural forces, in emphasizing and exaggerating gender differences in ways that cause more harm then good. Gender assignment is the first thing that happens to a baby when it’s born. From the moment the “he’s a boy/she’s a girl” announcement is made, the coding begins. God help the parents who don’t tell anyone their child’s gender – it becomes an end- of-the world cause celebre. And, with gender comes correlating privileges and the idea of genders in opposition. On any given day, open a newspaper, listen to a radio station or watch TV and you are subjected to a back and forth about which gender is doing worse. Boys or girls?  Men or women? Who works harder? Who sleeps less? Who gets sicker? Who has more stress? Not only is it a monumental waste of time, but is also a classic zero-sum game canard that distracts us from one key idea: it’s not about gender binaries or “war” but the opposite – it’s about gender confluences and how to leverage them to improve lives and culture.

I, for one, am dedicated as a feminist to fighting against patriarchal and paternalistic cultures because they are bad for both men and women. Most feminists, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, don’t hate men just for being men and aren’t working to “end” them. We generally have better things to do. It’s one of the great tragedies of 20th century American history that generations of revolutionaries, the women who fought for equal rights, were blackballed, marginalized and largely forgotten. Not only do most people take these rights (everything from the right to vote to the right to work to the right for reproductive freedom and equal pay) for granted, but they disparage the very people whose efforts immeasurably improved lives. There are no major national statues recognizing them or monuments dedicated to their struggles. We have no public holiday marking their achievements. Not one woman patriot, which is what feminists would be called if they were men, is featured on our regularly used currency. If I had my way Sojourner Truth would be on every frigging dollar bill.

Second, “end of men” questions and answers often take place in the context of boys and men under assault, unfairly castigated for the world’s woes. Christina Sommers’ 2000 “War on Boys” mythologized this tiresome, conservative Backlash trope. It framed concerns in oppositional terms and perpetuated the idea that the successes of boys and girls are inversely proportional.  It was typical in blaming feminists for taking over the world and demonizing boys and men.  Rapid changes in culture are hard to adapt to. And, for men in particular in the past 50 years, it has been a daily challenge to adapt to seriously conflicting messages about how to ‘be’ in the world. Hence the Good Men Project. I get it.  Boys may be in trouble, but that’s not because girls are being more successful, it’s because institutions and traditional cultures have failed to adapt quickly enough. In addition, despite positive change for girls and women, there is little doubt that male privilege is alive and well. It’s just that many men are the proverbial fish contemplating water. Culture is sluggish and we all pay for it.

And, as far as men being demonized, consider it the proportional effect of being disproportionately in charge.  Congress is 87% male (that’s an increase this year, by the way), corporate boards in the US are 96.5% male, media industry executives are overwhelmingly male, the world’s financial power centers and traditional religious hierarchies remain close to 100% male. If power were more equally distributed, responsibility more equitably spread, then “blame” and feelings of unjust accusation will follow accordingly. It is not that women aren’t represented in proportional numbers because they don’t want to be or are biologically unfit. If men are demonized for the world’s woes, it’s because it’s a statistical reality that there are more of them responsible for the world’s affairs.

To put it in the simplest practical terms, girls don’t need to be allowed to do what boys do anymore, but boys need to be allowed to do what girls do, without thinking that they will be “damaged” by the effort. The persistence of this disparaging idea limits boys and men tremendously.  Parents, teachers, schools all need to consider how to let this happen. Anyone concerned with the barren emotional lives of boys or the misleading entitlement that comes with portrayals of the “right” to power, for example, should be blaming hyper-masculine stereotypes, not feminists. But these ideas are anathema to many people who ultimately believe that the female smacks of the inferior. But we will be unable to consider men being fully human until we understand the feminine as equally valuable. Misogyny, sexism, and related intersecting oppressions deny this truth.

So, as far as the end of men goes, I say no. Let’s stop asking the question that way. Not the end of men, but an end to classic, crippling, strong, silent, head of household protector/provider masculinity. It’s out of step with contemporary life and gender equality. And, to be clear, this isn’t an argument in favor of turning men into women, boys into girls. It’s an argument for finding an equitable way for everyone to be considered genuinely human. Why not ask instead, what does it mean to be human?

Oh, and John Wayne’s real name, by the way, was Marion.

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Soraya Chemaly

Soraya Chemaly is a feminist satire writer and media critic. She is also regular contributor to the Huffington Post on issues of gender and media. Email: [email protected] twitter: @schemaly

Comments

  1. “Not the end of men, but an end to classic, crippling, strong, silent, head of household protector/provider masculinity.”

    Really, really long strawman argument. The feminist strawman argument that regular masculine men are knuckle draggers who can’t hold a conversation is one of many reasons the majority of women reject feminism.

    News flash for the feminist movement: Regular, masculine, football watching men aren’t knuckle draggers. We play with our kids, read bedtime stories, go to our daughter’s dance recitals (including taking them to practice), drink tea (w/o extending the pinky though), send our wives flowers every now and then, and can actually have an adult conversation.

    • Way to totally miss the point dude.

      • Actually he’s right on the money.

        It’s not for you or Soraya Chemaly or any other woman to tell us what a man should be. You are neither capable NOR entitled to presume so. Any similar demand by men regarding women would be greeted with outrage.

        Chemaly’s article rather than arguing against “end of man” framings is a justification for existing misandry.

        But we will be unable to consider men being fully human until we understand the feminine as equally valuable. Misogyny, sexism, and related intersecting oppressions deny this truth.

        “until we understand the feminine as equally valuable”?

        This is clearly satire.

        • “This is clearly satire.”

          If only it were.

        • I’m not suggesting what a man should be at all. I’m just saying there should be a broader definition of what a man could be. I, for one, have always loved your “regular, masculine men” but, like limiting definitions of femininity, there are limiting definitions of masculinity.

          • The average man is a ““regular, masculine man,” and has no desire to cross-dress, wear make-up, or act traditionally feminine. However, regular masculine men come in a wide variety of likes and dislikes. Some drink beer, some don’t. Some love sports, some like it, others don’t care.

            This odd notion that men are pressured to act all the same is not a reality. The relatively few men who want to cross dress, wear make-up, and act traditionally feminine are free to do so, but they will always be the odd exception.

          • “there are limiting definitions of masculinity”

            Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the “limits” are universal in scope. It is not defined by women. It is particularly not to be defined by feminists who are universally incapable of empathy for men.

            The man defines himself. THAT is what makes him a man.

  2. John Sctoll says:

    “But we will be unable to consider men being fully human until we understand the feminine as equally valuable. Misogyny, sexism, and related intersecting oppressions deny this truth”

    So the author doesn’t think that men are fully human, and of course it would appear that women by contrast are fully human.

    Then she goes on to say that it isn’t about turning men into women and boys into girls. Well, actually that is exactly what it is OR at the very least making men MORE LIKE WOMEN. After all, Women are fully human and men aren’t.

    One of the fallicies of the argument that “Congress is X% men”, or “CEOs are X% men” etc is that it basically ignores the most important fact of all that “99.9999% of men aren’t member of congress” or that “99.99999% of men aren’t CEOs”. IOW, when you hear someone say that men have all the power because they are disportionaly represented in congress , board rooms etc , the real and true statement should be that “Some men have a lot of power but way more men have no power”.

    To me articles like this go to show the true colours of feminism, it is a power grab and nothing more.

    • Through PROGRESS, women have become more empowered and actually allowed to be fully expressed human beings. Men, on the other hand, with one of the greatest tragedies of Patriarchy-have not—men in the US have been hyper-masculinized, so yes, women have been more fully human than men. It is time to change that, time for men to fully self actualize as human beings. But the onus is on men to adapt and progress with the times. Welcome to the modern era.

  3. John Sctoll says:

    pa·tri·arch·y   /ˈpeɪtriˌɑrki/ Show Spelled[pey-tree-ahr-kee] Show IPA
    noun, plural -ies.
    1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.
    2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

    I had to go back and read the definition of patriarchy to see if I was out of touch with reality.

    Well after reading this , I have to say, the patriarchy is dead in North America, our social system simply isn’t setup like this anymore. The father has been so marginalized by society that he barely exists anymore. And I am talking about society as a whole, there might be some families that are setup this way. But they would be rare. So for those claiming we still have a patriarchy in NA (perhaps other parts of the world still have it), please stop NOW. Our society simply isn’t setup this way anymore.

    • Feminism is irrelevant. If you want to make a profit hire a perpetrator if you need a write off hire a victim

    • MorgainePendragon says:

      It might be helpful to go beyond the first and simplest (and most palatable to your own point of view) definition:

      Definition of PATRIARCHY

      1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line;

      broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy

    • I think you should consider patriarchy as manifested in institutions that define culture. Traditional heterosexual marriage is only one of these. Political structures, corporate structures, religious hierarchies…patriarchy is very much alive and well by any consideration of the gender dynamics reflected in power.

  4. “We need to stop confusing sex and gender.”

    Well the common definitions of both are synonyms – as in sex = gender.

    If you wish to use Gender to refer to behavior, culture etc then it’s best to stop using the word Gender as it confuses a great many people, including the people using it. All too often I see communications which use the term interchangeably which identifies confusion on the thinking of the author – and which they then object to when readers query meaning and intent.

    Making dialogue “Gender Neutral” as in removing links between Biological Sex and Gender (behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex) does go a long way to improving communication.

    There have also been far too many instances where some have been deliberately ambiguous in language to allow Bait-and-switch and to promote hostility and divide. Suck combative tactics are unwelcome.

    “this question implies that “man” and “masculine” are interchangeable and they are not.”

    Do you see the issue – Man=sex or gender Masculinity=gender

    and then we have

    “God help the parents who don’t tell anyone their child’s gender – it becomes an end- of-the world cause celebre.”

    So shouldn’t that read “God help the parents who don’t tell anyone their child’s SEX”.

    SEX is biological fact – Gender is Not – the parents have not told other’s the child’s SEX.

    You advise readers that “We need to stop confusing sex and gender.” – but you are doing it so it’s a little hard to figure out what point or points you are attempting to make. You don’t appear to be using the terms interchangeably for ironic purposes – so it seems to be serious and leading to serious error.

    Forgive me – I’m a Masculine Gender Object! It’s Gender Guilt Day on The Good Gender Project? P^)

  5. John Sctoll says:

    “And, as far as men being demonized, consider it the proportional effect of being disproportionately in charge”

    This statement is a classic example of “Blaming the victim”. the vast majority of men who are demonized are ‘not in charge of anything’. They are day to day men, the average joe if you will but they will get demonized anyway and bear the blame of the couple hundred men who are in charge.

    I was watching Bill Maher pn youtube a couple of weeks ago and he had Michael Moore on and Mr Moore made what I think is the moronic statement that I have seen in a long time. He was talking about overfishing and of course blaming men solely for it, which on the fact of it is true, but Bill rightly pointed out that women eat fish and probably their fair share therefore they should share in the blame of overfishing, Mr Moore just didn’t seem to get the coorelation at all, that the consumer drives overfishing, overlogging , overmining etc etc, not the workers themselves. Mr moore was also quick to point out that men are the cause of wars, death , destruction etc etc. Of course Mr maher retorted with “That is true yes, but men are also responsible for the vast majority of the good in the world too, the car you drive, the house you live in, the goods that you consume are for the most part invented by men”.

  6. John Sctoll says:

    “Boys may be in trouble, but that’s not because girls are being more successful, it’s because institutions and traditional cultures have failed to adapt quickly enough”

    What they failed to adapt quickly enough to though, they failed to adapt to the fact that these institutions were changed to benefit women and girls, that is what they changed into. The way kids are taught and what they are taught changed, they were changed to allow girls to flourish. This had the end result of leaving boys behind because boys and girls don’t learn the same way and they aren’t interested in the same things. And who made these changes, large feminist organizations like NOW and their political allies. They also changed because the vast majority of teachers are women and boys have a harder time relating to women teacher than they do to male teachers.

    And even today when studies show that boys are behind, there is still a large body of people who deny it to be true.

    • That’s nutty. I think that the best thing that could happen for boys (and girls) is to have more male teachers. But, until we have a better balance of domestic responsibilities, true pay equity and less gender segregation of job categories that probably won’t happen. If boys have been left behind it’s the result of sexism.

  7. I have a parallel proposal: let’s stop trying to resuscitate political feminism at the expense of many of the conversations/solutions that occur when men are discussed.

    It must be clear by now that a lot of men and women, and me, do not care for political feminism. I frankly don’t care if a politic is blamed incessantly, and I’m certainly not going to tailor to its feelings of inadequacy or demise. Unlike the “end of people or individuals”, the end of a politic brings no tears to my eyes, and especially not one with a rich history of combativeness, demonization, anti-science bent, and overall poor scholarship with regards to its basic tenets. And is it not wonderful that after years of this ideology, a new viral strain called MRM has emerged and ready for battle. Well done indeed!

    Is it the end of feminism? This question seems to be of larger importance to the author than the headline topic. I suggest that political feminism go where it is wanted and leave those that don’t need it to make sense of their lives, alone.

    • I applaud this suggestion.

      After all, the “male privilege” bit is an already-exploded myth. As the articles about the “old boys network” made clear, what’s going on is NOT men looking out for other men… it’s powerful men looking out for other powerful men.

      And that benefits the rest of us men not at all. Privilege is something we hear about OTHER men profiting from; it doesn’t help us one bit.

  8. Great post. I agree on the whole though I am no longer a feminist. I think social change has occurred enough to warrant The End Of Feminism, though the ideology clings onto the rock for dear life, for some reason.

    I recommend, as usual, the work of Mark Simpson, who has been talking about the ‘conflation’ of gender behaviours for decades now. His current book Metrosexy brings this discussion right up to date:

    http://www.marksimpson.com/metrosexy/

  9. “And, as far as men being demonized, consider it the proportional effect of being disproportionately in charge. Congress is 87% male (that’s an increase this year, by the way), corporate boards in the US are 96.5% male, media industry executives are overwhelmingly male, the world’s financial power centers and traditional religious hierarchies remain close to 100% male.”

    There are enough women in Congress to prove that they are just as electable as a man, if they chose to run. They are no more or less incompetent than male politicians

    In many races, NO women run. So, what are voters supposed to do? Elect no one, or choose from the men who bother to run? Is the feminist movement not aware that women would represent 50% of the electorate if they were 50% of candidates?

    Since women are the majority of the voters, shouldn’t the feminist movement be chastising them for not running (or at least encouraging them to run way more), rather than using the fact that they don’t run as justification for demonizing us regular guys who have nothing to do with political decisions?

    I must say that this is the most creative justification for misandry / male demonization I have ever heard.

    • Have you heard of Miss Representation? Why do you think women aren’t running for office? Hormones?

      • According to well known evidence, women can CHOOSE to run for office just as men can.   There are enough female politicians and candidates to prove that to be true.  Being female does not prevent one from choosing to run or serve.  

        The women who choose to run for office live in the same world as the ones who don’t.  They chose to run, others didn’t/don’t.  Period.

        The implication that females are powerless to make their own choices is factually incorrect.  My girls are smart, just as capable as any boy, and are being taught and encouraged to do whatever THEY choose to do, rejecting any supposed limitations imposed on them by feminist philosophy, such as the over-riding message that you can’t do this or that because you’re being held back by “the patriarchy.” 

        Horse-hockey.

        The women in my family, including my daughters, totally reject that philosophy, and allow nothing and no one to hold them back, except their personal choices.  They are only limited by their personal ambition, personal human limitations, and choice of lifestyle.

  10. Julie Gillis says:

    “Third, and most destructively, the question almost always devolves into a “women’s gains are men’s losses” point of view” This, I fear, is something we will never get past at least on online conversation platforms.

    Barring some kind of viral alien invasion that creates nonsexual entities out of the binary bodies we already have here on the planet, there will be no end to men. And there will be no end to women. All the kerchief clutchers can relax.

    Or not. They don’t have to relax if they don’t want to. But there will probably always be male children born, and female children born and intersex children born and people who gender queer things born and so forth and so on. I just wish we could find a way of talking about things without the inevitable “nuh uh!” and “uh huh!” wars breaking out.

    Femininity has things wrong with it. And good things to it. It’s up to humans to determine the best most efficient, creative and useful things of femininity and keep those, toss the rest. Like tossing bikini waxes I’d say, and the fear of not leaving the house with lacquer all over the face.

    Masculinity also has things wrong and right with it. Same approach should apply.

    That would mean, gasp, that all of humanity is willing to see things that are good and bad about our socially mediated and culturally influenced system, keep the good and leave the things that don’t work so well.

  11. Nice piece.

  12. *sigh*. Sadpandas.

    Ms. Chemaly. Thank you for this post. We are getting closer to the root of things, you have articulated better than anyone yet what it is I want to say. Things are not so black and white, and not so “us vs. them”. I don’t see them that way.

    At the end of the day, it’s the reactions to posts that get me the most upset. The points missed and the tired narratives trotting out over and over again. I could spend all day attempting to engage on that level, and it would get me nowhere but to a higher blood pressure. I’ve done it before. What I really wonder is: How do we engage the narratives that still exist? To me, the GMP is this amazing forum for education and for engagement, because it is men speaking to men. I feel, deep down in my gut, that *this* is where things can change, not in the comment wars I spark and then get lost in.

    To me, that’s the next step, the next challenge for the GMP, if they do indeed find it as critical as I do. There is so much work and enlightenment to be done, just in the comments to this string of posts and the way people, men and women, react and respond. And, no, it’s not just educating other people – I am included in that education. I can learn from every person who has commented on these posts, and their experiences and views are valid and meaningful. I believe we can find a place of productive discourse – is the GMP that place?

    PS I am a proud feminist. Always will be. I want equality, period. Full stop. There is no gender attached to that, no “us vs. them” no “girls’ gains are boys’ loses.” That is feminism, if you ask me. Ask a feminist, the majority will tell you the same (… and now bring on the reactions to that final paragraph.)

    • “I want equality, period. Full stop. There is no gender attached to that, no “us vs. them” no “girls’ gains are boys’ loses.” That is feminism, if you ask me. Ask a feminist, the majority will tell you the same (… and now bring on the reactions to that final paragraph.)”

      They say that they want equality, etc. in a sentence or two, but then write or express agreement with gender-war “us vs. them” 1,200 word pieces such as this one.

      So, which is to be believed?

    • Jun Kafiotties says:

      Equality requires accepting males have sexist against them at times, even in LAW, and that they too need help. I made the mistake once of assuming feminism was equalism but the majority of feminists I’ve met want it to be equality from the FEMALE perspective, and masculism to be the male perspective. Both together would make equality of course, but both are involved with their own gender.

      “And, as far as men being demonized, consider it the proportional effect of being disproportionately in charge. ”
      If she can’t understand that most men are not part of the elite then there can’t really be much debate. If she is linking the garbage man with the CEO, she needs to understand that whilst men may dominate power, men also dominate some of the most dangerous and horrible areas of society such as prisons, victims of violence, homelessness. But good luck to get many feminists to realize this, they eye the prize only and ignore the many losers left behind.

  13. I like this piece a lot. And I’m sad to see some of the reactions … I would like to live in a world of thriving men and women, working as partners to solve our HUGE collective problems. As a man, I don’t lose anything if the entire culture (MEN and WOMEN!) becomes healthier, more balanced and more flexible. I certainly don’t lose anything in my marriage and my life by being able to resiliently respond to emotional states or situations with the best tools I can muster. Sometimes that means taking a stand, drawing a boundary, being angry, being direct, being competitive (responses often gender typed as masculine). Sometimes that means being receptive, open, communicating, emotional, soft, nurturing, conciliatory (typed as feminine). The integration of everything that I was born with or WANT in my life is what makes my life run the way I want it.

    And I don’t waste my time or energy making sure that I’m being manly enough, or not manly enough. And I don’t waste my time being pissed at an imaginary ‘feminist’ enemy. The way I see it, this is CULTURE. It’s CO-CREATED. Just like every relationship I have.

    “Boys may be in trouble, but that’s not because girls are being more successful, it’s because institutions and traditional cultures have failed to adapt quickly enough.”

    Well said. If you’re a man looking for more skills to be adaptive and resilient … I suggest the ManKind Project, that’s what they teach.

    • Where do you all live? Check the relationship section in any bookstore. The majority of the authors are men. In my 20 years of marriage, and in my parents in their 40+ years of marriage, kindness, open and honest communication, cooperation, etc. are neither masculine nor feminine; they are human qualities that we all display. This concept that such qualities are feminine is out of touch with reality.

      My wife and lots of other people will tell you that those are basic qualities I TRY to manifest on a daily basis. But, not a single one of those people has ever considered me in any sense feminine.

  14. Soraya, let me offer you a perspective that is based on my article I had contributed to this publication.

    When I was thirty-two years old, a great realization came over me: In the past, I was hurt by both genders. The victim of serious abuse. What I failed to grasp is that girls and women did as much damage as the boys and men. Nineteen years of survival, never knowing when it’ll all stop. No safe harbor anywhere. Then when I finally did have a chance to heal, I turned it all in one direction and focused my ire on what the boys and men did to me. Big mistake.

    Now I’m trying to heal from the girls and women’s wrath. But I find it extra difficult because there is NO INFORMATION, save for my article and one other, on it. No studies done on girls and women bullying the opposite sex.

    With that in mind Soraya, this is the very reason, amongst others, why I find your article really offensive.

    Particularly this point:

    “And, as far as men being demonized, consider it the proportional effect of being disproportionately in charge.”

    Your statement there erases and invalidates perspectives like myself and belittles the pain I am struggling to come to terms with. This is why I’m reluctant to call myself a feminst: I’d have to share space with people like you who go on about how the majority of men are CEOs, representative of congress, etc etc ad nauseum. Since feminism isn’t a monolith, views such as your own are allowed under the umbrella. Can you blame me for distancing myself dramatically?

    Do you ever stop to consider men like me who aren’t the success objects you decry? Who have been through some serious trauma with the opposite sex in their past unrecognized by mainstream society and the media?

    I doubt it, because your article is one long “Your pain is nothing compared to women’s struggles”. I’ve heard enough of that from the feminists I once encountered to become sickened with this mentality from someone who purports to be about “Equal rights for both sexes”.

    My article: “Bullied by Girls and Women – One Man’s Account.”

    It’s on this publication. Read it, read it carefully, then THINK about it before you start opening your mouth on Male Privledge, Male CEO’s, Male Congress, Power and all that other malarky.

    • Hi – I read your piece and am sorry that you have had these experiences. The intent here was not to marginalize you but to respond to the harm that I think the question “Is this the end of Men” can do. By in large people have a difficult time considering the difference between systematized violence and sexism and individual instances of their effects. I have written a lot about bullying, homophobia, slut-shaming conducted by both women and men and do not claim that all victims are women and all men perpetrators in any of those scenarios. I think the effects of extreme stereotyping and gendered rules are deleterious for everyone.

      • Then why did you say this:

        ““And, as far as men being demonized, consider it the proportional effect of being disproportionately in charge.”

        If your article was intended to do what you explained to me, why include such tiggering, ostracising language like that? Especially considering people like me are reading it?

        Because it’s the same language the feminists who wouldn’t listen at all to my struggles used on ME! Or variations of it. If you were as egalitarian as you claim to be, you wouldn’t allow such language in the same vicinity as your belife system.

        To go on saying that demonisation of men may be karma for being ‘In charge” is blaming the victim. Period.

        Would you allow a man to go into a supportive space for female victims of abuse and shout “Oh come on. You’re valued in the family court and divorce systems.”

        No you wouldn’t. You’d call him out and throw him out.

        Why should it be any different when you use language like you did in your article?

        No offense but I have a hard time believing your reasoning here.

  15. Watch Miss Representation. There is no question that the feminine is underrepresented in our society. We are way out of balance. The feminine and masculine needs to be balanced (do not confuse this, as she says, as man and woman). This is nature.

  16. Transhuman says:

    I look on the end of men as a positive for men; I mean here the end of the role where men have to provide for women, or in fact owe women any fealty other than what they are willing to also offer to a fellow man. Men no longer have to be responsible for women. We no longer have to perform the dangerous work for them, risking our lives in greater numbers than women ever have in the workplace. We no longer have to bend to the whims of the “little woman” because she is our wife. The outdated chauvinism of chivalry can be finally laid to rest. We do have some issues to attend to, women are treated more leniently in the courts, they are disproportionately represented as custodial parents and they are not truly seen for the violent humans some of them can be. Yet all social change starts with small steps. Our stride will lengthen as we enjoy the freedom from our previous serfdom to women.

    We can, instead, do all that we do for ourselves. The alleged “end of men”, is the end of men having to
    subordinate their wishes to women. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

    • (r)Evoluzione says:

      “girls don’t need to be allowed to do what boys do anymore, but boys need to be allowed to do what girls do, without *being bothered by the fact* that they will be damaged by the effort.”

      There, fixed it for ya.

      Women are *NOT* attracted to the ‘sensitive new age guy,’ at least not for long, and especially not vis-a-vie masculine “real men.” And any of you ladies can say whatever you want to the contrary, but men who know the score know that you tell what a woman wants not by what she says, but what she does. Actions speak far louder than words.

      Clearly, women still dig manly men, macho men, jerks, Don Draper. But independent of what women want, it’s still better not to buy into this nonsense. Being a sensitive dude just makes it easier for women to manipulate men with emotional outbursts & feminine psychological warfare.

      While I am in touch with my feelings, thank you very much, I’ll take traditional masculinity over this weak-sauce “new masculinity” any day of the week. Women & new age culture tells men to ‘own’ our feelings. Given present market conditions, I prefer the lease option–to paraphrase Mark Leyner.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        GAH! Some women do. And some women don’t. Some men prefer to marry large breasted alpha hot chicks (insert whatever stereotype works) . Some men don’t.
        I suppose the logics go like this. I”ve been married happily to my guy for 18 years. He’s a thinky brainy slender academic artist. He’s not a “manly man, macho man, jerk or a Don Draper.” So either your theory is wrong and women DO like sensitive men, or we’re just omegas who couldn’t score any better.
        I figure I know what the folks here will say, but I’m gonna happily choose the first option.
        Sometimes all that happens in the comments here back and forth polemics with no hope for any actual communication.

        • (r)Evoluzione says:

          Your example is N=1. A valid case study, but just that–it’s a singular example.

          Look at the wider culture, and the outcry by social conservatives for men to put away the Xbox and p.0rn and “man up.”

          There are some fascinating psychobiology studies out now–women prefer higher testosterone men when ovulating. These studies show that women detect T levels through a variety of subconscious mechanisms: through scent (pheromones in sweat), facial features, vocal tone, and, strikingly germane to our conversation: behaviorally.

          Interesting that you use language proper to pack dynamics–alpha, omega, etc. Your husband is likely a ‘beta male’ using that schema and terminology. The omega wolf or wolves are the ones that the pack picks on, bites, ostracizes, and prevents from mating. The alpha pair is the leader of the pack, (high T) and then there’s the rest of the back the betas.

  17. PursuitAce says:

    In the most enlightened parts of a technologically driven civilization, women have absolute control over procreation. In the unlikely event that most or all potential mothers decided to gender select only girls for their offspring, would this genderside be within their right? Or could they be forced to carry or create boys as well as girls? Or would the state take it upon themselves to solve this problem (if it were really a problem). I just remember reading that women are now more likely to select girls versus boys when they exercise that option. The rate wasn’t much higher, but it was moving in that direction.

  18. Peter Houlihan says:

    Thi article had a few nice bits, like recognising that gender roles hurt everyone. But then it flushed itself down the man-blaming plughole.

    Patriarchy/Paternalism: I defy anyone to square those two terms with male opression. If men are opressed and women are privileged just as men are privileged and women are opressed, why call it patriarchy? As a concept it only exists to back up the argument that women are blameless when it comes to gender.

    Misogeny: But no mention of misandry.

    Men being demonised: Its true that men are overrepresented just about everywhere, but when feminists only attack positive overrepresentations they damage their credibility as an equality movement. More female psychopaths/sex offenders in my horror films please.

    The impact of feminists being underrepresented: This I’d actually agree with. There should be more recognition of how many women and a few men came together to extend the franchise to half of humanity.

  19. THANK YOU FOR THIS BLOG, could not have said one word better. That is all.

  20. But we will be unable to consider men being fully human until we understand the feminine as equally valuable.

    Who is this we? you feminist, and your rad femmiewemmie cohorts. Your writing leaves little doubt that you view men as ‘not being fully human’ – that we are subhuman.

    Now It would help greatly if women attracted to men, found femininity in their men attractive or desirable. It really would, however, as a rule – theyd rather eat their own vomit.
    Feminist women should lead the charge – THAT would be the start of the 4th wave. The general acceptance of “whatever is considered feminine” in men, by women who are attracted to men. Just as Western men have generally accepted what was once masculinity(victorian masculinity) in women.
    Assuming you Soraya are attracted to men, and feminism defines the core of your being. You surely must practice what you preach, and value. And find ‘femininity’ in men attractive, yes? infact a musthave? No doubt you have chosen a man that does something that is considered ‘feminine’ eg. wears slinky lingerie?

    And if you are attracted to men. Im sure youre not one of those feminist women, for whom femininity in men is fine – as long as it is in the men of other women…
    It has not gone unnoticed, as a group just how hypocritical feminist women are.
    For example, demanding that men watch, support women sports whilst not even watching it or knowing the first thing about the sport themselves. Or, how het feminist women’s mate selection, differs little from a 1950s uppermiddle class housewife. There is little evidence that feminist women prefer men who act in nonmasculine ways, in any greater numbers than nonfeminist.. or even ‘traditional’ women.

    Boys may be in trouble, but that’s not because girls are being more successful,

    Not may be in trouble, Boys ARE in trouble. Did think you could slip a little poison in unnoticed eh. Youre on the wrong site for that.
    Boys, “get the majority of D’s and F’s in most schools, create 90% of the discipline problems, are four times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with ADHD and be medicated, account for three out of four children diagnosed learning disabilities, become 80% of the high school dropouts, and now make up less than 45% of the college population. If you look in your newspaper in June, you will see the photos and bios of valedictorians from many of your local high schools, and will notice that the majority of them these days are girls. ht tp://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-boys-are-failing-in-an-educational-system-stacked-against-them/”

    Plus, In the U.S, male adolescents commit suicide at a rate five times greater than that of female adolescents,
    In the Uk where gun access is tightly restricted and the most popular methods are hanging and poison. Male adolescents commit suicide at a rate three times greater than that of female adolescents.
    .Boys are in trouble.

    Oh, and John Wayne’s real name, by the way, was Marion.

    Oh, and by the way, Youve just scored an own goal.
    No, the name Marion hasnt always been only female, it was unisex until about 50yrs ago.
    You have unwittingly highlighted a thing that was previously unisex, that is now once again the preserve the preserve of only women. Almost always, as soon as something becomes overwhelmingly female identified, men who are sexually attracted to women must abandon it – if they want hot monkey sex with women.

    Below are just SOME of the names, some now viewed as quintessentially female that were once male-only. The Asterisked names became female during the Victorian
    Era – when the nonsensical ‘traditional western’ notions of masculinity and femininity were being coded. So even in THAT era, men were happy to marry women with masculine names

    maribel, ashley+robin(still just about unisex just about in uk), *alexis, kelly, clair, lindsey*, beverly*, kim, ariel,
    *hillary, jocelyn, meredith*(lord of battle), shirley*, sharon*, vivian*, leslie, shelley, jody, dee, courtney, stacey, carol, tracey, sasha, sandy

    Het women now do virtually all the things men do, while het men dont dare do most of the things women do. It is het women THEMSELVES, who demand that their men define themselves apart from women.

    • teste

    • James says:
      “It has not gone unnoticed, as a group just how hypocritical feminist women are.
      For example, demanding that men watch, support women sports whilst not even watching it or knowing the first thing about the sport themselves. Or, how het feminist women’s mate selection, differs little from a 1950s uppermiddle class housewife”

      Good point. Gloria Steinem dated football players, the latest being Jim Brown.

  21. test

  22. DavidByron says:

    “Every post I write about misogyny and sexism in mainstream culture elicits emails from men accusing me of being a man-hater, blaming every man alive for the world’s dismal plight and women’s oppression.”

    So did you ever figure out why you offend men so much?
    I ask because you offended me. Skipped the rest of the article after that.

    • Perhaps if you read the rest of the article, you wouldn’t feel that way. I can’t for the life of me figure out how that statement offended you, please explain why.

  23. I think I have a unique perspective to add because I was weaned by a feminist family to value feminist ideals and at least superficially supported them. I took the liberty feminists offered to a new masculinity and I paid the price for it. If you take the feminist option then you’ll simply become less of a man which makes you less valuable as an individual, as a partner, and as a member of the human race. Again, I’m not speaking for women here, just for myself. I feel that the “feminine option” is really just a thinly disguised way of putting sub-standard males in a corner where they can be used if they become necessary as meat shields; Sparta for the 21st century. It’s not that these males have something to offer to the world and the female gender, it’s that these males are denied avenues to become something more than a utility for feminists. So when somebody like you talks about opening up doors and building bridges and more femininity all I’m hearing is, “Let’s see which dopes fall for this so we won’t have anything to do with them.”

    If you do not treat your sons – Ugly, Gay, Retarded, Alpha, Beta, or whatever – differently than your daughters then you will err. There has been no study done on this that I know of, but I’d like to see a comparison done between the sons of feminists and non-feminists in similar racial/socio-economic backgrounds and measure the amount of financial/sexual success and happiness that they have. I’d imagine more fulfilling relationships, financial success, and emotional well-being would occur with sons of non-feminists if race/socio-economics were controlled.

    • Good comment bobdole, I lived a similar experience and learnt everything that was wrong with men before I was 10. If you want to prepare your sons for a life of unhappiness and submission to women feminism is a great choice. It’s so confusing when you hear girls talking about how bad certain male behaviours are and then you see the same girls lusting and chasing after boys exhibiting those same behaviours…

      • By flipping the perspective you can find a measure of importance. It’s like you get to see the matrix for what it is, life for what it is, and if you move forward with a correct morality and view of the world you can have a chance to be a success and reduce the replication of your and your family’s mistakes.

Speak Your Mind

*