Laura Bates takes on the manosphere

A new book has just been released which claims to take us through the dark, seedy world of the manosphere and men’s rights activism. The book has been written by Laura Bates, the founder of Everyday Sexism, a project which, according to her description on Amazon, is “an ever-increasing collection of over 100,000 testimonies of gender inequality, with branches in 25 countries worldwide.” This project allows men and women – but mainly women – an opportunity to complain about any grievance that they have faced which they believe to be because of sexism. Her new book, titled Men Who Hate Women, aims to expose the hidden online world of misogynistic men that threatens to explode into the public.

If the premise of this book fills you with a sense of dread and foreboding, it’s worth noting  that Ms. Bates’ other works include a book which shares the title of her platform, Everyday Sexism, as well as Girl Up and Misogynation, the latter of which has the subheading: ‘the true scale of sexism’. In other words, Laura Bates may have a particular viewpoint which colours her perception of those who object to feminism and activists like herself.

I was partly tempted to buy the Kindle version of this book to see how the ‘manosphere’ is perceived from a more mainstream or outsider perspective. While I knew it would be more or less a smear campaign, it is interesting to see how people unfamiliar with the subject would react to it. In the end, it was not worth paying money and spending time on something that I knew I would not agree with. Also, some of the money would have gone to Laura Bates so anything I could say to criticise her or her book would have been futile.

A short extract of the book is available to read on Amazon where the book can be bought as well as an audio sample of Bates (I think) reading her masterpiece out loud. While I can’t write a review of a book I haven’t read all the way through, I can comment on the part of the book I read and give my thoughts on it.

Bates introduces the book by asking the reader to imagine a world where “tens of thousands of women are raped, beaten, mutilated, abused or murdered every year, because of the simple fact that they are women”. She also asks us to imagine “a world in which thousands of men band together, united by a common code of vitriolic  rage” directed towards women. In case you haven’t guessed it, it turns out you don’t have to imagine – this world exists, it’s our world! I’m not trying to make light of female suffering or deny that there are men who do very bad things towards women, but it appears that Bates believes this is not something that most people are aware of. In reality, all humans regardless of their sex suffer in some way or another and there are plenty of women who have ‘vitriolic rage’ against men.

Interestingly, the book has been published by Simon and Schuster which is not exactly an obscure publishing company. If the suffering and concerns of women wasn’t taken seriously by the elites of society as Laura Bates suggests, how could this book exist in the first place? Would this same company publish a book with the title Women Who Hate Men which responded to Bates’ claims? The answer is probably not.

Bates next makes an odd claim: “we don’t like to risk offending men” – well if you say so, Laura. We’re more comfortable making jokes at the expense of men than we are of women for one thing. She also claims “We do not, as a rule, talk about male perpetrators of violence against women. We describe a woman as having been raped; we discuss the rates of women sexually assaulted or beaten. We do not speak in terms of men committing rape or being sexual assaulters and violent abusers.” Has Laura Bates read any other feminists? What about all the talk about ‘toxic masculinity’?  Bates has something to say about that as well: “Those who speak of’toxic masculinity’ are not criticising men, but rather defending them: describing an ideology and a system that pressures the boys and men in our societies, in our families to conform to unrealistic, unhealthy and unsustainable ideals.” This is the classic ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ argument, stating any problems that men have are not the result of feminism – which presumably helps men by calling them privileged oppressors – but from how societies have been organised which paradoxically benefits men as well.

There is more standard feminist fare: “Crushing gender stereotypes are damaging to men as individuals, as well as to the society in which they live.” How does Laura Bates now that? Maybe many men are comfortable with their masculinity. Maybe men who do damage to society are at fault not because of their masculinity, but because of other things like mental illness. Maybe misogynists do exist and maybe these men who really do hate women exist because of how feminism has portrayed men over the past few decades. Bates would no doubt consider that last suggestion to be an example of victim blaming. Feminists like Laura Bates think this way about men because they’ve concluded that masculinity is a bad thing and therefore it’s impossible for a man to be both masculine and a good person. You may be surprised to hear that Bates is married to a man – her husband presumably has to keep whatever masculinity he has to himself.

Bates goes on: “the real threat comes from the very forms of rigid ‘manhood’ their so-called saviours are desperate to preserve and promote.” What exactly are these ‘rigid’ forms of manhood are not elabatorated by Bates.  Predictably, Laura Bates supports a men’s movement that accepts the feminist viewpoint that women have historically been oppressed and that wants to cure men. This has been apparently: “threatened and overshadowed by other, hateful male movements.” If Bates was really concerned about issues affecting men, she would be willing to explore ways in which the feminist movement has worked against men or take some of the frustrations she observes from men seriously. For this to happen though she would have to question her own world view.

She later gives the reader a description of the apparent abuse she’s received online: “men have sent me daily messages, often in their hundreds, outlining their hatred of me, fantasising about my brutal rape and murder, detailing which weapons they would use to slide my body open and disembowel me…” Perhaps courting our sympathy, Bates asks: “Why are these men so angry? Why do they hate me so much?” Would it be incredibly harsh to consider that Bates may like the idea of being a victim? The amount of detail she goes into suggests that Bates has thought quite vividly about it. Of course, I don’t condone any threats of violence against anybody and if Bates was ever in any danger I would condemn it, However, while there are many genuine victims of violent crime there are also people who want to be seen as victims in order to garner attention and sympathy from others. To suggest such people exist however, is now a sign you’re a heartless person. Bates continues to describe the threats she’s faced which include somebody describing “using my hair as handlebars and raping me until I die”. These are all unpleasant examples of online abuse if they are true, but Bates could have simply stated she’s received abuse without giving so many graphic examples.  Unless of course she wanted the give the expression that hordes of men are lurking in the dark ready to pounce on her at any moment. We could take Bates’ claims more seriously if she had described experiences of stalking by men or serious threats to her that warranted the police getting involved. It’s not that online abuse is harmless, but many people, whether they are men or women, have experienced it. Does Bates think that the abuse she’s received by online trolls is far worse than that targeted towards other people in the public eye? Maybe.

Bates tells us she has spoken to many schools across the UK over the years about sexism and makes an interesting observation: “over the past two years, boys’ responses started changing. They were angry, resistant to the very idea of a conversation about sexism. Men themselves were the real victims…” If true, this might indicate a backlash to the current state of feminist overrule and younger people attacking the conventional wisdom of female victimisation. There may be hope in the future yet. Laura Bates may be worried that the jig is up: she’s made a comfortable career talking about how bad things are for women and their status as victims of society that now may increasingly fall on deaf ears. Who will buy her wonderful books then? Will people stop listening to her and all the insightful things she has to say? Judging by the attention this book has received from the mainstream media, she has nothing to fear at the moment.

Following the introduction, Bates describes the world of involuntary celibates or ‘Incels’ in the first chapter. Incels are defined in this book as “the most violent corner of the so-called manosphere. It is a community devoted to violent hatred of women.” Basically, it is a group of men who for whatever reason cannot get relationship and/or sexually satisfaction from women and so express anger and hate towards them.  Although I’ve followed men’s issues for a number of years, I’ve never read or encountered anyone who identifies themselves with this label which makes me wonder how big of a problem they really are. We are told that “over 100 people, mostly women, have been murdered or injured in the past ten years” in the name of Incels. Elliot Rodger, who murdered six people (four of whom were men), was said to have been an Incel because one of his motivations for killing was rejection by women. The implication here of course it that anybody associated with the manosphere is directly or indirectly linked to people like Rodger. Whether you are interested in men’s issues or not, we can surely all agree Rodger was a loser and be appalled by his actions.

Bates reveals that she explored an Incel forum under the guise of a lonely young man called Alex. Under this name, Bates imagines what Alex would think upon learning that men were discriminated against: “he’d pictured himself as an underwhelming, very average man. But now he realised that he was a survivor. Part of a team of underdogs, fighting evil forces against the odds. Alex could be a wronged, avenging hero”. The metaphor of the  ‘red pill’ from the Matrix movies is mentioned which is used to describe the change in perception that a lot of people experience when they become interested in the manosphere but it can be applied to other political topics as well. Bates argues that the red pill metaphor “is immediately attractive to those with any kind of grudge or grievance. Lost your job? What could be more appealing than a whole new worldview in which isn’t your fault” – Laura and Alex may be more alike than she would like to think.

Bates does concede that not all of the manosphere is extreme: “this sprawling web of communities encompasses well-meaning groups that tackle genuine problems affecting men, not just groups deliberately and systematically promoting physical and sexual violence against women. Its adherents range from naive teenagers to advocates of rape, vulnerable recluses to violent misogynists, non-violent ideologues to grieving fathers,” etc. etc. That a similar observation could be made towards feminism is again not something contemplated here. Since the manosphere is such a diverse and sprawling group, should all groups within it be tarred with the same brush? Is this blog post part of the manosphere? Despite being a nobody whose blog has only been viewed by a handful of people I’ve written about MGTOWs and mentioned other anti-feminist figures. I’m also critical of feminism even though I don’t consider myself to be an Incel, pick-up artist, MRA or MGTOW. Furthermore, I’ve never harmed any women and I have no desire to. The fact that some men who use one or more of those labels will be extremist or mentally unstable does not mean that there aren’t legitimate reasons for men to be angry about how they are treated by society and individual women. Should a book that explored feminism mention Valerie Solanas – the publisher of the SCUM Manifesto who once shot the artist Andy Warhol – and conclude that it’s a hateful extremist movement?

Inevitably, there is a connection made between the manosphere and the alt-right and ultimately Donald Trump, the usual boogie-men of SJWs and woke people: “Much has been written about the alt-right, and particularly its links to the rise of Donald Trump. But the deeply misogynistic beliefs that run through the movement, and their role in many of its foundational tenets, often go overlooked and unreported.” By now you probably get the gist of the book. The extract provided doesn’t include the chapters that explore Men’s Rights Activists and Men Going Their Own Way but Laura Bates probably has a lot of fascinating things to say about them as well.

There is the potential for an interesting, objective book to be written about the manosphere by somebody in the mainstream media who has no particular affiliation with feminism or men’s rights but has explored identity politics before (someone like Douglas Murray for example) not unlike Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill. Unfortunately, although this book will probably shape many people’s view of the manosphere, for people immune to feminist propaganda this is probably only useful to get an insight into how modern feminists think.

Happy Retirement, Bernard Chapin!

I’ve noticed that of all the things I’ve written on here, my review of Bernard Chapin’s book SJWs Attack has received the most attention – which on this blog amounts to a humongous two people commenting! There seems to be a few guys who have searched Bernard’s name wondering where he’s gone and stumbled upon that post accidentally.  A lot of people obviously wonder what happened to Bernard after he stopped creating online content.

I don’t know Bernard personally and I’m not his official spokesman or anything but I thought it would be helpful if I shared what I know about what’s happened to him. Bernard continued his YouTube channel until the latter half of 2019 when he decided to delete it. I’ve found a post he originally put on SoundCloud a few days after he ended the channel where he talks about why he did it which can be listened to here. He continued his SoundCloud posts until the end of 2019 and then decided to delete that too after not being able to get a large enough audience. He often talked about being ‘in retirement’ from YouTube and content creating.

Recently, he’s deleted his Twitter account as well possibly in response to all the craziness that’s happening at the moment. I think Bernard’s got to a point in his life where he doesn’t want to deal with the potential drama that can befall people who create online content, particularly of the political incorrect kind. His real passions were always reading and writing which increasingly, it seems, are not things that appeal to many people.

I don’t know if Bernard has stopped writing as well but if he has and he never has an online presence again I will always be grateful for everything he’s done in helping to shape my view of the world.

If you’re interested in reading Bernard’s books, they can be purchased on Amazon.

Against Equality

The political obsession of modern times is that of equality – whether it is gender equality, racial equality, economic equality, LGBT equality – every equality you can imagine is the desired end goal of many politicians and activists. This is evident in the lengths organisations and political parties go to appeal to the designated victims groups of women, gay people and ethnic minorities regardless of if other groups object to what could be viewed as preferential (and therefore unequal) treatment. While this fanaticism for equal outcomes in an infinite number of ways is much more prevalent on the political Left, many people on the political Right also claim to believe in equality or, as it is often defined, ‘equality of opportunity’. This could be described as ‘meritocracy’ – i. e. people being provided with the opportunity to reach prominent positions of society on the basis of merit alone and ignoring their race, sex or sexuality. This is a commendable idea in many ways but it is debatable if societies could organise themselves on merit alone and abandon its fixaton on identity groups. The conflict between the desires of equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity is the main talking point of modern politics but it is likely that a more fundamental distinction between the two opposing views is required in order to combat the increasing dominance of SJW thinking.

I’ve come to believe that the only appropriate response to combat the religion of equality of outcome is to reject the idea of equality in the first place. The fact of the matter is that people do not just differentiate as groups but as individuals as well. Therefore it should come as no surprise that there are disparities between certain groups of people. There will always be some people who are smarter, wealthier, healthier and more successful than other people and no amount of intervention can prevent that. The attempts by people to construct an equal society have always resulted in failure. Countries that embraced Communism to create a supposedly equal society ended in corruption, oppression and mass deaths and, crucially, created a ruling elite that was unequally privileged over the rest of society. It is far better for people to accept that equality is not possible at least in the ways that it is often pursued. Instead of having an idealistic view of what can be achieved it is better to be realistic about what is possible. The political divide could be viewed then as not between two ideas of equality but between realism and idealism.

The objective to achieve total equality is inevitably flawed because inequality can occur even when equality is stipulated. An example to illustrate this to imagine somebody setting up a course that would teach people IT or engineering skills which would help them find a job in a STEM field. The course would make clear that both men and women are equally welcome to take the course possibly with the hope that there would be a substantial number of women participating or at least a 50:50 split with men. A predictable outcome would be that many more men sign up to the course than women resulting in the women present being a noticeable minority. Therefore the gender balance of the course would be unequal despite the equal opportunity granted to both sexes. The inequality in this scenario is not an unfair one though as nobody had prevented women from participating in the course.

Moreover, inequality may not be a bad thing if one kind of inequality replaces another kind that was worse. Imagine a brand new technology is invented that is only affordable to the very rich. The technology could be something that brings many benefits and revolutionises how people live their lives. The outcome of course would be an inequality created between those that have the technology and those without it. Eventually new versions of the same technology develop that perhaps improve on whatever faults the initial version had. Sometime later the technology improves even further so that the original (albeit inferior) version becomes affordable to even the least wealthy and prosperous. The inequality would not have disappeared but changed from those that have or don’t have the technology to those with the latest superior version and those with the inferior one. A large inequality is replaced by a smaller one which is at least better for the disadvantaged group. No doubt this inequality would still make some people angry despite the circumstances of the less fortunate group improving gradually over time. A progression like this is reflected in history with inventions such as the telephone or television. These were originally only accessible to a minority of people but over time the majority would possess both of these devices. The advent of colour television and the mobile phone created others kinds of inequality between rich and poor but these too were followed by other inequalities which were less extreme – satellite television, HD television, smart phones etc. Nevertheless, an equality of sorts has been achieved as in the present day almost everybody has access to a television or mobile phone.

Of course, some aspects of equality do underpin the rule of law and how we treat others as the notion that all people are created equal, every person has the right to a fair trial and the rule of innocence until proven guilty indicate. This could be argued to be a matter of fairness and justice rather than equality though. In fact, an article in The Guardian of all places pointed out that most people value fairness over equality. Affirmative action is one area where fairness and equality diverge because people who belong to a certain demographic – e.g. black, woman, gay may be promoted on that basis alone regardless of if they are competent or not. These groups additionally are given special attention and any problem they may have is attributed to being society’s attitude towards them. People in the so-called ‘privileged’ category – heterosexual white men – do not get any special treatment or consideration and may in fact be punished for being of this group. Therefore, the drive for equality here leads to a lot of unfairness.

One argument against those who oppose society’s fixation on equality is that it is suitable for those who are more privileged to state that inequality is a fact of life as they benefit from it while the disadvantaged suffer. Similarly, too much inequality can create division and resentment which contributes to an unstable society. That people can be complacent about stark inequalities might be true but the problem still remains that there are an infinite number of ways for individuals to be unequal to each other and an infinite number of ways for resentment to emerge because of it. As I stated before, inequalities might not be static but can change so they become less of a problem. For larger inequalities such as great disparities in wealth which can create a societal division and distrust it is sensible to try to alleviate it in some way to avoid conflict. However, a better solution than using the state to intervene would be to encourage a culture whereby people will help those in need.

The question then should not be how to make societies more ‘equal’ but to accept that inequality is a fact of life and instead look at what actions can be taken to make inequalities between groups less extreme to maintain stability. However, this is again a question of fairness rather than one of equality.

The National Religion

I consider myself to be Agnostic (or, if you like, a fence-sitter) when it comes to things like religious belief: I don’t have a strong conviction towards any particular religion but at the same time don’t think that the world would be better off if religions no longer existed. People who believe that religion is the source of all human misery probably have a naïve understanding of human nature because if we weren’t killing each other over religion we’d be killing ourselves over something else. Also, the anti-religious Communist countries were not exactly Gardens of Eden where peace and brotherhood reigned supreme and arguably the belief in its cause, despite the evidence of its failings, was a religious one. 

Since I grew up in a historically Christian country I has some affinity towards Christianity more than any other religion and I have a lot of respect for the teachings and messages of the Bible. Furthermore, the influence of Christianity on the Western World from its laws, customs and language cannot be easily dismissed even though many countries in the West are now mostly secular. The human need to believe in something has not gone away with the decline of religion and many people have suggested our obsession with identity politics has come about because of the vacuum left by the decline of religious belief.

In the UK, institutions like the National Health Service (NHS) have a following that matches the devotion people once had for the Church and this was evident to me recently when there was a public show of applause for the NHS in response to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic and the work of medical staff in managing it. People took to the streets to register their love for the NHS and those  on Twitter from both sides of the political spectrum spoke of being filled with emotion at the sight of people clapping and cheering for ‘our NHS’. In an article for Country Squire website, James Bembridge describes the religious undertones of this: “People were expected to practice this worship from home but open the windows so that others may hear, like some perverse call to prayer.” Bembridge goes on to write: “By all means praise the workers, but why extend that to the whole of the NHS? We are perhaps the only democracy that regards a government institution with this quasi-divine reverence.”

At the time I write this the UK, along with many other countries, is in lockdown to try and slow the spread of the Covid-19 virus. The police have been given more powers to restrict people’s movement and, in the case of Derbyshire police, even spy on people outside via drones. The Country Squire article also describes how the increase in the State and curbs on freedom in response to the virus have been widely accepted and how the small number of people who have questioned the government’s response and the severity of the virus have been condemned for taking an opposing point of view. Journalist Peter Hitchens is one of those who has spoken out against the rapid increase of government control to tackle the virus and a recent article he wrote in the Mail on Sunday resulted in Hitchens being mobbed on Twitter. Such a response, similar to that seen by people who preach identity politics, is reflective of the way those who questioned dogmatic and fanatically religious belief were labelled as ‘heretics’ in the past.

I’m no expert on viruses so I don’t know how dangerous the current outbreak of coronavirus is or will be but I am sceptical about the worship of national institutions like the NHS regardless of all the hard working staff who undoubtedly have done their best to treat patients with the virus. Moreover, I’m sceptical of many people’s desire to increase the size of the state to deal with the crisis. In his article Hitchens writes: “I despair that so many in the commentariat  and politics obediently accept what they are being told. I have lived long enough, and travelled far enough, to know that authority is often wrong and cannot always be trusted.” When a similar pandemic occurs in the future, regardless of if the future virus is more or less deadly than Covid-19, governments will be eager to adopt similar powers again.

It’s possible that when the Covid-19 crisis finally passes those who questioned the response towards it will face more abuse and ridicule and the NHS may take the form of a national religion to an even greater degree. If the virus is not as terrible as it is been portrayed than hopefully more people will question the government instead of making it into a national religion as well.

The Veruca Salt Generation

Veruca: Daddy, I want a golden goose

Charlie: Here we go again…

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Unless she learnt her lesson from visiting Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, it is likely that when Veruca Salt grew up she became a Feminist. Instead of making increasing demands from her parents, she would probably have a spineless cuckolded husband who would indulge her wishes without answering back. Or maybe it would be her employers or the government who would provide her with whatever she wanted to avoid her having a temper tantrum and crying out “I want it now!” So used to having her needs met she would become even more entitled and consider any slight against her as a form of discrimination and see herself as a victim. The Feminist narrative of women being oppressed by men would resonate with Veruca as she would think about all the times Daddy didn’t give her what she wanted or at the exact time she wanted it. Anybody, and men in particular, who accused her of being spoilt, unreasonable or entitled would be branded sexist or a misogynist by Veruca and the more she was indulged the more hysterical she would become.

Veruca Salt could be seen as the mascot for modern feminism with her song ‘I Want It Now’ being an anthem for the movement. This is because many modern women arguably behave just like Veruca as they complain about increasingly unimportant things and are ‘triggered’ by any opposing point of view. Despite Western countries constantly bending over backwards to women’s (apparent) needs and concerns, some women would say with a completely straight face that a country like the United States is close to becoming like Gilead from The Handmaid’s Tale just because they despise the fact that Donald Trump is President and that many of his supporters want restrictions on abortion. This ignores the fact that women can be against abortion just like men and that women are now the dominate sex in many university campuses in addition to out-earning men in a number of professions.

One example of the triviality of modern Feminist concerns that caught my attention recently is the complaint over the line-ups of music festivals such as Glastonbury not having a 50:50 split of male and female acts.  What this has to do with people listening to and enjoying live music is anybody’s guess and the suggestion that female musicians should try harder to become headline acts would no doubt result in a massive meltdown and a probable Twitter storm that would make Veruca proud.

The #MeToo movement has also created an environment whereby an awkward attempt at flirting by a man towards a woman in a workplace could lead to his dismissal or in the worst case scenario an accusation of sexual assault as even the mildest forms of male behaviour are scrutinised with the default assumption been that males are being predatory for taking an interest in women.  If more and more women become irrational towards men objecting to this then increasingly men will start to distance themselves from women. This culture of women asserting themselves in response to a supposed chauvinistic male society is also reflected in modern films which from Captain Marvel to the new (flop) Charlie’s Angels, preach a message of ‘women rule, men drool’ which obviously will only appeal to a minority of women. The idea that there may be a backlash to all this has not been considered by most journalists who typically follow the SJW ideology.

Veruca Salts are also prominent in the other identity groups from black people to LGBT who see anybody who doesn’t support their way of thinking as racist or homophobic and will demand that something be done to anybody who voices dissent. She could also be used as an example of the Millennial generation of which I’m a part of. We are in a lot of ways the most privileged and fortunate generation of humans that has ever existed and we spend a lot of time telling others to check their privilege and don’t recognise our own. The same accusation of being spoilt has also been levelled at the Baby Boomer generation who came of age during the 1960s and were in many ways the SJWs of their time. Since the Second Wave of Feminism and other social justice movements started around this time and spawned us Millennials it’s an appropriate comparison.

Of course, at the risk of making the NAWALT argument (Not All Women Are Like That), there are plenty of women who are reasonable enough to oppose or reject Feminist talking points and are able to form healthy relationships with men. The same could be said for gay people or people of other races who would rather be judged as individuals than a member of a designated oppressed group. Whatever wave of feminism we’re currently riding on it will be interesting to see how men of my age and younger respond to the proliferation of Veruca Salts as the years go by and if there will be a backlash that will turn the tide against it. Although many men at present appear to submit to the current ideology many others don’t and their numbers are growing. Maybe more and more women will oppose the Verucas that populate the Sisterhood as well. Only time will tell.

MGTOW as Adaptation

Note: I originally wrote this for the website Male Defender in January 2019. Male Defender is now a defunct website so the article has disappeared which is why I’m reposting it here.

Within the varied groups and individuals that make up the manosphere there has been a growing divide over MGTOW or ‘Men Going Their Own Way’. This is due to MGTOW’s rejection of the traditional expectation of men to be the protector and provider of women and children and instead focus on their own needs. MGTOW is viewed by its supporters as the only sensible option in an increasingly misandric society that favours women over men in almost every situation. MGTOW argue by doing this they avoid being exploited by institutions such as the legal system that have adopted a feminist viewpoint. Critics however view MGTOW as simply the opposite of feminism which will only result in more alienation between men and women and lead to societal collapse. Some commentators have also accused MGTOW of been like a cult that attacks anybody that criticises it while men who identify as a MGTOW believe they are individuals making individual choices. One solution to this conflict is to reassess the expectations that are placed on men by societies and how they have developed over time. Men’s traditional role as a provider is important to consider when thinking about this.

For most of human history resources were scarce, work was very physical and death from starvation or disease was always possible. Being able to find or generate resources would have increased the chances of surviving in this environment and men would have been better equipped to do so than women due to their superior physical strength and not having to worry about getting pregnant or miscarrying. Women, however, had an advantage in being able to carry offspring and having less eggs to men’s sperm which meant that they could be choosy with which men they mated with. As a result men would have been more successful at surviving but women would have been essential for reproduction. Therefore both men and women would have needed each other to increase their own chances of surviving and reproducing and so would have had to offer something to each other in return. In such circumstances if women had wanted to discard one man for another or try to go it alone they would have been in serious trouble.

However, while sex roles have a biological basis the world that they emerged from has changed in such a way that men’s role as provider has been taken for granted. In the modern world resources are far more abundant and most jobs available are not as physically demanding as they once were. Advances in technology and healthcare have also made the world a less risky place at least in the West which has led to a change in attitude towards the role of men as providers. In a famine, the man who provides food is a hero but when food is plentiful the man who provides it is a delivery boy. As well as this women can now choose to work full time, part time or be completely supported by a man as they no longer rely exclusively on men to earn money for them. Moreover, governments willingly provide mothers with welfare payments if there is no man around. Because of this women no longer rely on men for survival to the extent they once did but men still rely on women for reproduction.

Men’s role as provider is also viewed at the expense of their role as fathers as they are defined more by their absence working rather than their presence within families. It is often said that traditionally men went out to work while women raised the children which places mothers inside the family and fathers outside of it. As a result parenting and mothering have become almost interchangeable and there isn’t much exploration into the relationship fathers have with their children that is distinct from the mother’s. This attitude is evident in the family courts as judges typically award custody of children to mothers after a divorce in the assumption they are maintaining the family unit with the only difference being the father no longer living in the home. If a man only needs to provide, what does it matter if he doesn’t see his own children? Of course, if men only needed to be providers for women and children then fatherlessness wouldn’t have all the negative consequences we see in our societies.

A mentality of ‘provider as servant’ has developed in Western countries with men’s contributions been seen primarily as materialistic and directed towards their masters – women. Servants have to prove their worth by having somebody to work for whereas masters are able to use servants to do jobs they don’t want to do. In a similar fashion men are expected to do all the jobs women don’t want to do and be grateful for women for giving them attention or be discarded for a better option. Men are also expected to potentially sacrifice their life to protect random women if they are in danger. It doesn’t matter what or how much women demand, men are ‘real men’ if meet their every desire. Young men in particular are expected to ‘prove themselves’ to young women to get their appreciation ignoring that young women have such power over men because they are offering something in return: their youth and beauty. Feminism has encouraged women to make increasing demands of men and mainstream conservatives still expect men to meet their traditional obligations regardless of this. Many men have a servant mentality because they think that they are worthless unless they have a woman who they are working for and being chivalrous towards. As Bernard Chapin has put it, “when a woman has a need, a man must accede.”

The solution to this is neither to dismiss sex roles entirely nor simply return to the roles that were functional in the past without taking into account the current environment we live in. Instead we need to acknowledge sex differences but challenge the perceptions that have developed from them. As mentioned before the real reason men provided resources for women was not to justify their own existence to the superior female sex but because women were unable to do so themselves. Since these burdens have been partly lifted by technology men shouldn’t place their value solely on seeking female approval. In fact it wasn’t a man’s primary responsibility to provide resources for women but to provide for his children. Women were provided for if they provided something in return. The true role of men in society is to provide something that women cannot provide themselves. This originally included resources but more importantly it was men’s own masculinity. Women may now have more independence but they can’t provide masculine strengths to complement their feminine weaknesses (and vice versa for men). They cannot be fathers to their children and they cannot bring a masculine viewpoint to a situation. This means that however societies develop technologically men always have something to contribute to them.

If men are aware of this they can avoid having a servant mentality and instead adopt a ‘provider as master’ mentality. This mentality comes from the knowledge that men have far more worth than whether they are capable of meeting female demands. It does not mean wanting to rule over women but thinking like a master rather than a servant. Much like a doctor or a teacher a master in a relationship provides for the other person something they cannot obtain themselves and so can make demands for his service. A master can also stand alone and feel worthy in himself and not be defined by serving others. A master does not view a woman as a superior who he must placate and so can make judgements about them without fearing rejection. A master can therefore defend himself knowing he has worth and not fall apart when he is shamed for not wanting to be a servant.

If more men thought this way they would be less likely to simply accept the unreasonable behaviour of women and we could make changes to society that would make MGTOW less of a viable option. Although MGTOW could be viewed as rejecting marriage and children I believe it is primarily to reject the ‘provider as servant mentality’ I have laid out.

Book Review: SJWs Attack by Bernard Chapin

(5/5 stars)

I mentioned in my first blog post that one of the YouTube channels that was important for my ‘red-pilling’ was the wandering cauldron of politically incorrect commentary that was Chapin’s Inferno. I first encountered Bernard Chapin and his YouTube channel after watching videos by ManWomanMyth and Karen Straughan (a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat) in early 2013 and all three channels were life-changing in transforming how I saw the world and politics. Although Bernard Chapin’s channel was the last of the three that I discovered, his was the most significant in my understanding of the false narrative of identity politics and I consider him to be one of the biggest influences for my own political viewpoints. Although Bernard and I are from different countries and are of different generations – he is Generation X and I’m a Millennial – I can relate a lot to his personal views and tastes and through him I learnt many things I would otherwise be ignorant about. What made Bernard particularly appealing to me was his wide variety of interests and knowledge which meant that I learnt not just about history and politics but also poker, sports, psychology, films and music.

For over ten years, Bernard created videos usually relating to feminism, men’s rights, history or current events as well as sharing knowledge he had acquired from whatever book he was reading at the time. As well as creating content on YouTube, since the early 2000s Bernard has written articles and books about politics, men’s issues or his own personal experiences in the workplace. His most recent book SJWs Attack is a combination of those three subjects and describes how he was almost fired from his job as a school psychologist for the crime of having a YouTube channel where he expressed opinions that didn’t match the received wisdom of his co-workers. Bernard’s position was made more precarious by the fact that he was working in a predominantly female environment which led to the accusation that he ‘hates women’ due to the nature of his video content. The events of the book take place in 2014 which coincidentally is around the same time I subscribed to his channel.

The book is split into three parts: the first part gives a detailed description of how social justice warriors (SJWs) think and behave and also the origins of SJW philosophy and political correctness via the Frankfurt School.  The second part describes Bernard’s ordeal at the two schools that he worked for and his treatment by the staff after his YouTube channel was discovered. In the final part Bernard describes how he learnt that the two women who initiated the conspiracy to have him fired were narcissists and how he had caused them ‘narcissistic injury’ which led to him being put on their execution list.

I particularly enjoyed how SJWs’ toxic behaviour is described in the first part which illustrates perfectly how they think and their hypocritical natures. One of my favourite lines from this chapter is: “They are lovers of humanity but despisers of actual persons” which concisely sums up their contradictions. Another contradiction that is noted is the fact that SJWs have no ‘skin in the game’: they talk of fighting crime and poverty but typically live in safe and secure suburbs where they won’t encounter either. Bernard offers his own definition of social justice that counters the SJWs’ version: keeping what you earn and notes that SJWs generally don’t know how to respond to it. Bernard recorded an audio version of the book which I bought and I’ve listened to this chapter the most. Listening to the audio gave me more appreciation of Bernard’s writing as well.

Another favourite passage of mine is in the second chapter where Bernard attacks the way society worships women. This section would probably cause feminists (and most modern women for that matter) to have a heart attack if they read or heard it: “Women don’t want respect. They already have it. When they say respect what they really mean is veneration. They want to be deferred to by men. When a woman has a need, a man must accede.” Other great lines include: “Women wish to be queens and victims simultaneously” and “self-sacrifice is the reason why they thought men were put on this earth. What other aspirations could we have?” Bernard states that he treats women as equals which involves criticising them just like he would men but this culminated in him being branded a woman-hater by his peers.

In fact, Bernard does criticise men as well as women as he describes incidents where men or ‘white knights’ fail to support him. One man he knows in the school sides with the female staff when Bernard becomes public enemy number 1 and he describes another who only engages with women and ignores other men. Bernard states that the vast majority of men in America are “instinctive white knights” so women don’t have much to fear from Bernard or the manosphere as a whole. In the third part of the book, Bernard also recounts how he fell out with a fellow content creator on YouTube who he labels a male narcissist. Conversely, Bernard shows that he is spared from losing his job because of other women who come to his aid.

The book also serves as a repudiation of affirmative action as the antagonists that seek to destroy Bernard are often incompetent at their jobs and are a product of ‘positive discrimination’ whereas the women who assist him, whether they are black or white, are competent and got their positons on merit. The most entertaining pieces of the book are Bernard’s descriptions of the numerous ignorant and self-satisfied women he was forced to work with. I’m fortunate that even though I work with a lot of women myself I haven’t experienced any that are dysfunctional in the way Bernard describes here although they usually parrot the same SJW talking points. If I do have the misfortune of having to encounter any though I will turn to this book or Bernard’s audio for guidance!

Unfortunately, the book has not got the attention Bernard was hoping for as he did not have as many sales of the book as he was expecting. He had intended to write a sequel to this book continuing his story but has since said he is not going to because of the poor response to this one. I’m no marketing expert but it is possible that a lot of people saw the title and thought it might be like Vox Day’s books SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down which Bernard cites as influences and had a “been there, done that” attitude towards it. Maybe I’m just being a know-it-all Millennial. It’s a shame because the book is very enlightening and well written and I’m very interested to find out what happened next.

Bernard had said in the book that he had continued to post videos on YouTube to spite his tormentors but since writing it he has deleted his channel and gone into semi-retirement from content creating. However, this was for a number of other reasons such as not being able to grow his audience and subscribers not watching his videos. At the time I write this Bernard can still be heard on SoundCloud but he has had the same problem of not being able to grow his audience so will probably close that as well. I tried to watch or listen whenever he released new content but Bernard may be right in saying that people prefer style over substance. I hope this isn’t the last we hear from him though as he is a unique voice and has a lot of insight and wisdom to offer in fighting the culture war.

The book can be bought on Amazon here. I highly recommend it.

The Masculinity Strawman

There is a belief in Western countries today that men have to change so that many of the problems of society such as crime, sexual exploitation and violence can be alleviated.  Masculinity, according to most social and political commentators, is the source of these issues so it has to be modified in order to stop them occurring and make it better fit in with the brave new world of gender fluidity and self-expression. Challenging so-called ‘toxic masculinity’ will also purportedly allow us to achieve the promised land of ‘equality’ where everybody is exactly the same and no group is a victim or victimiser of another group.

In order for this to happen we have to adopt the viewpoint that certain groups of people have power and privilege over other groups. For feminists, this is the idea that men have power over women and that there needs to be a levelling of the playing field. However, despite these claims that women continue to be disadvantaged by this power imbalance, feminism has had an enormous influence in academia, the media and the government. Organisations and institutions now engage in a huge amount of effort to criticise masculinity and its apparent cause in violence against women or male dominance in areas of power such as business and politics.

One example that shows how feminist ideology now dominates contemporary thinking is in the guidelines published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in early 2019 to help psychologists deal with men and boys. Like everything that relates to masculinity in modern times the guidelines weren’t wholly positive about it. According to their research: “traditional masculinity – marked by stoicism, competiveness, dominance and aggression – is, on the whole, harmful.” Although one psychologist, Ryon McDermott from the University of South Alabama, acknowledges: “In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial” he also states: “the same tough demeanour that might save a soldier’s life in a war zone can destroy it at home with a romantic partner or child.” The bias of the APA to not just feminism but other areas of identity politics is revealing in the guidelines which states: “dominant masculinity was historically predicated on the exclusion of men who were not White, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, and privileged.”

Another example that happened around the same time as the publication of the APA guidelines was the release of Gillette’s now infamous commercial ‘The Best Men Can Be’.  In this video there is mention of bullying, sexual harassment and toxic masculinity whilst a narrator tells us: “we can’t hide from it, it’s been going on far too long.” A pair of boys are shown wrestling with each other while a line of men with their arms crossed state “boys will be boys” and stand behind barbecue grills for some reason.  “Men need to hold other men accountable” the narrator tells us as one man goes to approach a woman walking past before another man stops him saying “Not cool, not cool.”  Men need to “say the right thing, to act the right way” and although some men do this the narrator says “some is not enough.” Unsurprisingly, the response to the video was largely negative and at the time of writing the video has 1.5 million dislikes to 806,000 likes.

This relentless criticism of masculinity can also be seen if you search for ‘masculinity’ in Google News.  Inevitably you will find articles talking about the need for a supposed ‘new’ masculinity to defeat the dreaded ‘toxic’ one. The belief that masculinity can be changed so easily reflects the feminist idea of gender being a spectrum or a social construct and that if boys were taught to behave like girls then there wouldn’t be any problems. As many others have pointed out, there are biological and psychological differences between men and women that have emerged through our different evolutionary pressures which explains why there are distinctive male and female behaviours. Unless people have a few million years to spare, this isn’t going to change any time soon. Fortunately, there are a lot of people who are against this attack on men and masculinity in addition to the ideology that states there’s no differences between men and women. Unfortunately, it is also common for people who defend men and masculinity to assert that men can be a problem but they just need to channel their behaviour to be productive members of society.

From how masculinity is described you would be forgiven for thinking that most men are in a constant state of rage and drag their knuckles on the floor and will act violently at any opportunity. It is true that most extreme behaviours and violence are predominantly caused by men but this only represents a tiny minority of all men. Similarly, it is important to channel the aggressive behaviour of men and boys but there is never a suggestion that women need to channel their own behaviour for the benefit of society as well. This is because it would be viewed as misogynistic. There is a great reluctance to talk about women behaving badly which happens more often than people would like to think. This has been exacerbated by societies consistently presenting women as victims and men as perpetrators. To quote the men’s rights activist Glen Poole: “society thinks women have problems whereas men are problems.”

Most people who speak out against the feminist and social justice warrior assault on masculinity focus on the denial of sex differences but don’t focus on this perception of seeing men always as bad and women always as good. I call this the ‘masculinity strawman’ as it presents an overly simplistic view of how men and boys behave which makes it easier for feminists and SJWs to tear down. A better response to attacks on male behaviour would be to point out that women are human and therefore flawed just like men.



Seeing as this is my first blog post it is appropriate that I write about what this blog will be about and why I’ve chosen to start it.

Since 2013 I have been following political commentary online that primarily focuses on men’s issues and challenges the commonly held narrative of identity politics – i.e. women, gay people, black people, etc. are oppressed and straight white males are the ones who are oppressing them. Whilst issues that affect these supposedly victimised groups are given a fair hearing in society, many issues relating to men such as false rape accusations, domestic violence and family court bias are often ignored by the mainstream media and the public. This has created the illusion that men have privilege that they constantly need to check. The main purpose of this blog is to counter this idea and the whole ideology of identity politics itself.

I am fortunate that I have never suffered from the consequences of political correctness in my own life but I realised that what I was watching and listening to made sense when seeing what was happening to Western countries. I didn’t have that many strong political views before I started on this journey but after watching countless videos and reading numerous books I now have a keen interest in politics and following the ideological conflict between what could be classed as ordinary people with common sense opposing the ‘woke’ social justice warriors that populate education, politics and the media.

The metaphor of the red pill from The Matrix movies is a good description of what happened to me and many other people who were initially ‘blue-pilled’ for most of our lives and then discovered that much of what we were taught throughout our upbringing about identity politics was either inaccurate or a downright lie. My own ‘red-pilling’ came from stumbling upon the videos of YouTube channels such as ManWomanMyth and Chapin’s Inferno (both these channels, sadly, no longer exist). Another film by the Wachowski Brothers (interestingly now Sisters after both came out as transgender) that I think describes my ‘red pill moment’ is V for Vendetta. One scene in particular that stands out is when the character V places domino-sized pieces on the floor and knocks them over to create a ‘V’ image whilst the police detective character describes his revelation about everything being connected. It made me think of things I had seen and heard before I became ‘red-pilled’ and how everything seemed to come together to permanently alter my thinking.

Like everybody else, I have my own take on what I’ve seen and what I think about it and for a long time I considered starting a YouTube channel to get my thoughts across. However, I have been put off from making videos by the increasingly censorious nature of YouTube demonetising or banning content creators on their platform for going against conventional thinking. Also, I think I am better at expressing myself through writing which is why I had subsequently considered writing a book about problems affecting men. Nevertheless, I realised that it would be a waste of time to write and publish something that hardly anyone would read.

I gave up on my book idea but the desire to convey what I am thinking into words has not gone away. George Orwell understood one reason why certain people desire to express themselves through writing in his essay Why I Write many years ago: “Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death…It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one”. This is why I eventually decided to create this blog so that I could comment on these issues and see if what I write will resonate with other people. I cannot claim that what I put on here will be as smart, interesting or have the same level of insight as George Orwell’s writing of course.

Whether people will be interested in reading what I write is something I’ll have to find out as I’m aware that I would get a bigger audience producing videos than writing blogs. I could just be writing to myself but I think doing this will help me to understand my own viewpoint better. The increasing polarisation of politics across the Western world means that there will be plenty for me to write and comment on in the coming months and years if I continue to write here so I am excited to see what directions this blog will take in the future.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying welcome to my blog.