More than three decades after the Montreal Massacre, the anniversary of the shootings remains the occasion for alarmist claims about violence against women and the ritual shaming of men. Such shaming may be satisfying to anti-male ideologues, but it does nothing to prevent future violence and should cease immediately.
On December 6, 1989, 25-year-old Marc Lépine (born Gamil Gharbi) shot to death 14 women at the Engineering School of the University of Montreal, injuring 10 other women and 4 men. He left a suicide note explaining his rage against feminists, who, he claimed, “always try to misrepresent [men] every time they can.” He also appended a list of particular women he would like to have killed if he’d had time.
Janice Fiamengo recently retired from the University of Ottawa, where she was Professor of English. She is the creator of The Fiamengo File and No Joke Janice, 100+ video commentaries on feminism and men’s issues; the full collection of these can be found at Studio Brule. In 2018, she published Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say, and is at work on a second volume. She lives in New Westminster, British Columbia, with her husband, poet and songwriter David Solway.
This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere. He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.
Stumbling through the dark
corners of the internet one fell morning, attempting to do research
on the subject of domestic violence interspersed now and then with
one of my dogs barking at some odd happening outside every two
minutes, I crawled through the muddiest sludge of the world wide
wonder-web to exhume this piece of preposterous writing:
Within this piece of writing,
aptly titled: The Feminist Case for Acknowledging Women’s Acts
of Violence, we
find clear and concise evidence
in the form of them admitting
it that the feminist
movement, or the women’s movement or whatever label one wishes to
ascribe to it, built the domestic violence movement upon lies at
worst and blatant
misrepresentations at best.
Of course, this being a
feminist movement it goes without saying that the entirety of their
hogwashed bullshittery is based upon either outright lies or
snivelling misrepresentations of clear facts presented with the most
serpentine of forked tongues, quivering
lips and trembling forms, saying in a childlike voice designed to
mimic the most awesome
form of Neoteny: “Please, I am such a frail and
powerless woman – help me, big strong man whose strength and
protection I don’t need but will manipulate at want when I
need it. Even if I don’t need it, really.”
am not going to divulge the
information within this incredibly illuminating piece of writing in
great depth or detail in
think this fantastic piece
deserves a ramble all on its own, to go through it in such depths as
I am capable of, being neither an academic nor a scholar. Now,
being an academic clearly doesn’t mean much in this terrible
post-apocalyptic haze of the current year. This should be
self-evident by the sluggish beasts residing within the overcrowded
halls of academia. So:
rather than delving
into this paper in depth here
and now, I will take a look
at a few proper studies
on intimate partner violence and
see how the data contained therein correspond to this amazing
evidence of feminist skewed
statistics and lies most
worthy of the immense judgement and
subsequent thunder of our
grand societal ban-hammer.
this piece of writing, gentlemen and ladies, is
of such incredible importance to understand the way our ramshackle
societies view instances of intimate partner violence through
the black and white, tried,
incredibly faulty lens of
male perpetrators and female victims that
I can hardly contain my glee in stumbling across it. Even
if I read it with a certain anger boiling in my throat, gut and
groin. In the pages of this
tome of inadvisedly applied “knowledge”, it
becomes painfully clear that the feminist movement combined with the
domestic violence movement cares not in the least for the victims of
domestic violence, be they male or female. It becomes evident – by
the constant reference to the
“movement” – that it is the feminist movement that matters, the
women’s movement. Not facts, not truth, not reason and not the
of intimate partner violence.
The movement above
The serpent cult is alive and
…And only the cult matter in
the grand scheme and schism of things.
should have been common knowledge from the 1970’s at least that
intimate partner violence is not a gendered issue. Once again, I
would like to refer to the work of that fabulous Loving Grandmother
to Us All, Erin Pizzey and her tremendous work in
regards to family violence. I
recommend – once again – that everyone read her story, listen to
her speeches and marvel at the treatment she received at the hands of
irate feminists who had an agenda to push that was driven not by any
concerns for victims of domestic violence, but by
a concern for their own
movement, their own dogma and their own hydra-headed serpent god of
and venomous fangs. She
concluded, already back then, that intimate partner violence was
reciprocal in most cases, built on escalation and
a pattern of abuse that was generational from
both sides of the dysfunctional family.
that the women in her shelters were just as, if not more, violent
than the men from whom they fled. And so saw fit to build a shelter
men as well, for which she was disowned by her feminist cohorts,
harassed and harangued and bullied until she had
to flee the country.
this is a condensed version of the story.
this came to be merely
because she wished
to actually help those who suffered instead of
pushing an agenda that was as blatantly false as it was completely
monochrome in its approach to the problem.
are angels and saints and men are the devils
lurking at the outskirts of our civilization, ready, at a moments
notice, to wreak bloody havoc on all that
we hold dear.
That is to say: on all that
women hold dear. For, should we believe the feminist dogma, men can
not hold anything dear but terror, tyranny, violence, beer and
rape. Preferably at the same time.
closing in on fifty years later, researchers are attempting to view
the problem of intimate partner violence through new and fresh
lenses. Gazing at it,
as it were, from a vantage point not driven by ideology and
subjective opinion, but on facts and objective observations.
now, if the powers that be had listened to Erin Pizzey when she first
began speaking truthfully and
honestly on certain matters
having to do with
dysfunctional family matters.
Should-haves, would-haves and
could-haves are not great tools for intellectual quests, I will have
to agree. And resentment and bitterness helps little in furthering
anything. But this fraud and sham of a movement has done such
tremendous damage where intimate partner violence is concerned that I
can not help it. This new
research is not anything new. Not as such. And that angers
my blood and boils my brain, slowly reducing it to snark and
frustration, anger and resentment.
of what could have been done to help both male and female victims, as
well as their children. Imagine
how much work could have been laid down to stop the generational
cycle of abuse – to break the vicious circle of replaying past
traumas in ones own family of
the domestic violence movement saw fit to ensnare society within its
tangled web of feminist
gibbering nonsense, painting men as the perpetrators and axe-wielding
maniacs of immense power and violence.
That it was the subjugation
of women at the hands of both men and the state that caused intimate
partner violence, and that it
was men and only men who were violent both within and without the
family, given the authority
to do so by the nebulous and never-seen forces of the tyrannical
of the feminist tin-foil-hat wearing swashbucklers of truth and glory
mass-hysteria and quaint
of hysterical ovary-acting
worthy of a hysterectomy or
now by a longing for facts and for the feminist nonsense-mongers
to remove their stranglehold on the discourse where
intimate partner violence is concerned, we – as a society – need
to wipe our faultily
lenses and put actual
prescription glasses in place to view these dysfunctional family
matters in an
not tainted by ideologues who care for the movement and the goals of
the movement, replacing the
needs of the actual victims
and sufferers in the process.
so, new research floats to the top of the stagnant pool that has been
the discourse for decades. From
the septic tank of feminist-infused fuckery that has dominated the
discourse, rises a noxious
gas that may now be lit aflame and blow the whole thing up where the
way we view family violence is
what should matter – what
should always have mattered – is lending
help to the individual
victims first and foremost, disregarding
the gendered view that feminism has put in place. Which
they so clearly
admit to have put in place. Secondly,
the root cause of family
violence should be understood
so that the cycle of abuse may be broken. In
order to understand it, one has to admit to and understand what both
Warren Farrel and Erin Pizzey have
been saying for decades; that
damaged people damage people, and gender be damned. Gender
should not factor into it. Especially not in these societies which we
inhabit in which the claim is that gender never matters. Except when
it does, of course. And when it does, it is always when it may in
some way, shape or form supposedly
help women. It is tempting to
say that the root causes should be the first thing that matters. But
that would then be done without lending help to individual victims in
their immediate need. By
lending help to the individual first and foremost, the root cause may
be discovered and removed as one would remove a tumour.
becomes glaringly obvious that
their “containment” as they put it in
the first paper
of female offenders and male
victims has done a great disservice, not only to the men who have
fallen victim to intimate partner violence, but to any-and-all
attempt to grab the serpent
by its tail and so refuse it to become the Ourobouros, perpetuating
its cycle of abuse
through generations of
families uncounted. By
pushing to remove female offenders, they
have willingly allowed the snake to go uncaught.
They have driven wedges ever
further into the fabrics of our societies, into the trust and
co-operation between men and women and sat fire to the entirety of
the family dynamic. By their
own admittance, they have neglected
to catch the serpent, they
have willingly destroyed the nuclear family and
given birth to an industrial complex known vaguely as the domestic
violence movement in which
male victims – as we shall see soon enough – are not believed,
are shunned, ridiculed, often arrested in place of their abuser
and removed from their own
home. For being beat and
abused by their spouse.
in the name of “equality”; that fantastic term that means
everything and nothing all at once, depending upon the view of the
feminist at the moment,
depending on the position of
the moon, depending on whether or not Uranus is aligned with the
swinging cock of Mars to be
sodomized at a moments notice
and so forth and so on.
the feminist dictionary, words do not mean what you think they mean.
They change and they alter and they evolve all the time within the
framework of their ideology, as
whimsical and fluctuating as anything ever could be. And
so, the joke lies there and I must use it: “At
the flimsy will and
whim of a woman”.
I’ll be here all week.
These are the jokes, people!
Looking on another study
now, and of course I need to put in an addendum here – I am always
a bit careful when looking at studies like this, given that I am not
an academic and as such not all that versed in traversing these kinds
of studies – this study is titled Differences
in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships
With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence.
In this study, they
analysed data on young adults aged 18-28 years in the US. The results
showed that almost 24% of all relationships they looked at had some
violence. Just about half of these were cases of reciprocal violence.
In cases were the violence was not reciprocal women were the
perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. That is quite a lot, if I
am to be honest. More than the feminist hive-mind and various
do-goodie virtue-signallers would ever admit to. This does not matter
to these people, though, as they will hold forth as arguments that
this does not matter due to the fact that male perpetrators are more
likely to inflict injury than are female perpetrators. If I
understood the study properly, however, instances of reciprocal
violence was more likely to result in actual injury than were
instances of non-reciprocal violence.
This was found to be
regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. I found this to be very
interesting when taking into consideration that the study also tell
us that “Reciprocity was
associated with more frequent violence among women”.
From my understanding of this quote, women were the instigators more
often than men in cases of reciprocal violence. Thus leading the men
therein to reply in kind. Given the greater muscle-mass and bone
density of men in general, and the lesser muscle-mass and bone
density of women in general, I do not find it all that surprising
that women suffer injuries more in cases of reciprocal violence. It
would, perhaps, be a good idea to not attempt to beat someone bigger
and stronger than oneself.
Understanding that boys and
men have been told since time immemorial that they should never –
ever – hit a girl or a woman, no matter the circumstances, it is
little wonder that the sympathies of society at large go to the woman
in these scenarios, never-minding that she may very well have been
the instigator. I think it would be prudent to also keep in mind the
probability that people in these kinds of relationships where
reciprocal violence occur are more than likely damaged people who
keep replaying the same scenarios time and again, drawn to each other
by a kind of mutual and subconscious desire for destruction and
self-destruction, feeding into the generational cycle of abuse from
ages past. Re-playing what they learned at the hands and feet of
parents for all eternity. I can not imagine a worse doom than this.
The study also tell us that
“the percentage of relationships in which there was reciprocal
partner violence ranged from 45% to 72%”. Further evidence,
then, that reciprocal violence in highly dysfunctional relationships
and families is the norm more than it is not. Kinda ruins the
pictures we have been painted and presented for ages now of the
stereotypical wife-beating man; a drunkard and a brute with violence
encoded in his DNA, allowed by both society and the patriarchy, weird
deep-state shadow government that it is. A faulty image handcrafted
by feminist ideologues whose interests and passions are to maintain
this stereotype more than it is to solve the problem. Because solving
the problem would mean that they would have to admit – as they have
done in the first paper linked – that women are also violent, that
men are also victims, and that violent relationships are more often
than not a two-way street where there is no clear victim/perpetrator
dynamic to be used in furthering an agenda.
And the agenda is also
something they would then have to admit to; burying facts for sake of
their ideological convenience and the advancement of the movement,
the movement being, at the moment, in a state of siege as more and
more people are questioning the societal narrative which we have been
spoon-fed for decades; their toxin forced down our throats and
injected into our veins from powerful institutions of education,
mass-media and more.
This state of siege, I
assume, is the main cause and reason for the first paper linked –
the fear of loosing their stranglehold on the conversation, the
debate and the topic forcing them to change tactics so as not to be
shown as the bigoted and ideologically possessed and blinded serpents
that they are.
There is this radical
notion that has been with me, you see, part of my world-view for all
my life, based as much on personal observations as it is on objective
analysis, that both men and women are capable of tremendous good as
well as tremendous bad. That is to say: women are just as capable as
men. And men are just as capable as women. For good. And for evil.
This goes in stark opposition to the dominant cultural narrative of
our societal psychosis – that men are evil and women are good by
default. An awfully traditional view of things, one would have to
The study further states
that “In fact, men in relationships with reciprocal violence
were reportedly injured more often (25.2%) than were women in
relationships with non-reciprocal violence (20%); this is important
as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious.”
Gee Whiz! I wonder why it is
not seen as serious. Could it possibly be due to the massive
influence from the feminist movement in regards to this, I wonder, I
ponder, I think and I consider as I sip my coffee and listen to the
soothing blast beats and throaty screeching of black metal of the
foulest and meanest sort? Note also, that I take my coffee as black
and soulless as my metal. It helps with the anger, releases the venom
and soothes the mind something fierce. It also wires me up
…Could this possibly also
have something to do with the gynocentric nature of our species,
wherein women are to be protected and as such are given excuses and
quite a bit of leeway in regards to the abuse they may inflict upon
their spouse and their children? It is a meme at this point, but I
think it wise to repeat it here: women’s act of violence prompts us
to discuss matters of mental health. And it prompts us to manufacture
excuses. Such as that she was abused, either as a child by her father
or by her spouse, which forced her to carry out her acts of abuse and
violence. Men’s violence, on the other hand, prompts us to demonize
all men, telling all men that they need to take responsibility for
ending this, starting with looking at themselves in the mirror. It
also sparks discussions on toxic masculinity and other such nonsense.
When men are violent, it is because they are men. When women are
violent, it is either because of men or because of mental health
issues, urging us to feel sympathy for her and give her
What a beautiful shell of a
world we inhabit. The post-apocalyptic wasteland is nothing like what
I was lead to believe through the movies I grew up on.
Were I not cautiously
optimistic, I would have turned into a raging misanthrope by this
point in my life. Better to channel that rage not unto humanity as a
whole, but onto ideologies that purposefully and cleverly have taken
control of the discourse, have tied a noose around the necks of our
societies and our civilization, have swarmed their way into our
collective consciousness as the truth-speakers, the enlightened and
empathetic ones seeking only to establish gender equality, despite
proven to be filthy, rotten, tongue-tied-and-twisted liars time and
I think it wise to end this
part of the ramble with another quote from the study in question,
which makes it easy for me to segway into the next segment of my
incessant rambling: “Regarding reporting biases, there has been
much discussion of whether there are differences in reported IPV by
the gender of the reporter. A meta-analysis of the reliability of the
conflict tactics scale concluded that there is evidence of
under-reporting by both genders, and that
under-reporting may be greater for men.”
Small wonder, that, as men
are not believed more often than not. Small wonder, that, when men
are ridiculed by the forces supposedly put in place to help victims
of domestic violence. Of course, in light of the glorious feminist
revolution, victims of domestic violence automatically mean “women”.
As such, close-to all resources available are merely there for female
victims. This based on the false belief that only men are violent,
only women are victims, for ever and ever, hail Dworkin, praise
feminism, eternal glory be to the collective, amen.
The last study to gaze upon
is also the one I think is of the most interest. It is titled “The
Experiences of Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: An
Overlooked Population and Implications for Practice” and
can be found here:
one would assume, given the title of the study, it looks on the
experiences of men when seeking help
domestic violence. Unsurprising
to any who have delved into the weird and wacky post-red-pill world,
probably surprising, bordering on unbelievable to any who have not,
study show that men experience barriers when calling domestic
violence hotlines. It
contains some very interesting quotes from men who have been foolish
enough to attempt to seek help and understanding from the resources
will look mainly on their quotes, as the stories of men who suffer
intimate partner violence are so often neglected and never told.
– I would like to make it clear that
I do not use the word “foolish” lightly. Nor
do I use it as a slur against the men who attempted to seek help from
the resources available. I use it to define – to underline – the
severity of the issue. I
use the word “foolish” for the simple reason that, as the world
and the web in which it is ensnared stand, it
is a foolish and futile endeavour. This
the domestic violence industry being
so tainted, so poisoned, by the might
industrial complex that one would be hard-pressed to find a more
wretched hive of scum and villainy this
side of the good part of Star Wars.
this quote from a man contacting a domestic violence agency would
didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers
are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser.
They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about
what I would need to do to protect my 6 children and care for them.”
it is not about hating, shaming
men, you must understand. It is all to do with equal treatment of the
genders, as the feminist furies would have you believe, with all
their piss-pottery and slack-jawed yodelling.
those who hate men are not real feminists, ya know. And they don’t
like sugar on their porridge, either. Strange,
then, that these feminists who are not the real feminists are the
ones who have decided the rules and law of the land where the
mistreatment of male victims of intimate
are concerned. The
not real feminists, apparently, are the ones in control of the
movement, are the ones who control the discourse, change the laws,
neglect male victims and their children and do nothing but further
the narrative that women can do no bad and men can do no good. The
real feminists, however, are the ones that do not do this, the ones
who do not wield any power or influence within the movement which
they subscribe to. The
leaders of the movement are not real feminists. The
ones who have laid the foundations for the movement and steered us
all into these days of apocalyptic madness and rampant misandry
enforced by law are
not the real feminists.
Hitlerism, you must understand, is not real national socialism. Real
national socialism is something quite different. And
on and on the circle goes. Where it ends, no-one knows. Nor where it
am given to understand that there exist no real feminists. Because
this is the excuse whenever these hateful, bigoted purveyors of
nonsense and neglect
their hatred of all things male and masculine around town; that
they are not real feminists. And
when the leaders of a movement are not real adherents to a movement,
it is safe to assume that there exist no real feminists, and that it
is all a washbasin
filled with toxic waste, vaginal
is fucking nasty, is what I am getting at.
and again, these excuses pop up. And people believe it, all the
fucking time, people believe it. That the leaders of the movement –
the movers and shakers of the law of the land – the ones
implementing all manner of vile treatment
of men and
preferential treatment for women based on naught but sex – are
but a vocal
few who do nothing and accomplish
nothing and are thusly of little consequence to the movement as a
whole, despite the
fact that these
are the ones responsible for male victims of intimate
as well as their children, not only not being believed, but not
the hands of
the plentiful resources available to victims of intimate
Given that the real
are women and women only. But
no – that is not real feminism. They just wield all the power and
influence in the name of holy feminism and
its wriggling, spineless serpent-goddess.
those who are supposedly real feminists do nothing to stop these
so-called fake feminists. How very weird.
don’t often say this, but I will make an exception.
you right in the ear and
the nostrils with a barbwire-dildo laced with ferret-piss and
covered in angry ants!
work shows that men often experience barriers when seeking help when
calling domestic violence hotlines, for instance, men who sustained
all types of IPV report that the hotline workers say that they only
help women, infer or explicitly state that the men must be the actual
instigators of the violence, or ridicule them. Male help-seekers
also report that hotlines will sometimes refer them to batterers’
programs. Some men have reported that when they call the police
during an incident in which their female partners are violent, the
police sometimes fail to respond. Other men reported being ridiculed
by the police or being incorrectly arrested as the primary aggressor.
the judicial system, some men who sustained IPV reported experiencing
gender-stereotyped treatment. Even with apparent corroborating
evidence that their female partners were violent and that the
were not, they reportedly lost custody of their children, were
blocked from seeing their children, and were falsely accused by their
partners of IPV and abusing their children. According to some, the
burden of proof for male IPV victims may be especially high.”
colour me prickly surprised and
– could it really be? Well, yes, of course it could really be. The
most infuriating bother of it all is that feminists will go out of
their way to claim that this treatment is the fault of men, of toxic
masculinity and of the patriarchy and
that feminism is the force needed to fix it. This despite them being
the reason for this sad state of affairs in
the first place.
At least now we have an admittance from their own filthy and
bloodstained hands that they have knowingly “contained” – their
word – instances of male victims and female perpetrators, so one
would be inclined to believe that this excuse would no longer work.
it will still work.
will still be presented
as being the fault of men. Whilst
in actuality being a combination of the succubi
forces of feminism and the gynocentric nature of our species
a cultural cutlery narrative that
women are victims, even when women are the perpetrators. I can
imagine no harsher punishment – no harsher and more foul treatment
– than being arrested for being assaulted by ones partner, adding
insult to injury one snakelike slither at a time, with
feminist dogma whispering in his ear that this is the fault of men
and of himself by extension.
few quotes from the paper, which I think is of interest:
offered to listen if I wanted to recount what had happened, but
indicated that no support services were available”.
was mostly just doing research after the occurrence to find out what
I should do. I found mostly female help sites and was turned down by
several so I gave up.”
regards to law involvement:
determined she was the aggressor but said since I was a man it was
silly to arrest her.”
me to get her help. Told me to spend the night in a hotel.”
saw me as a large male and… took her side. I was at the hospital
with bruising and burned eyes from hot coffee thrown in them. They
didn’t believe that she did this… and refused to arrest her…
The next incidence… the police… saw me bleeding they charged her
with felony DV, but later dropped it to misdemeanour assault because
we are not married and do not live together.”
now, ain’t that interesting in light of the first paper linked? I
would dare say that in the line of duty, neglect of the male is right
there up front and centre for all the world to see,
were they only willing to do so. Clearly,
is incredibly difficult to see
decades of feminist lobbying and implementations – or alterations –
of law made to define Domestic
in a light spun neatly by the web of feminist dogma, such
as the Duluth-model for dealing with domestic violence. But more on
that later, as I keep saying whenever I bring it up. I think –
quite simply – that it deserves a ramble all on its lonesome.
all things are placed within the framework of an ideology that
presumes women to be the oppressed and men to be the oppressors,
can only ever go one way. And that way is down from the top – from
man to woman. Women
who are violent against their male partners are thus given leeway for
her supposedly being oppressed for being female and nothing but. The
domestic violence industry has handcrafted this fairytale on
feminist insistence, where the big bad wolf is the man and everything
done to fight the big bad wolf is of the good, even when that means a
man being arrested for his
so, the girl cried “Wolf”.
he must have done something to her that caused her
to lash out at him.
told and the image
presented for decades has
one in which women are never the main perpetrators, nor the first
has been presented as being so simple, so lacking in nuance as to be
black and white; that is the ever-popular Men Bad – Women Good. I
know I repeat this often. This point needs to be hammered home with
all the persistence
of a rampant AK-47 in
the hands of a drugged-out-of-his-mind chimpanzee.
faced with this – that male victims are arrested – the feminist
hive-mind does, in my admittedly
experience one of two things. They defend the woman, stating that he
must have done something. Or they claim
– as they always do – that this is the fault of the patriarchy
for viewing women as weak and helpless, forgetting
for convenience the fact that all this is the fault of feminist
this is the fault of feminism is made evident – clear and bright as
the dawning of a new day – when
looking at the first paper linked, or looking at the interview with
foul and filthy Katherine Spillar in the documentary
the Red Pill,
wherein she states that “it is not girls beating up on boys, it is
boys beating up on girls” and that “Domestic Violence” is
nothing but a “clean-up word for wife-beating.” Imagine
my bedazzled shock!
this is not neglecting male victims and containing female
the movement and the ideology and nothing but that,
I have no idea what is.
does not matter much, however, within a culture that is so decided
upon viewing women as permanent victims of the tyranny of men that
we willingly ignore all facts to the contrary of the cultural
that is a narrative that has been pushed and prodded and presented as
fact for decades, despite being at the best falsely presented
statistics, and at the worst downright lies.
worst part – to my eyes at least – is not the narrative being
presented of only men being perpetrators and only women being
victims. The worst part of it all is that this one-sided narrative,
of things, stand directly in the path, blocking what
would be the best attempt at remedying the problem. And that is
looking at the core reason for violence, which seems to be linked
with family of origin issues.
is to say – the sins of the father will be visited upon the son.
Adding, of course, that
sins of the mother and father
will be visited upon the son and the daughter both,
in equal measure.
to repetition is the generational cycle of abuse.
are not our behaviours – our patterns
of behaviour in adult life very much a reflection of that of our
parents, be they our mothers or our fathers? Being
able to see this pattern – this circle of abuse clearly, would
mean being able to consider the instigators of violence, the
perpetrators of violence within
a family, be that reciprocal or not, in
light of the abuse they suffered at the hands of their parents. Not
as a manner of excuse for their behaviour, but as a way to teach them
of working through the trauma from the abuse that is not them
re-playing it time and again, regurgitating
the same generational sins as their parents and their parents did,
and so forth and so on.
would mean grabbing the serpent by its tail, understanding that it is
a far more complex issue than the feminist hive-mind and their
various sultry snake-cult priestesses
have it presented. This
way of tackling the issue, however, would of course mean that the
feminist movement as well as the domestic violence movement, which
is, to be honest, more or less the same thing at this point, would
loose not only the stranglehold they have on the discussion but also
a wealth of funding and
I, of course, consider to be a godsend.
which they clearly do not – hence the first paper linked, wherein
they present arguments for acknowledging female perpetrators of
domestic violence in order to further the agenda of the movement, not
the help or protection of the individual victims of
intimate partner violence,
nor the families destroyed by it.
just goes to show that feminism cares neither for women nor
for men, but their own agenda. Whatever
that agenda may be at any given moment.
is definitive proof that feminism as a movement cares for naught but
their movement. Women that oppose their movement and
the dogma of it all
– Erin Pizzey, for instance, can
burn in hell for all they are concerned. And men can go to hell as a
matter who they are or what they have done. Or
what they haven’t done.
there should be compassion shown to those who are abused no
matter their sex,
there is naught. All there is is a movement so entrenched in its own
ideology and orthodoxy that they willingly – and admittedly – lie
in order to further this orthodoxy. At the expense of victims, be
they male or female, adult
that is that.
the party matter.
else is naught but sacrifices for the serpent-god.
Moiret Allegiere (Born 1986) hails from Norway. A self-described scribbler of lines, juggler of words and weird pseudo-hermit, he became so concerned with the state of the world that he left his long and deliberate hibernation to wreak bloody havoc on the world of fine art and literature.
I put together a new playlist on the menaregood youtube channel. Many have asked me what videos were the best for men’s issues. I have made over a hundred vids so I handpicked 18 of what I considered the top menaregood videos. Here they are! You can also use this link to go to youtube and see all 18 in the right hand sidebar and click through them.
Siege: “”a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.”
We saw from the last video that boys are under attack in schools.
How are they under attack? Well, they learn that
Their sex has caused the world’s problems,
That Men are privileged.
That men are toxic and have oppressed women.
That Men just need to step aside and let women run things, then things would be better.
They learn that Boys are inherently inferior and simply need to try to be more like the girls.
These messages get expressed repeatedly both actively and passively. Often subtle but sometimes blatant. They are unmistakable and are forced upon the boys without any counterpoint or any option for them to challenge or argue. These are the default. To argue would be unheard of. A third grader rarely argues with his teacher. She is queen and only speaks the truth. So boys are forced to shut up and accept the narrative that something is wrong with their sex.
Such hateful and persistent messages are hurtful and abusive to our boys. And yet no one complains.
What does it do to anyone who hears a constant drone of negative about their identity? Day in and day out you hear there is something inherently wrong with you. You are helpless since you have no way to respond. What does years of that do to a person?
There are several research driven ideas that help us understand the intensity these messages may have on boys. One is the concept of learned helplessness. In studies, animals have been given negative stimuli repeatedly without any opportunity to escape. After many repetitions the animals simply give up. They stop trying. Many are thinking this could be related to the origin of anxiety or depression. Could a similar principle be at play with boys and their involuntary exposure to hateful messages? It’s not a stretch to see how boys being bombarded with negative messages about their sex are put in a helpless position not unlike the learned helplessness situations. Might there be a cumulative effect?
Another research driven concept is that of the Stereotype Threat. An example of stereotype threat is the idea that girls are exposed to stereotypes when young that claim that girls are not so great at science and math. Some are thinking this early exposure may impact their later disinterest in sciences. Okay. Maybe so. But now think if that is true what sort of huge factor all of the anti-male messages that are being sent to boys might have on him? If the girls are negatively impacted by a minority message that they aren’t as good at math and science just imagine the impact of the multiude of misandrist messages boys receive. What might that do to them? Does anyone care? I don’t think so.
Then there is the element of self fulfilling prophecy. When people hear negative ideas about them it increases the chances that those negatives will come to fruition. Think about all of the negatives boys hear about their sex and just stand back and imagine what impact that might have?
Keep in mind that we know that the brain has great plasticity, that is it can alter itself with the advent of new information. When children are young they are particularly susceptible to negative messages having an impact on their young brains. The research shows us that children who were abused suffer from a lack of myelonization of their axons. Many think that this is one of the causes of depression and anxiety. What they have also found is that physical abuse AND emotional abuse both have the same impact on the brain. Wouldn’t it be easy to characterize the many negative anti male messages that boys receive as being somewhat similar to emotional abuse? One definition of emotional child abuse is “The caregiver refuses to acknowledge the child’s worth.” Seems to me that this is similar to what boys hear every day. The brains of our young are sensitive to stressors. It’s not a big leap to see that having one’s sex be disparaged on a regular basis is indeed a significant stressor.
The messages boys receive are a part of a huge double standard where boys are seen as the problem and girls are seen as the answer. Another frame for double standards towards boys has to do with the issue of violence.
Yet another place you see this radical double standard is around the issues of violence. It has been a long standing requirement in our culture to demand boys not hit girls. Yeah, so be it. But in our increasingly feminist drenched schools something started happening more frequently. Girls started hitting boys. And what was the administrative response to this. Nothing. No one lifted a finger. Even when boys had the courage to complain to teachers that a girl had pinched, hit, pushed, slapped, or kicked him he was told to go to his seat and not complain. I have heard many boys say the same thing. When they hit there is immediate punishment, and when the girls hit there is nothing. No one cares.
It didn’t take long for some devious girls to realize they could attack whenever they wished. And they did. While most girls would never do such a thing, those who chose to attack under the protection of the gynocentric double standard made the boys lives very difficult. What did the boys learn from this interaction? They learned that You, as a boy, do not deserve protection. Your pain is not important. It’s not as important as the girls. Shut up and quit complaining. Sound like emotional abuse to you? It does to me.
It’s important to note here that though it was a minority of girls doing this, the majority of girls did not call out the perps and would generally say nothing. They were willing to sell the boys down the river and allow the aggressive girls to do their evil.
So how do you think that feels for boys? They likely have superior strength but when attacked they are required to stand down. Pretty tough lesson for a little guy don’t ya think? I wonder sometimes if the situation was reversed how would girls respond? Boys could hit them when they wanted and they could neither complain or defend themselves. If they went to the teacher they would be ignored. Hmmmm I’m guessing they would not handle it so well. I marvel at how the majority of boys have learned to deal with this blatant and hateful double standard.
So the boys are getting an early gynocentric message. You better protect girls and you, little sir, are not worth protection. Just shut up and go to war.
I think it is time to allow boys to defend themselves.
If this double standard only happened in schools it might not seem so sinister but this pattern of allowing women’s violence towards men while disallowing men’s violence towards women is a common occurrence in our culture. Just look at the undercover youtube videos showing public reaction to a man being violent towards a female partner. Everyone looks up, many challenge the violence, both men and women, some men come and physically stop the man, some go farther and are violent against the offending man, while others just call the police. But what happens when it goes the other way and it’s the women hitting the men? We see something different, much like the girls reaction to the girl hitting the boy in school, No one gets upset. In fact many people laugh and point. They make fun of HIM. You know, the victim. Can you see how this is the same dynamic we saw in the schools? It’s just played out on a different level.
Possibly the worst example of this double standard is the judicial lenience towards women who have murdered their husbands. You know, she says he abused her so the judge says, well, it’s okay that you killed him. And she gets probation. Try that one the other way around and see how far you get with this horrible double standard. You know the drill.
And to top it off there is yet another level for this hateful double standard of tolerating female violence. Our congress nearly 25 years ago passed the Violence Against Women Act. Notice it doesn’t say violence against people, it ignores men who are victims of female violence and focuses only on the women who are hit by men. Same thing right? Just note that due to this gynocentric pattern we now have over 2000 shelters for women who have been victimized by men but only a handful of shelters for the men. And yes the actual violence of women towards men is nearly equal to that of men. Gynocentrism runs silent and it runs deep.
I have talked with legislators about these double standards and I’ve talked with feminists about this. Both have the same attitudes. We are concerned about men and boys, but… and then fill in the blank. I think the same bullshit responses would come from the people in public places who laughed at the men being victimized. They would not see their own bias and duplicity in such a double standard. They would think they were doing the right thing. And that is just how teachers and administrators respond when questioned about this. But, but, but? We care about boys! You may think that but the evidence says something else.
I’d like to bring up one more item related to the double standard before we close. Actually in the next part of this series we will be examining the research that backs up our earlier discussions. One of those studies is particularly vexing. It shows that boys, by the age of seven believe that they are not as smart as girls. It also shows that girls feel they are smarter than boys and come to that conclusion even earlier than the boys(4 years old). Here’s a quote from an article about the study:
“Researchers also found that the children believed adults shared the same opinion as them, meaning that boys felt they were not expected by their parents and teachers to do as well as girls and lost their motivation or confidence as a result.”
Somehow, our boys, by the age of 7, get the idea they are not as smart as girls. Why are we not panicking over this? But people, educators and our legislators simply snooze on.
Of course this is not simply a result of our schools but they obviously play a part. How did our children get to the point that they both think boys are not as smart? What messages are they getting and why? I remember when I was in elementary school in the 1950’s. The boys would tell the girls they were smarter and the girls would tell the boys, no, they were smarter. It was all in fun and we all knew that there were some really smart girls and also some really smart boys. We tossed these ideas at each other in the same way we would accuse the opposite sex of having cooties. But somehow now this game has changed remarkably. We now condone crap like “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” we laugh at the “girls rule and boys drool” taunts. Somehow our culture is convincing our children that girls are smarter. This is a problem
Just imagine that the research had found the opposite, that girls and boys both believed that boys were smarter. There would be a national campaign in no time. You likely remember that this was actually the rally cry of feminists to gain millions in funding in the 1990’s, her self esteem is low. Girls didn’t think they were smart. Get her help! Now! But since it is boys, no one cares.
Our schools have become lopsided institutions that favor girls. Girls preferences rule the roost, schools are about everyone getting a trophy, sitting still and about feelings. This is girlville. It has even been found that boys grades are dependent upon how much they act like girls! Act like girls and you get better grades! We will see that and many other research studies in the final video of this series.
If you like this sort of content please consider supporting men are good on patreon. We have just opened a private forum and are drawing red pilled men from around the world discussing our issues. Join us!
I have opened a Patreon page and would love to have you join in. Plenty of free content and for as little as $2 a month you get access to a 14 video series on men and healing that was a part of an international class five years ago. Learn about how Eric Clapton, Michael Jordan and many other men healed from very difficult losses. You can find it here: http://patreon.com/menaregood
This video was created 10 years ago and originally was in 4:3 format and fairly low resolution. I have now brought it up to 16:9 and increased the resolution as much as possible while still keeping the original footage and audio. I have also added an Epilogue on the end that takes a brief look at the carnage left since this video was created.
I have long held that compassion and choice are two issues that play a part in nearly every men’s issue. But why? What do compassion and choice have to do with male suicide or male victims of domestic violence or just about any other men’s issue? Quite a bit actually. Let’s take a look at why compassion and choice are limited for men and then see how compassion and choice are essential ingredients to the issues.
The origins of the lack of compassion and
choice for men is gynocentrism. When you start to understand gynocentrism you will start to better understand the plight of men and boys. Gynocentrism at its most basic, is the mandate that women and children be kept safe and provided for at the expense of men. In other words, men are designated to insure the safety and provisions for women and children on an individual level, the family level, community level and on a macro level. This is not a totally bad thing. It has been what has created and maintained many cultures for millennia. As Stefan Molyneux says, “Eggs are scarce and sperm is plentiful.” This means we have needed to sacrifice our sperm in order to insure the safety of our eggs. Without women the culture dies a quick death. Women must be protected. Gynocentrism protects those who carry the eggs and does this at the expense of its men. This has been a very important element to our cultural success but it does come at a price.
One consequence of protecting the women is that the men will need to at times face danger. The women need to be kept safe and the men will protect the boundary and sometimes die in that process. Our human history of gynocentrism is longer and deeper than most assume. We think of the hunter gatherers as serene and bucolic but that was sometimes far from the truth and gynocentrism predominated. Research shows that some South American hunter gatherer groups faced huge numbers of deaths of their men protecting the women and children1. One group averaged the death of nearly 60% of its males in protecting the women from inter tribal attacks that were among other things, designed to steal the other group’s women! (the average for the groups studied was near 30% male deaths as a result of raids, ambush or larger scale conflicts) He who had the most women wins and these groups made a huge sacrifice of their males to insure they kept their women and children safe.
In its most obvious we can see how gynocentrism plays out when we note that men automatically and without question are the ones facing danger in our culture. Our war dead are nearly 100% male. Our deaths in dangerous occupations are 93% men. Our trashmen and sewage workers are nearly all male. The dirtiest and most dangerous jobs are jobs for men. No one questions this. It just seems right. This is the hidden power of gynocentrism. No one questions and no one notices. Hell, if women actually got equality to the above it would be a huge step down for them.
But gynocentrism runs much deeper than simply being about protecting the borders and doing the dangerous work. It has its tendrils into just about everything, silently and without fanfare. What happens when a woman has a flat tire? How many people have seen the help she will usually garner from men? Now think about what happens if a man has a flat tire. Does he get a similar treatment? Probably not. This is gynocentrism. When there are problems we jump to help women but expect the men to handle it themselves even in today’s atmosphere of “equality”.
What happens when a woman is upset and falls into a sea of tears? Pretty much the same thing as the flat tire. People hover to offer support and see what might be wrong and what they can do. But what happens when men fall into a similar sea? People ignore him and avoid him. It is almost as if a woman’s pain is a call to action while a man’s pain is taboo. Compassion offered to men is a fraction of the compassion offered to women.
There are a number of youtube videos that employ actors to portray men beating women in public. The women are shown to get immediate support and help from male onlookers who see the violence. They quickly jump to her aid not knowing it is an arranged scene. These same videos then reverse the roles and show the women beating men in a similar manner and no one lifts a finger, in fact, they laugh. This is gynocentrism. We expect to help the women and expect the men to help themselves. Note also that we allow women to be dependent but do not allow the same for men.
On an even simpler level think of a man and a woman at work who need to move some boxes from one location to another. Some are heavy, some are light. Who will be moving the heavy ones? It is a foregone conclusion that the man will most often move the largest boxes and will protect her from having to do hard labor. This is gynocentrism.
And then there is the question of attractiveness. When a woman is attractive she gets special perks simply due to her appearance. No man can come close to having a similar response. This is gynocentrism. The eggs are protected and the attractive eggs get very special treatment.
Think of that attractive woman being tied to the railroad tracks. What does that do to the hearts and minds of most people? Most of us have an inborn reaction that says DO SOMETHING to help her. But what about a man tied to the tracks? Is your reaction the same or different? Yes, you likely want to see him helped but is it the same gut wrenching sensation? The plots of many movies and novels are fueled by this gynocentric scenario. We all want the woman tied to the tracks safely released even if it means the death of numerous men in the process. A woman’s needs are a call to action while a man’s needs are often just ignored. He needs to save her!
Just think for a minute what would happen to a man in the military who started complaining that we needed to have more female war deaths in order to make things equal for everyone. How would he be received? All hell would break loose at this questioning of the gynocentric norm and disregard for the safety of women. We see something similar when the opposite happens and men voice their desires for equal opportunities for services for men in things like domestic violence. Those who stand up for the needs of men in our gynocentric culture are seen as misogynistic, that is, they are routinely accused of hating women simply for pointing out the needs of men. Can you see how the fuel for this is gynocentrism?
Another example of extreme gynocentrism is boot camp in the army. What is done? The recruit is taught that he is nothing. He is now not an individual, he is a part of a fighting group. His personal identity is deleted and he is taught to fight for the group, for a cause. He no longer exists. There is no compassion for his personal feelings and needs. Those are a distant second. He also has zero choice. He does what he is told. That is the extreme gynocentric model that plays out to one degree or another in our everyday life.
Do we care about the feelings of the woman tied to the tracks? Oh yes. Do we care about the feelings of the hero who rescues her? No. We care about his actions. His emotions are not important unless his feelings are about HER. Do we care about the emotions of the boot camp recruit? Nope. We care about his actions and what he does. His feelings need to be kept to himself. In the same way, under the gynocentric default we tend to care about the emotions of women but will be averse to the emotions of men. Our interest moves more towards his actions. Think about the last time you saw a woman cry in public. What was your reaction? Most of us want to help, want to offer support. We are drawn to her neediness. Now think about a man crying under the same circumstances you saw the woman. Are you as open to his tears as the woman? Most of us say no, we are not. We are repulsed by his neediness. The man is not expected to be needy, he is expected to have agency. If he is seen as needy he is judged harshly. This is gynocentrism.
These sorts of advantages for women have been going on for many years. In the 19th century men would strive to do the best job of keeping women safe and provided for. Just read their diaries and the diaries of their wives. These men put women on a pedestal. They thought of them as angelic and would try their best to not have them sully themselves with the grime of daily life outside the home. They worked hard to have them stay away from “dirty”things like the workplace or money. They did this because they saw women as worthy of protection (gynocentrism) and were happy to take on the extra burden in order to keep her safe. Then along comes feminism which makes the incredibly noxious and inaccurate claim that women were not held in high esteem at all, they were being oppressed. They took the protections that women had benefited from for centuries and spun them into being oppression. In my opinion this is the biggest lie of the 20th century and it has left a wake of chaos and vitriol. Women now actually believe themselves to be victims and that they have been shortchanged and oppressed. These are the same women who didn’t have to go to war, didn’t have to do the dirty work of building or maintaining the culture, were held in high esteem and basically worshiped (as American as Mom and Apple Pie) now see this as oppression. Houdini could not have done a more impressive magic trick.
So what do you think happened? It could be easily predicted that gynocentrsim would insure that when women appear to be in danger or need that men will jump and meet those needs as best they can. That’s the way both men and women are programmed. And that is just what happened. The feminists claimed to be tied to the tracks and rode, and continue to ride the gynocentric wave of men keeping women safe. Their unfounded claims that women were oppressed and held back have been taken seriously by well meaning highly gynocentric males, including male legislators. These claims of women being tied to the tracks and needing government intervention were welcomed by our gynocentric legislators who wanted to bend over backwards to help women. Over the years women have been given more and more while simultaneously continuing to enjoy the same gynocentric advantages they have been getting for hundreds of years. Our legislators have backed themselves into a corner and are now afraid to say no. They know that they have been hijacked but don’t have the courage to say no to saving a damsel in distress. Saying no would insure a loss in the next election.
This was the beginning of what I like to call Gynocentrism 2.0. The cultural imperative of caring for women continues and is now amplified by false claims of women having been oppressed. Simultaneously Gynocentrism 2.0 showed not only increased focus on the needs and desires of women, it also made a dramatic switch. Men in gynocentrism 1.0 were held in high esteem when they followed through with their role. They were both respected and admired and this was fuel for the masculine. Both sexes were held in high esteem. Now that fuel for men has run out as the admiration and respect has been gaudily replaced with disdain and blame. Incredibly, now men are seen as the problem and held accountable for social problems as if they were the cause. It is all the men’s fault. Much is said about men not doing very well these days but very few people note this important shift. When you don’t put fuel in the engine it ain’t goin too far.
In Gynocentrism 2.0 entire bureaucracies are built to serve women and cater to their difficulties but there are rarely any such bureaucracies built for men. The women are left with a choice of whether to seek help at a government funded facility (payed for with mostly male tax dollars) built for them while the men are left with no choices.
One of the best examples of this is the issue of domestic violence where we have known for decades that men are a sizable portion (likely nearing 50%) of the victims of domestic violence but all of the laws and services are built for women. We spend nearly a billion dollars a year for the Violence Against WOMEN Act (VAWA) that marginalizes the 50% of male victims. Recent research exposed the sad fact that when men who are the victims of domestic violence go to these government funded services for help they are treated very poorly. Often when the men are victims of domestic violence and they turn to the government funded services they are told that they are not victims of domestic violence, they are accused of being the perpetrators! They then send him to treatment for perpetrators! Researchers are calling this “third party abuse”, when the government bureaucracy as a third party, participates in the continued abuse of a victim. This is gynocentrism 2.0 which leaves no compassion for men and far fewer choices in seeking help.
I was involved in lobbying for male victims of domestic violence during the reauthorization of the VAWA in both 2005 and 2012. Our group was well received by then Senator Biden. He and his staff listened to our data and stories about male victims in several meetings at his Senate office. He assured us we would be a part of the hearings. When the hearing came not one of our group was allowed to speak. I couldn’t believe it. Biden was totally aware of the problem of male victims and intentionally sabotaged our efforts to find support for men. It was then that I realized how deeply our system is biased and non-functional. Gynocentrism 2.0.
It’s important to point out that our government has been pushing a gynocentric agenda for some time. In the 1960’s President Johnson set in motion the “War on Poverty” which proceeded to demand the removal of black fathers from their families in order for mom to get welfare. Now our family courts are doing something similar as they remove fathers from the home through no fault on the fathers part. The woman’s needs come first, father’s a distant second.
My state of Maryland created a Commission for Men’s Health a number of years ago. I was fortunate to serve as the vice chair of that commission and wrote three of the four reports that were to be sent to the governor. The reports I wrote were what I call “male friendly.” That is, they voiced and considered the needs of men without bowing to the prevailing political correctness. The chairman of the commission wrote the other report which was a bit more what the Health Department, our host agency, was anticipating. All four reports were unanimously approved by the full commission. When the commission’s work was done and it came time to file the reports to the governor and a host of other Maryland politicians and get them into the Maryland State Library the Health Department only filed the report that was written by the Chairman. They were confronted with this and said, “ooops, we will file it now.” But they didn’t. It took a year to track down the files and finally get them into the Maryland system. The full story of this event will be told in a chapter in Janice Fiamengo’s upcoming book. It couldn’t be more clear that when the needs of men were given voice, the status quo balked. It seems that our mid level bureaucrcrats are filled with gynocentrism 2.0.
I think you can see now how women’s complaints and our legislators zealous rush to help them have turned things topsy turvy. Rape shield laws have been written to protect the rape victims and this is a good thing. But those same laws failed to protect the accused man. His name can be released to the media prior to any conviction. Her name is permanently protected while his name is plastered all over the media and he has his life ruined simply due to an accusation which may or may not be proven false . Gynocentrism 2.0.
Another example is the issue of suicide where males are 80% of all completed suicides. (Chart above: rates are per 100,000 population from CDC WISQARS system.) Incredibly this 80% fact is rarely mentioned in the media leaving most people unaware that the biggest risk factor in suicide is being male. It is not surprising that females get the majority of attention around suicide both clinically and in research. This even though men are the vast majority of those needing help. In 2009 the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) did some research on suicide. I was shocked to see it was a study on girls! I wrote to then NASW Director Elizabeth Clark and asked why the research focused on girls when it was men and boys who were the vast majority of suicides. She wrote me back and said that the funder for the research had specified to only study girls. Just imagine for a moment someone who funded research for Sickle Cell Disease but stipulated the research had to be on whites. Can you imagine the outrage? Blacks are 60-80% of those with Sickle Cell disease and to study only whites would be seen as totally racist but somehow studying only girls and suicide is okay. That is gynocentrism.
Our gynocentric legislators have outlawed any form of genital mutilation of females but have failed to do the same for our baby boys. Boys routinely undergo a surgical removal of part of their penis without anesthesia. Of course the baby boys scream during and after this mutilation. Some nurses say they have seen baby boys scream for days after. Many are thinking today that this trauma creates PTSD for those males who have been circumcised and presently about four out of every 5 males in the United States has suffered this mutilation. Research is showing that psychological impact of circumcision on boys is similar to the psychological impact for girls who have undergone genital mutilation. This procedure is damaging our boys while most people think it is a simple little snip. Wrong. We care about our little girls but fail in mustering enough compassion for boys to shelter them from such barbaric treatment and we give them no choice. Gynocentrism.
In healthcare we have seen our legislators create seven national commissions for women’s health but none for men. We have official government web sites for womenshealth.gov and girlshealth.gov but just look at what happens when you go to menshealth.gov or boyshealth.gov. Nothing. You find a 404 page not found error. It does not exist. Get the picture? focusWhen anyone starts looking critically at our world it becomes clear that gynocentrism is at its core. We constantly hear criticism of men not going to the doctor, etc, but look at the lack of concern for men’s health. Yes, we have seven commissions for women’s health, but none for men. The one bill to create a national men’s health commission has been languishing in congress for over 20 years, with too few sponsors and a general lack of interest. You see this same lack of interest in not even creating a web site for men or boys. Women in need get the help, and men just need to take care of themselves while simultaneously being blamed for their plight. And no one is even aware this is going on. Gynocentrism.
Warren Farrell put together a group of clinicians, academics, researchers, authors and other experts on men and boys who wrote a proposal for a White House Council on Boys and Men. I was happy to be included as one of those who put the proposal together. President Obama had created a council for women and girls as soon as he got into office. Now he was being asked to do the same for boys and men. One of our group members, a man named Willie Isles was an executive with the Boy Scouts and had a meeting scheduled with the President. The plan was for Willie to have two Boy Scouts introduce the idea of the White House Council on Boys and Men to the President. Just before that meeting was to take place the discussion of a council for boys and men was struck from the agenda. It was forbidden to even be discussed. Gynocentrism anyone?
In one study about childhood rape the researchers found that boys were more often the victims of actual childhood rapes than the girls. Then in writing up their research failed to specifically include this information about boys as victims of rape. Furthermore, when they went to the media they also failed to mention the fact that they have found that boys were raped more often than girls. Gynocentrism.
Title IX — Has been a great help to girls and athletics but has dismantled over 1000 men’s college teams. We focus on helping women but ignore the pain of men.
We have all heard of the racial sentencing bias where blacks tend to get stiffer sentences than whites for the same crime. But the research is telling us that there is a bias that is six times as large as the racial bias that sentences men to longer sentences than women. Yet, we hear nothing of this in the media and no one seems to care. Clearly the judges have less compassion for men and offer them far less choice.
I have seen a number of men in therapy who came to me when their wives wanted an abortion and they (the men) wanted to keep the child. The men were powerless to do anything. Can you see how these men had no choice in the matter? His wife said, “My body, my choice” and he said “My child, your choice, I have none.” He had no choice and if he had said something I feel sure he would have heard some variation of big boys don’t cry. Know what I mean? Can you see how no one really cares or offers them compassion for their plight? Compassion and Choice.
Look at men’s clubs and men’s spaces that have been traditional places for men to gather. Gone. They have been opened to women and not replaced with anything that would give men a safe place to simply gather with other men. Men gathering became the enemy with the accusation of secret deals that would keep women out of business dealings. At the same time all women’s clubs have soared. Women only gyms, women only parking places, women only subway cars, women only everything….but no comparable opportunities for men. There are even groups that keep track of all of the groups for women. One is The National Association of Commissions for Women which keeps track of the literally hundreds of commissions for women. That is gynocentrism 2.0 on steroids.
Instead of thinking of choice for men, the majority of our gynocentric culture are thinking instead the word “should.” Men should do this, men should do that and if they don’t, they are not really men. Most men are caught in this drama that researchers are calling “precarious manhood” where men are forced to prove their worth repeatedly in order to be called men. Women do not face a similar situation.
Our focus thus far has been on gynocentrism on the macro level. It is very easy to see the gynocentric imbalance in so many spheres. The point here is not that the services that have been created were not a good thing, or were undeserved. Many of the services offered have been very helpful to women and girls. The point here is that it has been a very one sided ride with nearly all the services going to women and girls, and the men and boys basically ignored. Men and boys have simply not gotten compassion and choice. Gynocentrism 2.0.
But let’s take a quick look at the impact of gynocentrism on a micro level. We have seen so far that the public has very little interest in men’s emotions. While that is surely true on a macro level it is also the case on the micro. What is the tired and hackneyed message that the some women offer her man? Oh, they say “You are not dealing with your feelings.” I hope you can see now that this sort of shaming is really an excuse to NOT deal with his emotions. Much has been written by gynocentric types about men’s not emoting in public, or men not emoting like women, while maintaining the underlying assumption that there must be something wrong with them. But almost nothing has been written about the brick wall men face when they do emote. When men have emotions people disappear. No one wants to hear it.
What I have seen repeatedly is that men have very different ways to process emotions. Ways that are invisible to most. They have likely developed these different ways due to the prevalence of gynocentrism and are happy with their paths to work with their own emotions and gladly take care of things on their own without fanfare and “help.” The saddest part of this is that most women simply do not see his different ways and assume he is “doing it wrong” since it isn’t like what she does.
Gynocentrism creates a cultural default both on a micro and macro level where women’s distress is a call to action and a man’s distress is seen at best as a distraction and at worst a taboo. This leaves men being offered considerably less compassion and fewer choices. In the past 50 years the original gynocentric defaults have morphed into gynocentrism 2.0 which has seen a huge increase in both the lop-sided services favoring women and the disdain and blame focused on men.
Very few people are conscious of this habitual default, they simply assume it is just the way the world works.
Becoming more and more aware of gynocentrism makes it easier to see why men are 80% of the completed suicides but are basically ignored. It makes sense now that men are nearly 50% of the victims of domestic violence but are routinely disregarded. It makes sense now why boys genital mutilation is the fourth most popular surgical procedure in the U.S. even though it is unnecessary and highly damaging. The world is geared to have compassion for women’s needs but not as much for the needs of men. We could go on and on about each of the many men’s issues and see how the lack of compassion and choice plays a part in their dilemma.
The unconscious nature of gynocentrism may be its most ruinous aspect. People are simply unaware of the great differences in the way men and women are treated. It is in some ways reminiscent of the racism I remember in the mid 20th century. People were simply unaware of their treatment of blacks. There were surely outright bigots at the time but the majority of people were basically asleep to the impact of their attitudes and behaviors and went along with the status quo that treated blacks and whites in significantly different ways. The general public was duped by a media that portrayed blacks as inferior and an educational system and even academic research that did the same. With gynocentrism 2.0 we are seeing something very similar but instead of the blacks it is now our men. Today’s gynocentrism is made up primarily of people who are basically unaware of the impact of their behaviors and are simply going along with the gynocentric status quo.
It’s time to wake up.
Knowing these things and taking the red pill* makes it important for us to start offering men and boys greater compassion and choice.