Cultural misandry is a topic I care little about: it has been made into a sport. Consider every sitcom on TV – from the Simpsons to Everybody Loves Raymond to whatever crap they make now, every comedy has as its root joke the doofus father and the noble virtuous woman – no matter his stupidity and transgression she always does the responsible and honourable thing, and forgives him, and he is not much more than a child – a bumbling idiot who cannot even dress himself, an overgrown child who everybody laughs at and mocks. It is not uncommon to see men humiliated and abused physically, their groins kicked while the audience laughs, violence perpetually the feature of men’s lives, and women enthroned in a golden chair of virtue, never unfaithful, never dishonest, always the noble mother.

Regardless all that, discrimination in law is an altogether different matter that severely impacts men and boys, and it is made more insidious by aggressive attempts to silence anyone who opposes the status quo that bases its ideological foundations on a complete misrepresentation of history and a false narrative rooted in Girardian scapegoating. Go to any classifieds website that advertises private apartments for rent, and see how many openly advertise tenancy to females only with a caveat “Not suitable for single men.”

Let me cover some essential falsehoods.

We know from DNA research that hypergamy is a real biological phenomenon. It is the practice of having females choose mates who are higher in status than them, thereby increasing resource access for potential offspring and therefore their survival. Feminist activists take for granted all sorts of non spoken male codes of conduct that always prioritize female comfort and prioritize women’s well-being over their own. And because we don’t talk about it, today we live in a giant, enormous, incredibly false narrative that unceasingly keeps pushing the envelope of female privilege to an unbelievable extent, giving credence to the old adage “if you offer a finger, they’ll take the whole hand.”

In some periods of human genetic past, as few as 5% of males mated with all the females. The majority of human males throughout history did not father even one offspring, all of us the genetic descendants of the higher status males and all the females.

We see this behaviour in other primate species, where the alpha males control procreation of the entire tribe – in exchange, they provide security and stability to the tribe. All the males hunt and provide territorial protection, and the females are spared of this activity as an evolutionary and natural strategy meant to maximize the potential of species’ survival, since the males sacrifice themselves in order to have the species continue in the form of the children and their mothers, whose uterus is more valuable that any male’s genetic contribution, as one male can impregnate many females. This is called male disposability, or the “women and children first off a sinking boat” phenomenon.

For humans, the story is even more interesting. Human females develop concealed estrus, which means that human males do not know when human females are ovulating such that male dominance competition has bearing on mate selection in a direct way where the dominant males control other males through violence. The criteria by which women choose changes away from simply about physical bravado into many other desirable traits, which places evolutionary pressures on various other factors.

For chimps, the process is simple – the rear end of the females swells bright red with all the blood pulsating in the genitalia. The chimps see the swollen estrus and become aroused. The alpha male attends to the female and uses violence and intimidation to block the mating of other males.

Because in human mating the males do not know when females are ovulating, women choose who to mate with, and so the competition between the males exponentially intensifies, and the strategies diversify leading to human intelligence. Because brute strength cannot be the only mechanism of competition, this compels evolution to select for all manner of alternative mating strategies which pushes human evolution into overdrive. This is the source of our creativity, politics, imagination, and ingenuity – but it comes at the high price of incredible rates of male death as the competition is not controlled but constant.

This can be gleaned by the neotenous human appearance. In order for a species to resemble in its adult stages so many features of its infant stages, it is a sign of an incredibly long period of evolution in turning over many generations for natural selection to work, meaning, many generations of short and sad lives of men who inevitably died young in hunt and tribal warfare.

We are the longest and most evolved species on the planet; crockodiles are much older, but they are less evolved. In other words, the strategy by which nature has evolved us has worked incredibly well – and that strategy has been to branch us off the evolutionary tree by the evolution of concealed estrus, female selection and the culling of billions of male individuals.

Consider what we commonly find attractive appearance in males. The ideal appearance of a man, as assembled from various studies of humans across different cultures, and with child-bearing age females, is something like this:

Height: very tall, 6′2 or taller, but not abnormally tall or in a way that signals genetic abnormality such as hormonal imbalance, so approx above 6′6 begins being seen as undesirable.

Shoulders: abnormally wide shoulders to the point of anatomical impossibility were ranked as desirable by the participants, upwards of 40% beyond naturally occurring.

Musculature and traditional non-verbal esthetic signals that signal strength, experience and battle-tested body was very desirable. Cuningness was perhaps the most desirable – but as an intellectual trait, it combines with behaviours that signal indifference to social norms, and rebellious behaviours – females are attracted the most to males who seek to usurp social norms as this is interpreted as courage to lead. The way we might describe this today is something like “cockiness.”

Wealth was the single greatest desirable feature, such that a man who was shown in photographs to study participants with his work being listed as “Convenience Store Clerk” and was therefore ranked toward the bottom, regularly scored toward the top when his career was changed to “Billionaire.”

Status & wealth, interestingly, had the same, or very slightly lower, ratings, whether it is acquired legitimately or illigitimately. Our subconscieous impulses don’t distinguish very well along axiomatic principles of social morality – male status and power that is illegitimately obtained (such as criminals or gansters) had as much appeal as those who obtained the same legitimatelly, once again showing that to posit women as more virtuous by nature of their sex is ludicrous.

But here is the most important aspect relevant to my discussion here: facial region. In the facial region, a more feminine face was desirable. Think Brad Pitt. A square broad masculine jaw, with a feminine soft T region of the face – eyes, nose and the brow. Soft and thin eyebrows seemed to be particularly important, though it isn’t immediately made aware to our conscious mind, but we can recognise why this is so: primitive humans had very pronounced brow bridges, at least the Indo-European kind, and competed with Neanderthals, who had an even more pronounced ridge. We see this ridge most pronounced for the Indo Europeans, having almost completely disappeared for Asians and not present in Africans. Bushy eyebrows, unibrow or anything that drew attention to the brow was highly unattractive to the females.

Now why would women be attracted to men who look more like women in the face? It signals better parental individual. The combination of the ultra masculine in the body with the feminine in the face is the combination seen as the most desirable. One becomes “masculinized” through testosterone. If you see what humans looked like 10,000 years ago, you recognize what’s happening:

This is the face of a human female from Greece from 10,000 years ago. She is 14 in his modelling done from her DNA information. You can see how not even very long ago, a human female exibited pronounced masculine features.

The story of human development, then, is not a story of male oppression of women. It is a story of male competition for mates so brutal that in a fairly short span of time, female selection preferences have changed our appearance to the extent that both females and males have taken on much more female appearance, since the selection was made for the traits that give preference to neotenous features. We are rapidly evolving toward much more feminine creatures.

This, however, is not the story presented by the modern feminist narratives. It is not a story where only 15% of all men in all of human history passed on the genes, and women willingly, in a context outside of society and “patriarchy” mated with a select few males and raised children by themselves living in community of other women and children, with men dying at incredible rates in self-sacrifice in order to protect and keep alive the women and the children, and the women feeling incredibly vulnerable. In order to raise a child, a woman seeks security and resources from others, but this becomes risky, as the high status male cannot alone provide for all the offspring, and he is subject to frequent challenges from other males. Numerous studies have shown that the chimpanzee alpha male is the most stressed out individual. As well, given that the alpha male is the father of all the infants, to compete for status and more resource access for them and their offspring, chimp females will from time to time murder the infant of the lowest ranked or weakest female. How’s that for virtue? We can see how all these pressures would naturally lend themselves toward monogamy, and a more egalitarian division of mating, and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone oppressing anyone else.

In fact, patriarchal systems of organization had as their greatest beneficiary women and children and have through history been enforced and conserved by matriarchs (older women) and male sexuality was controlled by culture, not female, since women were always the greatest beneficiaries of traditional social systems. To posit that men wanted monogamy and men forced women into monogamy is to say something so utterly ridiculous and totally untrue for any average man – that the man prefers being tied down and monogamous over being free and on his own and able to have sex with any woman who will sleep with him. It has always been women who have demanded male submission to a standard of having only one wife and looking after her and her children.

The narrative that is commonly presented in the media and to our children through their curriculum, as well as to the broader culture, is a story of male oppression of women. This is simply a false story. Let me offer just a few logical inconsistencies that I hope help you wake up on this issue if you have come this far reading.

Since we know biologically from DNA that through the entire human history, only a fraction of all men procreated, but almost all women had at least one child, then either:

1. Women choose who to mate with and therefore, all the behavioural traits associated with ‘toxic’ masculinity are results and products of female choice of those very traits in men, otherwise those traits could have not survived through natural selection, and therefore, men cannot be blamed for female choices of male traits, or
2. Women did not choose who to mate with and were instead raped, in which case the establishment of so-called patriarchal systems of suppression of wanton sexuality, implementation of social and religious taboos and mores, and the rest of it, actually saved women from being commonly and frequently raped by the hyper-aggressive males, showing traditional patriarchal systems as having been in all affect about protecting women.

You can use this very simple logical structure to demonstrate the fallacy of this assumption on which an entire so-called academic discipline has been erected.

The 1950’s and 60’s period of liberalization of social mores which additionally aided the various justifiable social justice movements for equal treatment of black and other racialized individuals, as well as gay people and others, had as its fringe characteristic a movement towards the shaking of sexually repressive mores based largely in religious demonisation of the sexual act. Feminists burned bras and let their leg hair grow, free love and LSD and narcotics aided in this freeing of the human spirit. Women demanded that they no longer be treated like breakable porcelain dolls, and insisted on an equal footing not only on matters of law and work, but in having the freedom to make sexual choices for themselves.

I say this because I want to demonstrate to you my earlier point that the approaches adopted by the present day neo-Victorian feminism that seeks to establish sex as something infinitely dangerous where just seeing a penis causes perpetual and irreparable trauma that makes a woman shake uncontrollably and weep in Congress due to presumed mental and emotional damage such an act has caused her, is a counter-progress movement aimed not at the continuation of liberalization of women’s liberty, but as a response to the attainment of the same by men.

Contrary to the present day narrative, sexual mores and other moralizing has by and large always been promoted by women’s movements and groups, such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Association and the various groups that successfully campaigned to implement alcohol prohibition in the US, for example. The result was Al Capone and the mafia. It was women, in fact, throughout history, that have sought to control the exercise of male sexuality, rather than the opposite. As such, the movements of the 60’s had the effect of liberalizing and enabling women’s empowerment, but, and this is the part the present day activists don’t like, it additionally had the effect of liberalizing men’s sexuality, as it certainly wasn’t men prohibiting other men from sexually promiscuous and irresponsible behaviour, as should be self evident to anyone reading this including feminists. Aren’t we daily told about ‘bro’ culture, and toxic masculinity that glorifies and encourages aggression, sexual violence and so on? How, then, can it be said that there is more of all of these things than prior to the women’s ‘liberation’ movements? Men are more toxic and sexually aggressive today than they were before? And why would that be? Would that be a product of the liberalization resulting from the same movement that feminists proudly take credit for or could it be that it was women who enforced these taboos and controlled the expression of male sexuality, rather than the other way around?

Hopefully you can see the paradox. While feminists applaud the changes to social mores as they affect women, they condemn the same process that freed men from the sexual control by women, leading to an unbelievably irrational and internally contradicting ideological narrative that can only do one thing – suppress any opposition or discussion lest it completely collapse along all its axioms, as it simply cannot sustain its own fundamental assumptions. The side effect of women’s liberalization has been male sexual liberalization also, and the unpleasant discovery they that men no longer care to withhold their passions or suppress their sexual nature just to be gentlemanly around women. While feminists sought to broaden their liberation to other modes of sexual expression, and discovered they very much enjoy their own sexual freedom in hoping to have relations with the hyper successful and attractive minority of men, the same rights and privileges when extended to and exercised by the majority of the men were highly undesirable and uncomfortable to many women, as their assumption, in a self-centered way typical for feminist theorists, was that everything would remain the same as far as the many privileges women enjoyed in male restraint and life choices that prioritized women’s comfort and choice over their own. It didn’t occur to them that men would not self-abase by remaining in ther oppressive roles and within the parameters of behaviour that were established and enforced throughout history always to give comfort to women and protect women.

Essentially, what we see today is a counter-liberalization movement meant to suppress and once again control and dominate all manners of expression of male sexuality, while retaining the freedoms against these same taboos for women. The point of lowest common denominator in any workplace is always the most easily offended woman, whose sensibilities everyone must respect – whether about wearing cologne she is always allergic to, or tip-toeing around her feelings. Her comforts must be prioritized by everyone, but this is ultimately just a power game, and a manipulative and passive-aggressive one at that.

This makes the present day feminism, 4th wave or whatever it is, fundamentally a regressive movement that calls for a return to social conservatism for male sexuality, but progressive laws for all other forms of sexuality. A movement that fought for the tearing down of repressive and socially oppressive social, cultural and legal mores in a classically progressive push, is today calling for a return effectively to a pre-1950’s approach toward sex and sexual relations, where laws have been enacted to make taboo of the very act of intoxicated sexual relations, positing that somehow women are less capable of consenting while intoxicated than men, and demanding that the state intervene in the regulation of sexual behaviour! Whereas the state was over-reaching when it came to things women don’t like, today feminists demand the state surrogate the role of the father or masculine enforcer, and protect them against discomforts, once again making their sensibilities take precedent over male nature. If it has taught me anything it is how unbelievably passive people are, that this totally self-contradictory movement can sustain any intellectual buy-in is remarkable.

Additionally, it indirectly and implicitly acknowledges a sort of superiority of cultural values arising from the socially conservative culture they fought to destroy, which they perceive as patriarchal and dominated by men as the very mechanism by which they seek to control male sexuality today, therefore completely making apparent the reality that patriarchal institutions were anything BUT designed by men and served the interests of men, since they seek to implement the very structure of thought that at its core has religio-cultural approaches to sex and sexuality and that existed prior to the feminist movement. Whereas biology is used as an argument to lower fitness requirements for police or firefighting female applicants for their biological limitations, no such argument is advanced when sentencing male criminals whose behaviour is very often conditioned by hyper-aggression, a natural and biological consequence of their very nature. No equalization program exists to compensate for the biological difference in the reality that men cannot self-procreate, whereas women can easily obtain sperm from a sperm bank and have a child on their own. No uterus service exists for men. Worse yet – it is men who must pay for the litany of social transfer payments to enable women’s maternity leave, subsidized childcare, and other anti-family government welfare programs that incentivize female single motherhood and enslave men into work and taxation structures that take money from them to transfer it to a woman who would never say hello to them in a million years. Is that fair? Is it fair that the nerdy engineers and software developers who make many women sick at the thought of sleeping with them have to pay ridiculously high taxes to subsidize other men’s children raised by single mothers who constantly whine about needing the state to give them more?

So, for some examples. Meet Winston Blackmore.

Feminists say they are for womens’ choices and for allowing women to choose what’s right for them. But when women’s choices are anything OTHER than single motherhood, hatered of men, or familial relationships where the women rule, feminists quickly call on the state to intervene and punish through legislative fiat and imprisonment anyone who they disagree with or anyone whose life choices do not attack the family. This is all purposeful and designed. The “Legal Subjection of Men,” written in 1896 by E. Belfort Max is available in the commons.

Winston Blackmore is a fundamentalist Mormon who lived in Bountiful, British Columbia as a polygamist. He had 27 wives and 143 children. He was self-sufficient and farmed and ranched and worked in trucking and other trades with his sons. Blackmore & Sons made enough money to provide for that many people.

Queue in the feminist attack machine. To make the long story short, Mr. Blackmore was eventually convicted of the crime of polygamy. Whereas they proclaim “women’s bodies, women’s choices,” on the matter of abortion, they do not endorse the same freedom be given to women to marry a man who has other wives, and in this sort of situation, they insist the women are victims, even though with 27 wives, there were 27 times as many women as there were men in this relationship.

Mr. Blackmore spent 6 months imprisoned. Because of this, his estate was auctioned off. The courts stated they convicted him because this wasn’t a good environment for children (i.e. nothing to do with multiple marriages), once again fake moralizing, pretending they were concerned about kids – who are now homeless with the damage the state did to this family.

How does this prove discrimination? Winston was the only one in this partnership who worked. He had responsibility for 143 children and 27 wives. Every single one of the women married him willingly and wanted to remain married to him, and all but the first one also broke the polygamy laws by marrying him knowing he was already married. Yet only Winston was charged, and only Winston went to jail and only Winston was blamed for everything, and yet no actual victims even existed. The irony here is that according to the Canadian Yasmine Mohammed, whose mother was second or third wife to a violent fundamentalist Muslim in Canada, the practice of taking on multiple wives is alive and well amongst many religious groups in Canada – the feminists don’t mind that, however, only the “white men” and any form of Orthodox Judaism or Christianity. How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam eBook: Yasmine Mohammed: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store

When I’ve shared this story with people, the tendency is for them to seek to avoid the obvious injustice in the approach that chooses to punish the man in a situation where both the man and the woman break the law, and have him assume the responsibility and the punishment under backward and anti-feminist claims that women are automatically somehow less culpable than men. Feminism says that women are completely the same and equal in every way, except blame for legal transgressions. They demand equality in law in matters of privilege and benefit, but not in responsibility and culpability. So serial killer Elaine Wournos would have never killed anyone were it not for the evil male sexuality, where they picked her up as a prostitute, and the lesbian Wournos stabbed them and robbed them instead.

“They were brainwashed as children,” people commonly say about Winston’s wives. “He was more responsible because they were brainwashed, and therefore couldn’t really consent to the marriage.” Well guess what? So was HE. He too grew up in the same cult they did – how are they then any less able to make a decision, or heaven forbid be punished for the same crime he was punished for – oh no – one would never dream of making women responsible for the decisions they make – which shows exactly what is going on today – men are still to make sacrifices for their wives and children even as the narrative says they are the oppressor and women are equal. Women are equal in all privileges, but need all sorts of special programs, laws, and govenment protections, while men, even when 26 women break the same law as he did, have to take the fall for everyone else and best shut up and put up. Men are still to live under self-imposed patriarchal sexual morality demanded by women, but women and all other sexual expressions other than heterosexuality ought to be as free as they wish.

All expressions of gender identity, all manners of alternative sexual choices and everything is acceptable and must be normalized, except a religious man who has 27 wives. Now that is evil.

In the USA, the draft bill and registration for the draft still exists today. All men are required by law to register at the threat of prison to have their bodies involuntarily summoned in the event of war, but this requirement is not imposed on any women.

No one has the right, they scream, to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. Well, apparently the US govt and govt’s of many other nations, can tell men that they must report for the draft, thereby taking away the integrity over their own bodies while they die for a society that spits on their memory. 600,000 white men died in the Union army to end the despicable practice of slavery. Guess they also had white male privilege.

• Number of US male soldiers killed in WW2: 405,000
• Number of US female personnel killed in WW2: 16
• Number of female suffrage activists killed in the US to obtain the vote: ZERO
• Number of male activists for female right to vote in the US killed to obtain the vote: 5