Purely by broaching this subject, I will possibly be named as a member of the alt-right, called a fascist, a misogynist and will have effigies burned in safe spaces on liberal colleges across the world. For what? Standing up for men? But, just in case you didn’t know, I am fiercely on the left, surely you remember, the place that used to mean fighting for economic inequality, workers rights and looking out for everyone regardless of; ethnicity, religion or gender. This was a time when we looked out at the world and challenged the injustices we found, rather than channelling our self interest and narcissism, based on melanin levels and genitalia.
Maybe I’m nuts, which there is a pretty good chance of, but I am starting to worry about this increasing attack on gender, more precisely masculinity. This agenda is driven by a comparatively small but powerful group, usually found in ‘grievance studies‘ classes along with their guru’s pretending to be bone-fide academic professors, setting the agenda for puritanical social policy and morality. These groups are hugely ideological and their main goal is to smash the patriarchy. Which if you follow their logic, is perpetuated by all men, which therefore…….yep, you’ve guessed it, leads to smashing all men.
These very people who proport to be for equality, really want to emasculate the world. This goal has been addressed in a manner of ways. Firstly, there has been a total rejection of all values of the ‘enlightenment’ among this cult. This in effect is the denial of science, reason and objectivity, which has been replaced with postmodernism, this by and large is cultural relativity. It allows the group to deny biological gender differences of any sort, whilst supporting the idea that gender is a social construct. In my mind, this puts them firmly in the same bracket as ‘flat earthers’, as we’ll see later.
Lots of our physiological, psychological and anatomical traits are admittedly on a continuum of sorts. However, taking an average there is no doubt men and women are different, contrary to the views of blue haired identarians. Just in case any science deniers are reading this, I’ll pick just three points and I’ll throw in some scientific papers to back them up. For anyone who knows anything about anatomy, physiology or psychology, I’m sure you will concur that the notion of having to justify that we are indeed different would be hilarious, if only it wasn’t so outlandish.
So, without engaging in too deep of an academic search, this first paper looked at the differences of power production and energy capacities of elite level cross country skiers, from the European journal of applied physiology. This paper showed that the men displayed 87, 97 and 103% higher output of power production and 51, 65 and 71% of greater peak VO2 max than women. In a nutshell, power output and endurance is greater in male athlete’s. Moving on, the second paper, and yes there is a slight sports theme, from the journal of sport health science; explains why men see differently to that of women. What this paper suggests is that men outperform women in spatial mental rotation and navigation tasks, While women tend to excel with object location or recognition, as well as verbal memory tasks. What do you know, we are different!
The last paper published in frontiers in neuroendocrinology called ‘The Genetics of Sex Differences in Brain and Behaviour‘, stated that it was hoped the understanding of biological sex differences could help to improve healthcare for both men and women. This paper concluded that although the brains of men and women are highly similar, they also have unique differences that affect biochemical processes, which may contribute to the susceptibility of particular diseases and contribute to specific behaviours. So to round this off here is a quick summary of other differences; men see differently to women, they have good depth perception and distance vision, while women have better night and visual memory. Men are larger, stronger and boys mature later than girls, and so on and so forth. So, now that I’ve wasted two paragraphs confirming the obvious, that men and women indeed differ in countless ways, let us discuss what is being done to subvert masculinity and why.
Currently it appears en vogue to bring kids up as gender neutral? Many of the ideas are based on the ‘blank slate theory‘ inferring that gender is socially constructed. A theory that seems to struggle to gain credence when it bumps into pesky old science, as identified in the previous paragraphs. To confirm the ‘difference theory’ further, there is a raft of research concluding that toy preference is innate. That on the whole girls are inclined to gravitate towards toys such as dolls, while boys are attracted to mechanically interesting toys like cars and trucks. Moreover, these preferences are shown as early as 9 months old, considerably earlier than the emergence of gender awareness at about 18 months. Sadly despite some overwhelming robust science, the ‘choose your own gender’ clan have blindly marched on, claiming mens and womens brains are the same.
This is simply refuted in a meta analysis of 126 studies that found men have larger total brain volumes. They display more white matter from the anterior to posterior aspect of the brain, while women have more of these connections running between the left and right hemispheres. My suspicion is, the ‘gender neutral brigade’ is split into two groups; one group which is probably well meaning, but horribly misguided. Meanwhile, the other is completely ideological and is very conscious as to what it’s supporting. Which appears to be engaging in some sort of eugenics type of operation, only this time they’re using social conditioning. The idea behind all this is to bring kids up with no gender labels, until they can choose, which is thought to be approximately four or five. So how about, we go the whole way and not tell them what species they are either, let them choose that too. That would be exciting, with so many animals to choose from!
So where does this anti-science, hoodoo come from. For that information we need to delve back to postmodernism, where practically everything is deemed socially constructed. In the modern era, we can look at the likes of Judith Butler and feminism, for an example of how this has been utilised. To clarify, Butler is an advocate for Gender Feminism, who believe that gender is a social construct and all distinctions between men and women are socially and culturally developed, therefore, biology plays no role. This thought process, opens the door to beliefs that gender equality can be achieved by quotas, or by teaching men to be less dominating of women. This apparently will solve all our problems. It basically boils the discussion down to ‘nature vs nurture’, and for feminists everything is nurture. Scientist will concede that cultural conditioning has a role, but biologically we are a dimorphic species.
All in all, as this attack on masculinity persists, the feminist goal is to ‘smash the patriarchy’, so what better way, than to socially condition masculinity out of boys. Leaving this aside for now, another way that boys have been marginalised whether intentionally or not, is education. I suspect the majority of people in whatever roles in education they hold, have pretty good intentions. But it only seems recently, certainly in the NZ that they are just picking up on the failings of boys at school. Currently 60% of university students are women, and rising. In the UK primary schools only 15% of teachers are men. While boys in the US are four times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and 80% of high school dropouts are boys. It was known as far back as 1997 in the US that girls were outperforming boys in every subject. Despite this, most current education systems still primarily cater for girls, even though it is undeniable that boys learn differently to girls;
- Boys show more areas dedicated in the brain to spatial mechanical strengths, girls focus on verbal emotive-processing
- Girls are generally hard wired to be less impulsive, allowing them to sit still, focus, reading and writing at an earlier age than boys
- Boys brains are hardwired to be single task focused, where girls tend to be hardwired for multitasking. Transitions are generally difficult due to lateralisation of the brain of boys, compared to a typical female cross-communication of brain hemispheres.
- Less oxytocin in boys brains leads to more aggression and playful rough-housing, while girls have an easier time with impulse control.
- Boys also learn better through movement, therefore, they find it harder to sit and listen to a story.
Despite this evidence, many schools around the anglosphere still educate kids in a classroom centric and test based learning environment, that is contrary to the way boys learn.
Another among the many tactics used in an effort to control men, is the use of the term ‘rape culture’. In reality, the people who commit these heinous crimes are a tiny minority of all men. Society doesn’t normalise these criminals and celebrate them, we rightly lock them up. Feminism has this nasty habit of accusing all men for; rape, domestic abuse, the gender pay gap and for the perpetuation of the patriarchy. This is achieved by using theories such as ‘structural violence’, which asserts that if one woman is abused, in some way, all members of the group, in this case women are. Using this logic, therefore, the entire male population are oppressors and all women are the oppressed.
It’s this kind of lunacy, that leads to ‘Good Lad‘ workshops, teaching boys about the perceived scale of sexual harassment and violence aimed at female students, and how they must stand up for women’s rights. This is an ideology that is being allowed in schools, that implies all young men are potential perpetrators and abusers, while overlooking the physical and sexual abuse boys and young men encounter. In actuality men are almost twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than women. Although, it appears that because the attackers are often men, it doesn’t even register with feminists. In their scary world ‘toxic masculinity‘ lurks around every corner. As a reaction to this, traits such as rough and tumble play, competition and stoicism are now treated with extreme suspicion and often discouraged.
Further attacks on masculinity have arose over the years, one of these revolves around International Men’s Day. Incidentally this year, it’s on November 19th 2018. In the UK in 2015 a Labour MP Jess Philips laughed at the suggestion that MP’s should be allowed to debate a range of men’s issues such as; domestic violence, suicide and premature mortality rates. She even had the audacity to suggest that “every day was International Men’s Day”, despite the obvious seriousness of these matters. Father’s Day has also been subject to attack in recent times. Last year in Australia Dr Red Ruby Scarlet (that truly is her real name), put forward that Father’s Day should be renamed “Special Person’s Day”. She defended her position, suggesting that there was much Australian research that informs international research to substantiate her proposal (none of which was forthcoming). An interesting article in 2015 (from the US) challenged the feminist view of dads and men in general, with a few points;
- The myth of “Deadbeat Dads”, most Dads support their kids financially. The vast majority of fathers support their children, while most of the ones who don’t, fall under the poverty line. In 2011, 25% of custodial mother’s did not receive any child support payments, whereas, 32% of custodial father’s did not receive payments from mothers.
- Dads are more likely to refuse child support payments from the other parent and are less likely to alienate the other parent. 27.5% of dads and 22.9% of mums had no legal child support by choice. Just 12.7% of dads didn’t want their children to have contact with the other parent, as opposed to 21% of mothers.
- Dads would rather spend more time with their kids than receive gifts from them. When parents were asked what they really wanted for mother/father’s day, only 35% of dads chose a gift, as opposed to 52% of mother’s.
- Dad’s do their fair share of housework. Women generally work less hours of paid labour. With this in mind a fair division of labour would be, an equal amount of time in all forms of work combined; paid work, housework and childcare. When this is calculated men spend on average 54.2 hours per week working, with women working 52.7 hours a week.
What is also blatantly obvious is, that children lose out without a father around.
- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average.
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
- 85% of children who show behavioural problems come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.
- 80% of rapist with anger problems come from fatherless homes – 14 times the average.
- 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.
What seems abundantly clear is children need their fathers. Now, I’ll state my case as to why society needs men. In my home country New Zealand, women now make up 17% of builders, which has doubled over 15 years, great I hope they enjoy the trade. But pretty much throughout the rest of history, it has been men that have made most of the physical world. Moreover, it is men that do and have done the vast majority of the dangerous and dirty jobs throughout the existence of human kind. Miners, oil rig workers, loggers, refuse collectors, sewage workers, power line installers among many others are predominantly staffed by men. Jobs that are performed mainly by men, allow us to enjoy the life we are accustomed to, while keeping society ticking along.
In contrast, feminists often bemoan the lack of female CEO’s in the world, blaming all men for this perceived travesty, as if we are one homogenous tribe. The people who call the shots at the upper end of society, have as little in common with normal men, than an upper/middle class feminist such as Meryl Streep has with working class women. Feminist’s can deride men all they wish, but millions upon millions have given their lives in wars and conflicts all over world. I’m sure some identarians will claim that they don’t believe in war, as if in some way this negates the millions who have sacrificed their lives. Nobody likes war, but for example, if the UK/US and the USSR had allowed Hitler his wishes, life would have been very brutal across much of the globe. Yes, I am acutely aware, regrettably many woman have died in wars too, but men are often drafted and have perished in their millions in varying corners of the Earth. So if there is a patriarchy tell me, why is society set up so men die in their droves?
Even men dying in war and conflict has been overshadowed at times, most notably by Hillary Clinton in 1998. It’s a fascinating comment considering she has barely encountered a war she hasn’t favoured. One of the sure fire ways to get abuse from identarians and certainly feminists is by merely mentioning ‘men’s issues’. But it is not a zero sum game, that is assuming feminists really are after equality. Both should be able to co-exist, but they can’t, because for feminists it’s often about control and power. I’m certainly not about to apologise for being a bloke or for voicing pressing issues that are particular to men, so here goes;
- Men are 3 times more likely to die of suicide in the UK and NZ.
- 2-3 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia (US)
- Are more likely to develop an alcohol addiction
- Men make up about 90% of the prison population and receive a 63% longer sentence than women for comparable crimes (US)
- Men (UK) make up 71% of the homeless population
- 97% of workplace deaths (UK) between 2009-2014 were men
- Men (US) are murdered at a rate of approximately 4:1 compared to women
- In New Zealand men receive just 6% of gender specific medical research
Despite obvious issues that men report, any moves to highlight these problems are quickly pounced upon and silenced. The screening of the film the ‘Red Pill‘ which follows a former feminist’s gradual questioning of her movement and a look into the ‘men’s rights’ movement, was treated like a Nazi propaganda movie. While all over the western world, particularly in places such as Canada and Australia men’s rights talks regularly receive feminist and SJW protests. Critics of men’s rights groups describe them as misogynists, fascists and alt-right. In truth the people who attend these meetings are from all over the political spectrum, but each one worries about the future of men and boys. The problem these groups face is, most of the mainstream media are on the side of the identarian feminists.
Feminists claim to be the underdogs and activists, but they control many aspects of life, while most social laws are distinctly two tiered in favour of women, such as ‘child custody’ laws. This juggernaut ensures that many of the very serious issues as mentioned previously gets lost under a barrage of slurs and ad hominem attacks. It is often surmised that feminism holds the key to men’s problems. This is disingenuous, dark and dangerous, on the part of feminism. We do not need feminism to fix the problems men and boys face. Also I’m pretty sure we would disagree regarding what these problems are. Throughout this article, I hope you’ve noticed the distinction I’ve made, I have never implicated women as a whole and I’m under no illusion that good mums are essential to the wellbeing of boys. But they need awesome dads and all men can strive to be brilliant role models and be there to help each other out. I’ve already witnessed the death of two good male friends to suicide. I do not want to hear any more of my friends passing in this way again during my lifetime. What is needed is help in the areas where it is desperately required, primarily in health and education, so my section of the population can flourish. If the male half is healthy, society as a whole will reap the benefits.