Category Archives: Commentary

Opinion pieces on issues involving political ideology. Gender issues are a central theme.

South Park Pulls Punches?

I’m a huge fan of South Park, and I would never give into insecurity to argue that South Park “goes too far.”

But I will point out when South Park does not go far enough.

The Season 17 finale of South Park (The Hobbit) shows that photoshopped women hurt the self-image of girls. If you can’t see the episode, see the plot summary on Wikipedia. The most powerful scene is when Wendy Testaburger, a feminist girl, surrenders her campaign to ban photoshopped images and photoshops herself so she could be socially accepted by her peers.

The discussion on how media affects impressionable children is a valid theme of the Hobbit, but only the feminist perspective is dominant. Any conflict Wendy experiences is set such that she is a victim of men or allegedly “male” attitudes. Anyone not supporting Wendy is ridiculed.

This is not the first time South Park was sympathetic to a feminist perspective. Wendy also pulverizes evil incarnate Eric Cartman in Breast Cancer Show Ever (S12E9) because Cartman mocked breast cancer incessantly to annoy Wendy. Few discussing the episode would defend Cartman’s raunchy jokes from a free speech perspective because it means associating with Cartman. Sometimes a position is as good as the face people give it.

The Hobbit marks another time where South Park defends a position by evoking feelings of sympathy. South Park normally satirizes everything, so watching them defend something weakens the creators’ claim to “not [be] on anybody’s fucking side.” South Park stops poking fun if feminist values could be caught in the crossfire. And I don’t mean it “stops” in the sense that there was a transition. I mean it STOPS. Faceplant-into-brick-wall STOPS.

In any good conflict, both sides have a point. If only one side is reduced to a caricature to mock, the morality becomes black and white, leaving an ideological lecture.

In The Hobbit, additional sides could include absent-minded parents who don’t teach their kids the difference between reality or fantasy, or people in the mass media that use the profit-motive to justify creating a Photoshop fantasy. All of these sides are ripe for mocking, but they were excluded in favor of a feminism-versus-the-world narrative.

Such a simplistic approach expands egos, not awareness. I expect better from a champion of social commentary.

But maybe I’m an idiot for suggesting a comedy show take jokes so seriously?

Yes, I would be an idiot if I were actually hung up about jokes. But I’m talking about an absence of jokes. We are left in the realm of the serious where critical thought reigns. What happened to “we’re on nobody’s fucking side?”

South Park makes fun of Mormonism, Christianity, atheism, Scientology, gamers, blacks, whites, Mexicans, Jews, men, women, Ethiopians, Canadians, Americans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Vatican, pedophiles, Obama, Bush, Cheny, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hillary Clinton, anti-smoking activists, pro-smoking activists, Democrats, Republicans, homophobes, gays, traditionalists, Barbara Streisand, Kim Kardashian, Carlos Mencia, Snooki, Steve Irwin, Rob Schneider, Adam Sandler, James Cameron, Phil Collins, George Zimmerman, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Kazuo Hirai, Jesus, Satan, Santa, Muhammad, the Virgin Mary, John Edward, Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, goth kids, gingers, poor people, rich people, voters, non-voters, crack babies, the disabled, PETA, the NSA, Game of Thrones, Pokemon, The Hobbit, 21, memes, people from New Jersey, people who zipline, and people who like rainforests.

But not feminists. Feminists are off-limits.



USA Today Interview

I was recently interviewed by USA Today Collegiate Correspondent Monica Vendituoli. My full answers are below for easy reading, but the original source of the email conversation is also available. Monica publicly tweets her email address everywhere, so I have not removed her email address from the source files. In the interest of transparency and preserving the integrity of the source, I left my student email visible as well. EDIT: Scratch that. I have been told that I actually have no obligation to publish my own email. My email address was removed from the source, but Monica’s email address remains because it is public.

I will be answering the questions in reverse order, since my answer to the second question depends on my answer to the first.

Have you ever felt discriminated against as a male college student and if so how and if not why not?

Yes. I will start with a specific example. As a student of Georgia State University during the fall of 2012, I was subjected to ridicule and insults for suggesting that sexism was a two-way street in a Global Politics course. During one lecture, we were presented claims such as “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work for 1% of the income.” The quoted claim was previously debunked by The Atlantic, so it should not be taught to our students to begin with. When a student started voicing her moral outrage in response to the injustices she felt she was personally facing, I reminded her that men suffered their own hardships.

I intended to do two things with my input. First, I was trying to console my classmate by saying she was not alone. Second, I was asserting the seriousness of issues affecting both sexes.

I did not read my classmate a laundry list of male problems because that would mean taking the lecture off on a tangent. That, and I was already nervous about the class’ reaction. Since men are often assumed to be unequivocally privileged, my experience has been that any suggestion men suffer is met with anger, disbelief, or even laughter. Not many people know of the high suicide rates, high dropout rates, military conscriptions, paternity frauds and false rape allegations affecting men, and this is only to name a few issues. I understand Jonathan Taylor from A Voice For Male Students has connected you with sources related to some of the aforementioned issues affecting male students (if not men in general), so I trust you have pertinent data available for your research.

On hearing my suggestion that sexism and gender based suffering is bidirectional, our instructor added that women “had it worse,” and I immediately disagreed. The class reacted by shouting and banging on desks. After class, some classmates followed me out to trivialize my beliefs and make direct personal insults. My professor concurred with these students, so I faced ostracization from a classroom simply because I said both men and women suffer.

We live in a world where bigotry runs rampant, and trying to suggest that one demographic has it worse makes a competition out of suffering. There are far too many cases of hatred in our world to perfectly understand its scope, so there is nothing healthy about assuming one demographic is somehow more deserving of empathy based on cherry-picked, inflated statistics designed to alarm the public.

I endorse women rights activists who try to educate the public on issues affecting women in the spirit of humanism, but compassion for all means not putting men or women on a pedestal. We should acknowledge the importance of the issues affecting both women and men, without competing to see who has the bigger scars. To summarize my position a few words directed at any person on this planet: “You are not special, but you matter.” My completely reasonable position has, on some occasions, caused me to fear what others would do to me.

Because men’s issues are grossly underrepresented, more and more humanists like myself are deciding to specialize in men’s issues until this is no longer the case. I have also experienced discrimination as an MHRA, but that leaves the scope of your question.

For more on how men are discriminated against as students, please see the profile of Kennesaw State University I have written under the pen name Victor Zen. In the article, I demonstrate gynocentrism that affects my experience as a student of KSU. In short, my tuition dollars pay for an environment that is better tailored to women than men. I cannot possibly get the same value from my time at KSU as a woman can, even though we are all given the same tuition bill to pay. If you seek additional elaboration, please let me know.

If you cannot see links in this email, you can read the KSU profile at

You can also see the Atlantic article at:…ie/273840/

Do you feel more males studies or men’s studies programs are needed?

This question needs more context. We need to address how gender studies can contribute to a more civilized and educated society. We also need to discuss who gets to be in charge of men’s studies, and why.

There are already masculinity studies courses on some campuses. One such course is even on KSU in the Social Sciences building with course ID GWST 3080. You can use this ID to find information about the course. Sadly, I have reason to believe GWST 3080 is also gynocentric. One look at the course proposal (attached) shows a reading list with books like Guyland by Micheal Kimmel. Kimmel has been criticized by men’s human rights organizations for contributing to a narrative that is harmful to young men. I will leave criticisms of Kimmel and the other required texts of GWST 3080 to your own research for the sake of brevity, although you may find some direction with this excellent review of Guyland by Peter Allemano Jr.

I do not offer you the review as a substitute of peer-reviewed research. Instead, I offer you the review to illustrate a perspective that more and more men are identifying with. I, and others like me, are witnessing misandry in academia. The people we trust to be objective are allowing their views to be colored by the bigotry inherent in gender centrism. We never suspected that men might one day be the target of hatred in the same way that we expect women to be the target of hatred. So, representation for men that would counteract such hatred is not in our colleges. This also helps explain the disturbing lack of research on violence or sexual assault against men. Gynocentrism breeds ignorance of men, and that ignorance of men is in turn used to perpetuate mindless assumptions that men are doing just fine and are in no need of help.

Simply having a study on men or masculinity is not enough. We need an environment that fosters positive social development for men, by communicating with men in ways that men understand. Given my experiences with college culture, I do not feel women’s studies follow a similar philosophy for women. My belief is that gender studies as they are now vilify men and infantilize women.

I wish we had no gender studies courses to begin with, but the existence of gynocentric gender studies courses creates a need for a balanced narrative that does not breed misogyny or misandry. We get a balanced narrative by allowing more assertive, critical thinking humanists free from the vice of gender centrism into our faculties. I think I speak for self-respecting young men everywhere when I say that I want representation from men who are sensitive to the challenges I face, and who will question his own peers in academia on questionable claims made about men. So far, I can count the number of men and women who I know would stand up for me in an academic context on one hand: Dr. Warren Farrell, Dr. Miles Groth, Paul Nathanson, Katherine Young and Jonathan Taylor. There are others who would stand up for men, but either they do not operate in an academic context, or I have yet to hear their names.

As a man, I have never acted out of hatred, but am discriminated against because people assume I am either a bigot or associated with bigotry. If I, as a male student, can get representation from men’s studies programs without hearing yet another tirade about how men are the cause of all the wrongs in the world, then I want men’s studies programs on every campus on Earth.

Dating Economics

I live a good life and am thankful for it. So what can a woman give me?

Try as I might, the only thing I can think of is sex. This is not objectification. Sex is scarce for heterosexual men, which gives it value. Men and women want what they feel like they can’t have, but there is a point where it becomes easier to just accept that we can’t have what we want and forget about the whole thing to save energy.

When people date, people pretend to be desirable to get what they want. On top of that, cultural influences also flare up male lust one moment and shame it relentlessly the next. Nature and nurture are intertwined, so not only are men biologically programmed to fuck, they are made more excited by the mere possibility of fucking through exposure to an international cult of philogyny. Men are nurtured to amplify their nature beyond what is representative of the prudent male, then displayed as examples of what men “really are.”

Introduce philogyny to a horny and misandric culture, and men get into a price war. Men undercut each other to the point of self-destruction just so they can have a chance to rub their dicks against just ONE of the circa 3.5 billion women on this planet. Women see this desperation they helped create and get the false impression that male lust is an uncontrollable force that puts reason itself second to having an orgasm. Women, being human and therefore barterers, increase the price of sex in response to rising demand to capitalize on artificial desperation. This technique has always worked, and even the playwright Aristophanes knew it in 411 BC.

If you are an attractive woman, face it, you can have sex and praise whenever you want. All you have to do is open your legs, scream “STORE’S OPEN” and a Olympic event’s worth of flesh javelins will be flung at your cervix. Many men value sex more than themselves, and you help make sex that valuable by virtue of reflecting light. You can afford to be selective, which means men have a much bigger challenge to deal with. You want to know why “stud” and “slut” have different connotations? To us men, being a “stud” is an accomplishment. When a pizza-faced dork gets lots of pussy, it is like watching Micheal J. Fox successfully threading needles inside a running tumble dryer rolling down a hill. Watching a woman score a lot of dick is like watching the Hulk play whack-a-mole. The difference in the difficulty curve between the sexes is so blatantly obvious that you can verify it experimentally whenever you want. Just take a handsome man and a pretty woman and film them trying to seduce members of the opposite sex. Do I even need to tell you what the outcome will be?

When dicks and compliments are in abundance, women, again, being human, start to wonder what’s missing. They can’t really feel satisfied with sex and praise if they could have both whenever they want. Eating cookies three meals a day makes one sick of cookies.

Many women feel they want a relationship they feel like they have to work on, hence the decline of the “nice guy,” Nice guys take a backseat while some beefcake tattoo artist named Buckshot gets enough blowjobs to scramble every “MOM” heart he inks from then on. Countless men who don’t set out to hurt anyone are punished for their positive personalities, while the apathetic and potentially dangerous become interesting. Nice guys are lumped into the group of manipulative chronic masturbators who feel entitled to sex. This happens even if some of the “nice guys” actually are nice guys! The system rewards men thought to be playing “hard-to-get,” even if he proves to be damaging to a woman’s perspective on men as a whole. PUAs understand this, and capitalize on this specific brand of confidence, adding yet another degree of manipulation to confuse both men and women everywhere.

But some women don’t even start with the assumption that a relationship needs work. Philogynic male misandrists (AKA “manginas”) value sex to the point where nothing else matters, so some women think “Fuck it, if some guy wants to do so much for me, I’ll let him.”

To be clear, I hate the word “mangina,” but it’s nicer than “shit-eating traitor,” so I’ll go with it. Sometimes the most prominent manginas are chosen on account of them being the most devout followers of the Mother Goddess. These men are put in a position where the relationship only lasts as long as they care about their partners more than themselves, guaranteeing self-destruction.

Men are rewarded for any behavior that is either not conducive to autonomy, not conducive to mutual respect, or both. Women, wanting what they don’t have, pursue men that may not reciprocate the pleasantries formed by Disney movie ideals. As a result, women are presented a horrible picture of men while the “good ones” are lost in a growing crowd of desperate mutants no one should ever look at under a blacklight.

The dating scene makes it hard for women to tell between a guy who is being a good person and a guy who will offer her no boundaries. The growing frustration of manginas drives the price of sex higher and higher and higher, pushing women to continue associating with men who teach women harsh lessons in the worst possible ways, and leaving the prudent men with a bunch of aggravating questions like “Why is this all so complicated?”, “Why do women seem to hate me when I’ve done nothing wrong?”, “Why am I not good enough?”, and most importantly, “Why should I care?”

I for one am done pursuing women in this environment, and the women in it can enjoy their lives hallucinating about the nature of men based on their experiences with the monsters they encourage.

Thank You, Manboobz

Click to enlarge

Dearest Futrelle,

Our hearts and cocks swell gleefully with the transfused blood of the innocent thanks to your promotion of AVoiceForMen. You are truly a magnificent creature full of compassion to work so tirelessly to inform people of the MHRM, since we’ve had a disturbing lack of sex slaves. But objects shouldn’t need food, am I right? It was brilliant of you to appeal to the masses with your voluptuous boobs. Indeed, the beauty of the image is almost as great as your journalistic integrity. Seth Godin would be proud. We have members in our midst that joined our forums and started contributing to the MHRM after witnessing your passionate hand-flapping. One of our members actually never even heard of AVoiceForMen until you brought it up! You confirmed the age old suspicion of patriarchs that nothing could possibly go wrong with a good pair of boobs, especially on a well-fed gentlemen like yourself. We joke that we’ve been losing our sex slaves because you keep eating them all, but that distracts us from the good you’ve done for us. We don’t know exactly how many visitors we get from your site, but your infectious germalism is helping us further our cause to assist men and boys and doom women to another millennia of boot-licking. Because that’s obviously what we are about, right?

Sarcasm aside, both the men and women of the AVFM forums thank you for the traffic. We come to you not as representatives of AVFM, but appreciative beneficiaries of the platform. Thank you for finding us new barmates!

Strokes and pokes from AVFM Forums,
Reyeko, Victor Zen, AnAlias, Mr. Scruffles, heartless bastard

Thanks to Europa Pheonix for the illustration!

What “Mangina” Means

Some think “mangina” means “a man with feminine traits,” and accuse anyone who says “mangina” of indirectly insulting women by using femininity as a mark of shame. That is not what it means to many MHRAs, MGTOWs or others concerned about men and boys.

To a lot of us, a “mangina” is a philogynic misandrist. A man who puts women above men.

That’s it.

There is no intended insult to women in the word. It is an accusation of sexism directed at a man who would do anything for a woman, even if it means engaging in self-destructive behavior or selling out other men.

Do not misunderstand me when I say I hate the word, since I have zero intention to try to tell people what to say. The connotations “mangina” carries just makes people unwilling to listen to further criticisms. Even so, men who actively participate in the deification of women and the demonization of men perpetuate cultural misandry, and they can expect to be called out on their sexism. So me hating the word is irrelevant, since, like it or not, it is a useful warning to other MHRAs or MGTOWs in earshot that a philogynic misandrist is near.

We All Have Problems

Men and women suffer, but the harm of a woman sparks outrage, whereas the harm of a man stirs hesitant, obligatory moments of silence at best. Ideologies that advertise total gender egalitarianism like feminism have to scramble for justification when focusing on women. Earl Silverman tried and failed to open his shelter because a certain gender egalitarian ideology wasn’t fulfilling some pressing needs. Feminism crowns itself as queen of both women’s issues and men’s issues, then berates men for not doing enough to help themselves.

I wouldn’t be an MHRA if there was an organization out there that could help everyone, but the realities of conflicting interests and financial limitations make me gravitate towards specialists. I respect interest groups that work for the betterment of its target demographic without infringing on the rights of others. I can totally respect a women’s rights organization, but it first has to admit that it is one, and stop trying to play both sides of the fence when it does not make sense. Stop trying to save the world.

There are men who are hurting, and I am helping them however I can. In some ways, I hurt, and I want to help myself without being told to care more about women just because they are women. So if you tell me that women are hurting, I will simply say men are hurting too, and I am tending to those issues with what limited resources I have. All I can offer women are my sympathies, and a promise to not infringe on their own rights as human beings, which should be enough for them to fight their own fight. I advocate many women’s issues, including women in combat and the right to an abortion, but I can only be so active.

We all have problems. Stop trying to make me care less about mine.

Mythbusting the Gender Zeitgeist

Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.

Thomas Sowell

This post will be updated as new information is gathered. Feel free to report errors or offer new sources. I will be honest about any mistakes I have made, since this post is being developed organically, and some of the statistics I am looking at vary widely depending on who is reporting it. There’s a lot of bias out there, and work has to be done to sort it out.


Times are in GMT-5

7/15/13 00:49 – Australia example removed in gender voting demographics report. Typed it in a brain fart without citing a source. Sorry about that.

7/15/13 01:02 – Clarified statements on false rape allegations.

7/16/13 09:42 – Added info on pay gap myth

7/16/13 09:48 – Added “Kudos” section to thank contributors

7/16/13 11:36 – Corrected Salafist muslim info; Their reach extends beyond Saudi Arabia


Thanks go to MrScruffles, Lucian-Valsan, Yesiamjames, dhanu of the AVFM forums for their feedback.


Most cultures live in a patriarchy, that is, (quote Wikipedia) “a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.”


Cultures have differing expectations of the sexes, and have established different gender roles throughout history. Both men and women have been given sex-based privileges and restrictions based on their perceived strengths in our sexually dimorphic species. Modeling society by only viewing the negative experiences of one sex is misleading, since this ignores the negative experiences of the other. Dr. Warren Farrell, former board member of N.O.W. and one of the pioneers of renewed compassion for both men and women, documented this at length in The Myth of Male Power.


There is a omnipresent rape culture, where rape is in some form or fashion condoned, glorified or tolerated by citizens, law enforcement officials or courts.


Rape is condoned in some areas, but not all. Rape is a traumatizing experience that was only elevated to the level of cultural integration in (thankfully) tiny pockets on a global scale. Salafist Muslims marry and bed with girls as young as nine, with their consent being decided by the husband, and “corrective rape” of lesbians is a phenomenon in South Africa.

However, the concept of rape culture falls short when looking at Western cultures, where it is false allegations of rape that are pervasive in the system, not rape itself [1]. This is not to say that false accusations have always outnumbered genuine cases of rape, but that rape figure reports have varied widely depending on how “rape” is defined, while victims of false allegations suffer clearly and consistently from false rape accusations brought on by a paranoid narrative. A set of isolated occurrences or rape or intolerant claims made by officials, while shocking, do not necessarily represent the interests of a culture, so the reaction of a sovereign and its constituents to such occurrences are more telling. As it stands now in Westernized civilizations, the rape of a woman is a cause for outrage. This would not be the case in a rape culture.


We live in a patriarchy because men predominate positions of authority in politics and business.


Men also predominate victims of suicide, homelessness and false convictions, yet there is no talk about us living in a society that victimizes men. Cherry picking who represents the male population will only give us flawed perspectives. Men commit suicide three to four times more than women do [1][2]. In June 2009, it was reported by the National Coalition for the Homeless that 67.5% of the single homeless population are male, and this population accounts for 76% of the total population surveyed.

Male representatives and business owners are not in their positions simply because they are men, or because they only represent men. The vast majority of them had to pass job interviews just like anyone else. In the case of politicians in Western democracies, women participate as majority voter, and have a clear role in electing representatives. In 2004, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance reported that women had a larger voter turnout than men since the mid-1980s in Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Germany, and the graph showing the gender gap on voter turnout is expanding in women’s favor (shown below).

IDEA graph for the gender gap in voter turnout across five European countries

The same majority voter status for women can also be observed in Canada and the U.S.A. The Center for American Women and Politics reports “that the number of female voters has exceeded the number of male voters in every presidential election since 1964,” whereas the proportion of female voters dominated the proportion of male voters since the 80s.

CAWP voter turnout graph for women and men

If women wish to have less men holding political offices, and they have the voting power to see that happen, male predominance in political offices is temporary.

Business executives are driven by the interests consumers in the private sector, where women are major consumers. Men would not be in those positions if they could not be trusted to appeal to their target markets, be they full of men or women. In both cases of politicians and business executives, women’s interests may be vital to their careers should women be among those who they represent. Therefore, they cannot expect to remain in their positions by angering half the human population. Men with power cannot sustain a massive, decorated career supporting men’s interests alone. While women face their own problems in the face of adversity borne in religious persecution and some forms of traditionalism, such hardships cannot fairly be cast as men having lasting power over the choices women make.


Women in Western capitalist societies are paid less than men for the same work due to discrimination in the workplace.


If this is true, then it makes no sense to hire men. This assumes is that you can pay a woman less to offer you the same value, which is a competitive advantage for women. In the event that an employer discriminates by hiring men for the same work at a higher wage, that employer takes on additional costs he does not need to pay, therefore burdening him with the additional expense of men. On this subject, economist Milton Friedman pointed out that if you force equal pay for the sexes, you take away women’s competitive advantage and remove the cost of discrimination from the employer.

Speaking more directly to the claim, the assumption that women make circa three-quarters of what men make is based on taking the mean of men’s and women’s salaries. But simply taking the mean of gathered numbers does not speak to why the numbers are the way they are. Women earn less because, statistically, they tend to make choices that result in lower wages but higher security in social life.