Features, Feminism, Human Rights

Why It’s Not OK to Hate Men

Is it okay to hate women? Obviously not. It’s not only stupid and immoral but impractical given how many of them there are and the marked differences between each and every one of them. Is it okay to hate men, then? Again, obviously not, for the same reasons. Except – it’s not so obvious. Because such sentiments are again entering the mainstream.

I say ‘again’, since misandry – the unapologetic hatred of men as an undifferentiated group – is nothing new. Radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanis (founder of the Society for Cutting Up Men and shooter of Andy Warhol) were the most famous man-haters in the 1970s, but were pretty much disavowed at the time by many more mainstream feminists and later by third wave feminists. Misandry went out of fashion during the 1980s and the idea that feminists were all ‘lesbians and man haters’ was rightly ridiculed.

Now it’s back – and much closer to the mainstream than it was 50 years ago. Despite all the remarkable advances we have made in gender equality, the idea that all men are the enemy of all women has been given a new lease of life, helped by the disgrace of Harvey Weinstein, the rise Donald Trump and the successes of the #metoo and #timesup movements.

Understandable though this hatred may be as an emotional reaction, it is shocking – at least for a man – to see it in cold print. The highest profile attack came from Susan Danuta Walters in the Washington Post earlier this year, who says, in a piece titled, ‘Why Can’t We Hate Men’ that, far from being irrational, it “seems logical to hate men.”

If this were a lone voice, one could dismiss it as a fringe point of view. But it isn’t.
“You can’t hate all men can you? Actually I can,” writes Suzanne Moore, a British feminist, in the New Statesman in 2016. “As a class, I hate men.” Men are not a class but this doesn’t deter Moore from continuing her peroration. “I think any intelligent woman hates men,” she continues. She even comes up with a hash tag in the hope that this blanket condemnation will catch on – #yesallmen.

Meanwhile, in ‘The Cut’ section of the New York magazine, a member of the public writing in complains to the ‘agony aunt’ – the journalist Heather Havrilesky – that she “hates men” and is in danger of becoming a “cranky old bitch”. Heather suggests in reply that she simply embrace her inner bitch. “Most men are terrible,” she says. “Most men are shit.”

In addition, two articles on Medium – not quite as mainstream as New York magazine, the Washington Post, and the New Statesman, but certainly not fringe – echo the theme. Turns out, it’s not only (self-defined) man-hating women who have turned towards hate as a response to gender inequality. So have some men – like Anthony James Williams who writes in Medium that, “Women don’t have to like us, and history shows us that they have a right to hate us.”

In the charmingly titled ‘When You Can’t Throw All Men Into The Ocean And Start Over, What CAN You Do? Ijeoma Oluo – the mother of two boys, God help them – writes,

This society is doing everything it can to create rapists, to enable rapists, and to protect rapists. This society is broken, abusive, patriarchal (and white supremacist, ableist, hetero-cisnormative) trash. This entire patriarchal society is responsible for every single sexual assault that occurs.

If reading such hatred is exhausting, actually generating it must be even more so. I suspect hate is a young person’s game (although Danuta Walkers and Moore are not exactly spring chickens). It is tempting to shrug off this new misandry as just silly and something of a sideshow, but it’s possible that it represents a real strand of rising consciousness. If that is the case, it is not merely silly – it is dangerous. I have occasionally indulged in group hatred – ISIS in their racist, faithist, head-hacking, innocent-slaughtering prime, the Conservative Party in the 1980s, anyone involved in Prog Rock – but it’s not a very healthy principle to base your life around.

What does it mean to hate an otherwise random and unrelated group of people, as opposed to a specific individual? We can all enjoy hating, say, Nazis, pedophiles, and ISIS executioners beheading an aid worker. Hate can be reassuring, which is why it is so seductive. But when one is hating Nazis, one is hating people who subscribe to an ideology, an idea. Pedophiles and ISIS executioners are historically smaller groups, but they are also defined by a particular idea – sexual attraction to children and the cult of death. At some level, they’ve made a choice. No one is born a Nazi or an Islamist murderer, and even if Pedophilia is genetically influenced, that doesn’t absolve its perpetrators of guilt. However, hating men is not hating an idea or an abhorrent form of behaviour. It is hating half the world’s population, rich and poor, kind and cruel, black and white, gay and straight, just because they happen to have a Y chromosome.

To hate such a disparate group seems – is – demented. However, there is a prism through which it makes perfect sense, the prism constructed by the odd and contradictory fusion of neo-Marxism and post-modernism.

In this scheme of thought, now widely taught in the humanities and social science departments of the West’s leading universities, there are no intrinsically superior, universal values, like love or dignity or general human goodwill – and no such thing as ‘objective’ truth in the scientific sense. It’s all relative. There are just multiple and sometimes overlapping groups that compete for power, and their values, even their idea of what constitutes a ‘fact’, are determined by the relative status of their group. The most powerful group in society – in all societies – are men, and men, therefore, are collectively guilty for the oppression of every less powerful group.

Since anything men utter is tainted by their place in the power hierarchy and their implicit desire to maintain that power – a homeless man at Grand Central station may be surprised, even delighted, to learn that he occupies a ‘privileged’ position in this hierarchy – nothing a man says can be taken at face value because, consciously or unconsciously, it is imbued with patriarchal values and language. Whether they realise it or not, all men are engaged in a struggle to consolidate and extend their power, particularly over women. This is doubtless why, according to this theory, rape is considered a manifestation of male dominance – of the patriarchy – rather than an expression of sexual desire. Power is everything – which tells you something, perhaps, about the status anxiety of this theory’s most fanatical adherents.

Thus it is okay to hate all men – they are all infected by the canker of patriarchy which, unlike individual thoughts and motivations, is a kind of all-powerful super-organism, a hive mind controlling its male worker bees. Men as individuals are simply tokens of something deeper – structural misogyny embedded in institutional power. If you’re a man who thinks you are not a misogynist, who in fact thinks you like women perfectly well, you are deluding yourself. For such men, their sexism is simply unconscious, just as in classical Marxism the ‘good’ bourgeois was unconscious of the fact that he could not avoid exploiting his workers or employees, even though he might be providing them with a decent wage, good working conditions, and health and pension benefits.

This analysis, given a moment’s thought, doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even if you accept that all the ills of the world are down to patriarchy and the dominance of men, you have to concede the corollary – that all the triumphs of humankind are down to the patriarchy also, from medicine and science to the highest reaches of art and culture.

Women may point out that they have been excluded from these fields until now, and that’s largely true, although biology – the lack of control women have historically had over their own fertility and the greater physical strength of men – might be a far more simple and plausible explanation than the existence of a hypothetical, all-powerful super-organism. However, the very act that men hold the balance of power is proof of the existence of patriarchy, according to this belief system.

My own view is that we have not ended up in the place we are, for good or ill, because men are evil and stupid, or kind and clever, or because we’re all enslaved by the patriarchy. We are here largely because of blind chance – biology, the haphazard advance of technology and the peculiarities of human nature shaped by natural selection. Like most ‘ordinary’ people, I am quite sure such a thing as human nature exists and while some sex differences are biological, men and women are psychologically similar – far more similar than they are different.

As such, misandry is deeply irrational. Hating men is counterproductive. Hating men is not going to advance the cause of gender equality. On the contrary, if you tell someone that you hate them, simply because they have a penis, they have two basic alternative responses (other than ignoring you, which is probably the most sensible response). They can cringe and apologise – as many liberals do in the face of such onslaughts, hoping in vain for rehabilitation. The Maoists and their show trials did a lot to reveal the intrinsic human propensity to confess to imaginary sins. Alternatively, and more dangerously, you can respond with, “If you are justified in hating me then I am justified in hating you.”

Therein lies the hazard. I’m not denying that hatred can sometimes produce positive results, even a form of justice. Maybe some white supremacists, learning that they arouse intense feelings of hatred in others, have abandoned their beliefs. Perhaps those flirting with ethno-nationalism have been deterred from embracing it in the knowledge that it will make them a social pariah. But it’s harder to abandon your gender.

Hatred is also useful in providing people with motivation when prosecuting a just war – the Second World War wouldn’t have been won without hatred of the Nazis. But when unfocussed, inappropriate or overgeneralised, hatred is liable to produce far less desirable results. Resentment, for one thing. Anger, for another. More hatred in response. A sense of injustice on the part of good men – and such men do exist in numbers very similar, I suspect, to the number of good women. These feelings may well curdle and lead to an attitude of “If you think I’m hateful then I might as well be hateful.”

Such a response is tempting because hate has an array of psychological rewards. By hating me as a member of my group, you are legitimizing my temptation to hate you as a member of your group. So now I have a ready made justification for hating women, which didn’t previously exist (although a Google search of “I hate women” reveals zero results, unlike a search for “I hate men”).

Hatred can be a way of virtue-signaling – a way of contrasting yourself favorably with the hated party, i.e. as a ‘good person’ in comparison. To hate Nazis means you’re publicly announcing yourself as not being a Nazi. To hate pedophiles means you are not a pedophile. However, for all its short-term payoffs, hate strangles all understanding. This is as true when directed towards genuinely hateful groups – like white supremacists – as it is for those less universally deserving of condemnation, such as men. Once you hate someone, or a group, you don’t have to bother understanding them. It simplifies the world and saves a lot of mental spadework.

I don’t think that many women would say, or even think, that they hate men. But the increasingly widespread perception is that men are generally a bad lot, As Uluo puts it in Medium: “This entire patriarchal society is responsible for every single sexual assault that occurs.” We are, by default, morally in the wrong in most matters and furthermore unfairly privileged and entitled even when we don’t obviously appear to be (as in our homeless friend at Grand Central). This all-encompassing generalisation has a lot of small-scale but significant effects.

In personal relationships, for example, where any woman who thinks men are generally rotten and hateful is liable to take a pretty jaundiced view of any particular disagreement that unfolds between them and their significant other. The man, according to this toxic ideology, is going to be a priori in the wrong before the argument even starts.

I’m not suggesting women should be naïve or unduly trusting of men – yes, men commit nearly all the rapes, and most of the violence, there’s no getting away from that, and it’s no small thing, not in the least. I am forced to admit that in my experience, men are often, though by no means always, capable of being arrogant, ego driven, entitled and insensitive and I don’t necessarily exclude myself, certainly not my younger self.

Hate us if you will – your feelings are your own after all and sometimes those feelings are justified. Just don’t expect it to achieve anything positive, or make you feel better in the long run, or to produce a generous response in the objects of your ire. It may provide temporary relief from the phenomenon of the simple and relentless random unfairness of the world, but there can be a terrible arrogance in hate – the arrogance generated by what is in fact a deep self-doubt and buried fear. Fear of what? Of chaos, of uncertainty, of the fact that its very hard to work out what’s right and what’s wrong in even a single particular circumstance and individual, let alone an entire system or gender. As Reinhold Niebuhr said, “Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure.”

It is an old and perhaps sexist trope that women should beware of ruthless and dishonest seducers who are out to lead them down the path to destruction. Perhaps it might be useful to think of hate in exactly that way – and send it packing, its ears ringing with curses, and vows of passionate and perpetual rejection.


Tim Lott is a writer and journalist. His best-known book is The Scent of Dried Roses which won the PEN/Ackerley Prize for autobiography and is now a Penguin Modern Classic. Follow him on Twitter at @timlottwriter.


  1. ThereAreDozensOfUs says

    “If you’re a man who thinks you are not a misogynist, who in fact thinks you like women perfectly well, you are deluding yourself. For such men, their sexism is simply unconscious…”

    An interesting double-bind they have attempted to leverage on men or anyone that side with men. It’s effective as it instantly shuts down any discourse.

    Great article – a great recap of what the common sentiments doing the rounds in the media.

    • Kris says

      The reason most feminists say they hate men is just to get attention and shouldn’t be taken too seriously but simply laughed off. It is obvious that women just dont understand men at all. For example men objectify women because it turns them on, they are excited by the visual display of female body parts even if no face is visible. That is the way their sexual psyche is wired. It is perfectly normal. It does not mean they hate women. Homosexual men objectify men the same way but we never hear women make the same claims about gays, they wouldnt dare.

    • michael says

      i am amazed that such an article needs to be written. i work in the real world and most of my colleagues are women. they are hiding their hate quite well.
      I guess that means they are either idiots for not perceiving me as the monster I am or biding their time until they poison my cup of coffee.

  2. Peter from Oz says

    Post-modermism believes that no truth is objective. Doen’t this apply as much to feminism’s version of the truth as any other?
    If the truth is what those in power say it is, why should men give away their power to feminists? What’s in it for men? Feminsts seem to be believe in this strange binary system where only one power can exist at a time and only one truth. But truth is subjective. It’s all very circular and silly.
    Best just to gaol all the post modernists and let the rest of us live in peace.

    • Mal1 says

      Using postmodernism against feminism, so funny, I love it

    • TarsTarkas says

      Nope, because their version of the truth is settled science.

  3. Michael D says

    How can you hate prog rock? It’s the most liberal, free and adventurous music there is. ‘sigh’ there’s no pleasing some people.

  4. Ryan says

    Trivial and boring, embracing hate is not positive, newsflash.

  5. dirk says

    Overreacting is a quite normal human behaviour, logical and maybe (temporarily) necessary, I wonder what the psychiatry says about it. I remember from my youth the symptoms, in myself and friends, mostly against authorities (parents, teachers, coaches)

  6. Saturn Black says

    Just another leftist cuck who didn’t do his research. The title must be clickbait because I couldn’t find a single decent argument against misandry (not that we need one).

    DV stats (at least here in Australia) are pretty much the same across both genders, so no, men are not committing “most of the violence.” I suspect there’s merely a difference between types of violence where men tend to be more physical, and women more emotionally abusive.

    This emerging misandry is just a facade for an underlying Marxist ideology. The founder of this website has covered this quite thoroughly – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xAvkJpm7Nk

    As J B Peterson said, we need women to speak up and help their embittered sisters. Once you understand the depth and strength of this ideological conviction, you must realise that there’s no way they’re going to listen to men until they get a lot more female support.

    And women can hate me as much as they want – I’m a man, I can take it. If you can’t handle being hated by a woman you’re not much of a man and pretty poor partner material. So cry me a river soy boys – every one of your tears adds another disappointed woman to the dating pool, which just means better prospects for me. You just cucked yourself out of an easy win.

    • Alys Williams says

      I agree with you about the domestic violence statistics – same here in the UK – and overall it is an interesting piece. I also have Tim Lott to thank for introducing me to Dr. Peterson via an interview he did with him about a year ago which was published in The Spectator. Tim Lott also wrote for The Guardian newspaper for many years so is most definitely of the left but one of the saner voices. The women who write for that egregious publication are mostly utterly appalling including the above mentioned Suzanne Moore.

      • Saturn Black says

        Yeah Peterson is great on both a personal and political level. I really liked the talk he did with Claire Lehmann (Quillette’s founder) as he doesn’t often interview conservative women (especially mums) and there were so many unique and interesting ideas that came out of it. Definitely my favourite interview with him. She’s great.

        All the mainstream journalism seems to be left-leaning nowadays. It’s hard to find anything reliable out there – the polarisation is turning most of it into political propaganda / brainwashing. I figure that at least the conservative brainwashing will help me get rich and have a better life instead of sitting around on welfare and criticising the government.

        Clementine Ford is our local champion of third wave feminism and she’s so toxic I can barely read a single paragraph without feeling sick. These are really terrible people who have managed to turn all their hatred and resentment of those who’ve hurt them into a political agenda. Even if they weren’t leftists I wouldn’t want anything to do with them. They’re awful and I think the best strategy is to just avoid and ignore them, but still try to be educated on the issues from a distance.

        • Michael F says

          do you think that your experiencing nausea at reading a distasteful article is a useful response. may i recommend some regular mindfulness practice.

    • “embittered” is a key word. it’s the dregs of failed attempts at that “having it all” fallacy that can only, due to its absolute unattainability, leave one disappointed.
      and disappointment in self is easier to digest when projected. victimhood culture put it on a pedestal and so it grows.
      women’s lib + social media’s faux presentation of self created an addictive and toxic impetus, where revenge now (largely if not totally) forms the ladder of “success.” (relative – and confused)
      i lament this deeply as one who has witnessed unfair/wrong accusation scenarios, who has heard women say in conversation that it is OK if innocent men are (also) brought down by metooing, who as mother of sons now sees fit to caution them against malleable, young women who (imo) will have fallen victim themselves to negativity reliant feminist propaganda and its affect interpretative skills.

      • Saturn Black says

        K S – Very insightful! I’m not too worried about our boys when I see the likes of Lauren Southern and Faith Goldy emerging on YouTube. Nothing is a better motivator for a young man than a highly intelligent and attractive young woman who sees through the feminist propaganda. Girls will always be falling prey to it but if they see an educated young man who knows what is right, that is much more appealing to them than these overweight and unattractive lesbian feminists.

        • Charlie says

          Those ladies at university who were stunning, played sports at a high level and studied rigorous STEM subjects spent their time studying or training and did not have the time to hate anyone. Rigorous sports boost the serotonin, dopamine and endormorphin.

          The reality is that there far more writers than websites/magazines and to become a reporter of foreign affairs, industry, science, etc requires years of hard work. It is much easier to write a more extreme version of whatever is doing the rounds of left wing gatherings.

      • I’m surprised you couldn’t find anything when you searched for “I hate women.” I found lots of incel stuff. Incel and MGTOW are a big deal now.

        The weirdest thing about the new feminism is that there is so much rage at Western men and patriarchy, as if Western society, and its men, had no role in working alongside women to ensure voting rights and later equal rights. We give Western men no credit, even though so many have worked so hard to build the society we have now.

        And our society now, for all its flaws, has to be the best for women that there has ever been. Of course there is still room for improvement, but can’t we take a moment to recognize how far we’ve come towards equal rights with the partnership and support of Western men? Western men are our allies! Of course not all, but trying to make enemies of the very people most likely to be sympathetic to our cause – it is so counterproductive.

        • Saturn Black says

          mightysprout – Exactly. Women in (South) Australia were some of the first to get the vote back in the mid 19th century – before we even had universal male suffrage. Our country was barely out of its formative stages of hard convict labour. If the left were half decent human beings they would be proud of our being so progressive.

    • Interesting. First you argue that women are just as abusive, albeit emotionally, then you say you’re a “man” and can take said emotional abuse, which seems to prove to me that you think physical and emotional abuse are a false equivalence. If you were getting pounded in the face daily, I’m sure you wouldn’t take it.

      p.s. try not to use “cuck.” It’s embarrassing and immediately discredits you, especially when you also reference Peterson.

      • Saturn Black says

        GH – Good job. Every single thing you managed to state is wrong. Distorting my argument in an attempt to undermine it is not how this game is played. I think you’ve been watching a little too much of Cathy Newman and friends.

        If you don’t understand that emotional abuse and mere hatred are on completely different levels I’m not even going to bother with you. You’re a joker who just cucked himself.

    • @ Saturn Black

      “Just another leftist cuck who didn’t do his research.”

      There is no need for you to be such a complete dickhead.

      • Saturn Black says

        Reading Nomad – There wasn’t any need for you to personally attack me over the very first comment I made on this website and just about every other comment since. I made it very clear I wasn’t interested and that didn’t stop you, so I had to adapt to the environment I found myself in and become more ferocious in order to thrive. If you find that so upsetting maybe you should take some responsibility for your own behaviour and how you have contributed to this outcome.

        • @ Saturn Black

          “There wasn’t any need for you to personally attack me over the very first comment”

          So how were you attacked? I replied to your comment and judged you a bigot for what you said.

          “I made it very clear I wasn’t interested and that didn’t stop you”

          I can do what I like.

          “I found myself in and become more ferocious in order to thrive. ”

          Lol! So you were that awful to star with and you getting worse is someone else’s fault.

          Fucking priceless!

          Sunshine – you are responsible for your own words… if I see the need to reply… I will do so.

          • MoMoney says

            Saturn Black and Reading Nomad sitting in a tree…

          • Saturn Black says

            MoMoney He’s not woman enough for me but after a few more years of soy products and ideologies he might have some big breasts to match his “constantly menstruating” demeanour so I’m willing to keep an open mind and see how things progress.

            If I detected a hint of jealousy there you’re certainly welcome in my tree house as long as you keep the personal attacks out of it. It’s a strictly peaceful and drama-free tree and I’m very protective of its feelings.

          • Saturn Black says

            Reading Nomad – Men don’t often say “creep” so maybe you are in fact a menstruating female? If so I’ll stop being mean to you.

          • @ Saturn Black

            “Men don’t often say “creep” so”

            You’ll just make anything up won’t you….

            I’d sussed you perfectly right from the start, you are vile bigot. The type one would leave out of polite society.

    • RadixLecti says

      If you call emotional abuse violence then you’re buying into the same feminist/SJW garbage that words and attitudes are equivalent to violence.

      And as a man who seems to like Jordan Peterson, presumably you’ve heard him explain how a small average difference in aggression becomes an overwhelming majority of men at the upper end of the distribution. Couple that with men’s generally greater physical strength and you should have no problem seeing that REAL violence is usually perpetrated by men.

      Looking at simple domestic violence statistics is not enough. If you drill down to domestic violence that results in death or serious injury requiring hospitalisation, the majority of culprits are men.

      And men should be okay with admitting this. The same qualities that make a great infantryman under fire, if misdirected and uncontrolled, can make a terrible human being. And then we need to lock them up or punish them, as we have done for millennia, well before third wave feminism started hacking away at the roots of what makes civilisation function.

      • Saturn Black says

        RadixLecti – You didn’t hide your misandry very well. LOL

  7. Justin says

    I understand where this is coming from but I think it’s misguided. The idea of hating all men is not widespread at all. There are a few nut jobs out there making remarks like this in their academic, journalistic or whatever sort of work they do. And mostly their views fart off into the wind meaninglessly. The only reason they’re so widely disseminated is because they are excellent click-bait. There is no evidence whatsoever that there are widespread problems with men actually getting through life because if misandry.

    • Mark J Anderson says

      I largely agree that leftist posers don’t represent most women’s thinking. They do, however, have an inordinate influence on culture. Suicide among middle aged white men, particularly working class white men, has risen so much that our life expectancy stats have actually fallen for the last two years. You don’t hear much about that, but If it were women who were dying, it would be considered a national scandal.

      • david of Kirkland says

        Women die all the time in childbirth, but you suggest that if we don’t constantly retell this ongoing story we’re suppressing it? Suicide by middle aged men is not due to women hating them, unless you have some evidence to share.
        Perhaps “men” and “women” are not anything as a single group, but are in fact made up of millions of individuals who vary much within their class. Women don’t hate men. Some women hate some men, and fewer women hate all men, but it’s not like there aren’t some men who hate some women or some men who hate all women. This is crying over ignorant opinions of haters who decide based on class rather than reality.

    • ga gamba says

      The only reason they’re so widely disseminated is because they are excellent click-bait.

      OK, if it’s merely “excellent” click-bait wouldn’t “I hate Jews,” “I hate blacks,” and “I hate trans people” really gather those clicks? I’d wager such a headlined article would gather so much attention from all media including other newspapers and even major TV news broadcasters that the article’s publisher would set an all-time record for clicks. Comments too.

      If you genuinely think it’s simply that, then on the Guardian’s Comment Is Free section post your comment starting with one of those, expand on it for a paragraph or two, and see how long it lasts before the moderators kill it.

      • J.Ryall says

        To add to ga gamba’s comment, neo-nazis form an extremely small sub-section of the population, but I don’t see anyone saying it’s okay to give them influential and widely circulated platforms the the NYT, WashPo, and Guardian to circulate their hateful views. For me, therein lies the problem: these “journalists” are using their highly influential positions to make hateful generalizations about half of the population.

    • Karen Straughan says

      “The idea of hating all men is not widespread at all. There are a few nut jobs out there”

      It passed muster during editorial board meetings at WaPo, the New Statesman and New York Mag. That’s a problem, in my view.

      And while the author appears to be of the opinion that feminists like Dworkin have been “pretty much disavowed”, their work is still required reading in a lot of women’s/gender studies classes, and their thinking has informed countless other scholarly feminists who may or may not hate men, and are certainly more reticent to announce it.

      Walters, who wrote the piece for WaPo, is a professor and the director of the Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies program at her university. She’s not just one random nutter. She’s teaching this stuff to students.

      And a LOT of these people have serious influence over decisions of government. We’ve had credible research since 1979 that domestic violence is gender symmetrical and not caused by “Patriarchy”. Yet in 1994, feminist scholars, lawyers and activists managed to get the gender neutral Family Violence Prevention and Protection Act (passed in 1984) superseded by the Violence Against Women Act. That’s the US’s federal DV legislation now–completely gendered, cutting male victims out of its protections and benefits in dozens of passages, and based on “Patriarchy”.

      One could argue that those feminists didn’t do this out of hatred for men. But that’s kind of like arguing the colloquial versus legal definition of malice. You don’t need to hate someone with your heart’s blackest hate to be so unconcerned with their wellbeing that your willing to do unspeakable harm to them, which is what happens to many men under current laws and policies.

      Either way, it amounts to the same. Whether you punch me in the face because you hate me, or whether you do it because you are wrongly convinced that you’re justified, or whether you do it because you have zero f***s to give about me, the result is the same.

  8. spamtheman says

    Misandry is pervasive in vocal modern feminism and can be seen most clearly in the denial of any mail disadvanatge or suffering. Feminists campaign to prevent any recognition of educational disadvantage, male victims of violence, unequal tretament under the law espcially sentancing, far inferior health care and outcomes. The concept of misogyny like patriarchy is simply a projection of feminists own behaviour and biases onto men. Misandry exists, misogyny hardly at all, bias towards women in society exists, matriarchy if you will, patriarchy not really.

    Despite this we have to recognise that feminists especially vocal feminists are a tiny unrepresentative minority, albeit one with a wholly disproportionate prominence and influence. Women shoudl not be hated because of the bigotted few.

    • OleK says

      Can you please explain what you mean by “far inferior health care” wrt men? The only thing that comes to mind is the propensity of men to voluntarily NOT utilize health care – the nature of us to just “though things out”. Any study/article you can point to would be appreciated.

      • Dave Slaughter says

        I don’t think men have far inferior health care, but the department of labor does list 18 federal agencies supporting women’s health and other issues (I could not find a list of similar departments for men, though I’m sure there’s some overlap) and there are innumerable medical conferences devoted solely to women’s health issues with fewer conferences devoted to men’s health issues. Men do live shorter lives, one cause quite possibly being delays in seeking care, and have a disproportionate share of work-related injuries, and utilize 44 percent of health care expenditures compared to 56 percent for women. However, it shouldn’t be a competition. I don’t know a single couple who desires less than the best for their significant other. Thank God the average rank and file person appreciates the opposite sex for the unique qualities that have to offer.

  9. ga gamba says

    Wow! This is big get, imo. I’m really pleased to see someone of Mr Lott’s stature contributing here. I’ve read him for years at the Guardian, and though he and I differ on a wide range of issues, I always thought of him as a decent and fair-minded bloke – his Family column was one of the more balanced ones of the paper’s. He wrote what I think are two of the best reviews of Jordan Peterson. The first was in The Spectator and the second in the Graun, which was a bold move because the rest of the paper was bashing him. If you’ve had your fill of Jordan Peterson articles then We need a more nuanced view of Thatcher is a fine piece, www(dot)independent(dot)co(dot)uk/voices/comment/we-need-a-more-nuanced-view-of-thatcher-that-s-why-i-wrote-a-novel-that-was-told-from-the-point-of-8573935.html. When I think of the thoughtful left, those who have ideas that merit serious discussion, it’s people like Mr Lott and not Owen Jones and Jessica Valenti that come to mind.

    I hope he writes here again. I’ll take the liberty and offer three topics. The first would be an analysis of the left of his youth (late 60s to Thatcher) and the current left because he’s experienced both. The second is his experience of London political and social life during Ken Livingstone’s use of identity politics in the Greater London Council of the early ’80s. I won’t claim Livingstone’s was the first major government to do so, but he was amongst the vanguard, and did so during Thatcher’s rule which made for a stark contrast. The last would be a critique of the claim the right is today’s counter culture.

    Looking forward to hear from you and best regards.

  10. frances says

    Women who are trying to make the obvious point viz. that men and women are in this great life project together, and should be viewing each other as partners, not vicious partisans, get more resistance from the sisterhood than from men. There could be many self-interests colliding here but, on the whole, men seem more wiling to buy into the mutuality of the issue.
    They also seem quite surprised that there are women who take the co-operative view and will even defend them, especially against such absurd notions as the universality of ‘toxic masculinity’. I guess they are so relieved, having expected the worst, to hear from women free of the monstrous sloganeering of third/fourth wave ‘feminism’.
    Put at ease, they are actually open to decent conversations about male-female relations. Civil and serious, but not without a touch of the playfulness that used to apply before the Misandry Train took over the tracks.
    Doesn’t mean that there are no outstanding issues from the second wave agenda to be fixed,but just that this way, engagement and dialogue,opens up the actual possibility of fixing them. Walters et al don’t want to fix it; they need it to remain intractable – or what would thy do with all that intense, passionate, existential angst, translated by ideology into misandry?

  11. Paul says

    A person who says she hates all men is no different morally than a Nazi who says he hates all jews.

    Yes, it’s that simple.

    As a men, the only appropriate responses are to say “f- you righ back” and make sure that person does not have guns nor will gain any power in the state that will allow her to act on her hate.

  12. derek says

    When i read one of the screeds about hating men i wonder if they just got a bill from a plumber, mechanic or some other competent tradesman. Some guy, probably a bit over weight, unkempt and maybe a bit crude, did a quick fix and wanted hundreds of dollars.

    Not only that. He looks around, at me, with a look of judgement in his eye. He mumbles incomprehensible jargon, talks about gender parts, gets a look of impatience and amusement when i ask what the problem was, and then wants money, right now, more than i think he is worth. I have a university education, am important, powerful. I don’t get over a hundred dollars an hour.

    I hate men. Surely there is a world where i can flush the toilet, start my car, have a warm or cool office or home, have the lights come on without these hateful creatures.

    • You probably need a different more professional plumber. An anecdote – last January at 3 am in the middle of a blizzard (I live in rural Montana) I was awakened by my dog. There were a few people outside my home, employees of the power company, who were there because a snow-laden tree had fallen over some power lines on the mountain behind my home, and they were going up the hill with chainsaws and equipment to restore power. None of these employees were women. Guys like these are the reason you have a warm home in the winter. I’m sure there are women who could do this kind of job but I haven’t seen any who choose to do it, nor do most women want to work with blocked sewers, or want to load containers onto ships, or log the timber that went into making your home, or mine the copper that gives you the electricity you use, etc. Personally I thanked the workers profusely for their efforts.

  13. John Craigton says

    Misandry is not widespread. It is true that there is little objection in writing awkward newspaper articles about that it is okay to hate men, I have rarely met men-haters.

    Also, feminism is hardly a leftist idea. You will find many feminists among the right. This constant bringing back everything to Marxism becomes tiresome. Aggressive feminism has its own roots. The first suffragette, Emmeline Prankhurst in the UK were actually conservative. She did probably not “hate” men, but she had little sympathy either, and that is true for many in the movement.

    And given that people here constantly say that Jordan Peterson is so great, I just want to add that I find him incredibly annoying. Sometimes he makes good points, but most of it is exaggerated emotional word salad. This is a funny comment on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/89yntn/this_peterson_word_salad_generator_is_almost_too/

      • Martin Luther King was a preacher, that makes his message(s) so much less valid, right? Good God, so you don’t like JBP, fine, but his messages resonate with millions and he isn’t ‘preaching’ anything harmful. Like MLK he might even change some lives for the better with his encouraging sermons.

  14. D.E. says

    The last 3 paragraphs succinctly summarize the situation quite well and as far as a generalized approach can go, really. I share the same sentiment, and understand that elaborating further on the underlying complexities of this matter would inevitably result in an article laden with needless academic/intellectual verbosity when the intent is to express a plainly observable perspective with that is all too often casually dismissed in an era where progressive politics have been effectively hijacked by unbridled postmodern political correctness.

    Unfortunately the evidence you are citing will be spun ad nauseam and the sociocultural analysis will be deemed unfit by many on both sides of the political spectrum, so for the writer and reader who knows that there is something deeply wrong about this entire ordeal regarding misandry today: there are many of us out there who know this is the case and don’t let it get you down. It’s sad that things have gotten to this point, but good men (like good women) persevere through adversity and are made better from it. Remember the truth is always known but seldom acknowledged.

    In short, thank you for the article and hats off to Quillette for continuing to provide exceptional journalists of all backgrounds with a platform for their voice to be heard.

  15. O. R. Ange says

    I’d like to take a stab at this.

    I enjoyed Mr. Lott’s writing though I feel that much of this debate of misandry is happening in a sphere of the upper-middle class; intellectuals, writers, journalists, and mid-to-upper level management. When I first heard people speaking about the gender pay gap it occurred to me that no one was talking about cashiers at Aldi’s or bartenders or most anyone in the service industry under the level of assistant manager. People were talking about supervisor positions and the ability to become executives. It feels that these journalists and writers are more talking about themselves than trying to represent women as a whole.

    So much of the representation of the anger seems to be feminist professors and activists, neither whom live in reality.

    This explosion of ire is fitted well to a period where we are still getting accustomed to social media as a journalist and cultural medium and I think we still have some time. These articles of “Why I’m allowed to hate men” strike me as clickbait and the author probably knows it as well. Not to say it doesn’t have an effect on some groups of women, but these women tend to be so full of themselves it’s hard for them to move out of their far-left circle compatriots.

    Perhaps I don’t see the writing on the wall. But this audience seems much smaller than we make it seem because they’re so vocal.

    • Circumnavigatio says

      This is an excellent point – I hadn’t thought of it from the class perspective before.

    • Karen Straughan says

      The problem as I see it is that governments don’t take advice from the wives of plumbers. They take advice from “experts”. Suzanna Danuta Walters is considered just that–an expert on gender, such that she heads the Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies program at her university.

      You’d be amazed at how little it takes to sway a politician. In 2013, Florida Governor Rick Scott vetoed an alimony reform and shared custody bill that had nearly 80% public approval, and had passed both houses with bipartisan support. Who asked him to do this? The Florida chapter of the National Organization for Women.

      Regardless of the relative size and influence of the NOW, I’m almost certain the roughly 80% of Floridians who wanted the bill passed outnumbered the NOW’s Florida chapter membership.

      And of course, Scott was reelected and went on to veto a second run at the legislation in 2016, again, at the behest of the NOW.

      While the wife of my my garbage man, or the woman who runs my groceries over a scanner, is probably more sensible than Suzanna Danuta Walters (and less of a horrible person, to boot), she has ZERO influence over governmental and legal institutions. If she has the time and energy to pay attention to what her kids are being taught in middle school, she certainly doesn’t have the power to dictate the curriculum. That’s all being done by women like Walters and those who take courses in her discipline.

      In Canada, there’s a bill stalled in the Senate right now, awaiting approval or rejection. It would mandate that all candidates for the bench be required to take feminist training on how to adjudicate sexual assault trials. Right now, this training is voluntary, via the Canadian Judicial Council. Two years ago, a defence lawyer filed a request with the court that the contents of the training–training that will soon be mandatory–be made available to the public. His request was denied. The public has no right to know how our judges are being trained, or by whom.

      The insane justification for denying his request was that he couldn’t demonstrate the training would create a bias. Well, of course he can’t demonstrate that! He doesn’t know what the training IS. I would guess that 90% of Canadians are completely unaware of the fact that the training proposed in the bill is apparently not safe for public consumption.

      And to give you an idea of what this training MIGHT entail. https://torontosun.com/2017/07/20/york-university-grad-student-convicted-of-sex-assault-to-learn-appeal-ruling/wcm/d4b1b0fc-ca20-4e5f-807c-024bf1c03451

      In that case, Judge Marvin Zuker wrote almost nothing regarding the evidence presented at trial, and instead wrote a judgment quoting liberally from the works of Catherine McKinnon, Susan Brownmiller and Andrea Dworkin. The ruling boiled down to “he’s guilty, because he’s male, and patriarchy.”

      We also have another bill stalled in the Senate whose stated purpose is to remove any and all avenues toward mounting an affirmative defence by the defendant. It will introduce sweeping changes regarding the admissibility of exculpatory evidence even when directly related to the incident in issue, and invite complainants to observe rape shield hearings (something that should be considered to potentially taint their testimony).

      All of this is being pushed through by a very small, very determined, very vocal band of politicians, lobbyists, activists, journalists and scholars. They put out misleading articles that mislead the public as to the actual contents of the bills. Andre Marin, a lawyer who leans toward social justice activism, portrayed the bill as bringing rape shield laws into the age of email, and described it as making no major change other than affirming that an email is legally a document, and a text message is legally a communication.

      Yeah, no. It would make any document or communication of a sexual nature or for a sexual purpose subject to rape shield hearings (to which the complainant is invited). So her invitation to “f my brains out tonight!”, whether sent by messenger pigeon, smoke signals or Kik will be subjected to a rape shield test. So will her follow up “thanks for the great time, let’s do it again soon!”, whether sent by telegraph, rotary dial phone or email. So will her diary entry that she was super happy with what happened, whether etched into stone tablets, written in cursive with a goose feather, or typed to a friend via Facebook message.

      I haven’t seen such misleading press coverage of a bill since the last NOW effort to falsely portray a shared parenting bill as “forcing” shared parenting on all divorcing couples.

      I guess what I’m saying is that the number of people who hate men, or at least don’t give one thin damn about them, is less important than the power and wherewithal they have.

    • Agreed. You never hear any of these columnists suggest that more hairdressers need to become roofers in order to close the income gap. It’s all about how women in HR don’t make as much as engineers, or how women in publishing aren’t making it to the executive suite. These highly educated, upper-middle-class women have a pretty narrow perspective on society and the workplace. It also explains why gender disparities like the dramatic disparity in the incidence of workplace injury and death never make it onto their radar.

  16. Caligula says

    This article just begs the meaning of “OK.”

    It’s usually lawful to express even extrene hatred for an identity group, so long as the expression excludes credible threats of violence. In the USA at least, such expression is protected by the First Amendment.

    But, such expression is not fully protected under civil law. Thus, you surely can get fired for expressing hatred in your workplace. And your business (or your employer’s business) may be sued if it permits itself to become a hostile environment.

    If “OK” here means socially acceptable then the answer is, probably not. At least, those expressing such sentiments should expect some blowback along hte lines of “How stupid, to presume you can judge all members of some identity group by the behaviors of a few!” At a minimum, socially acceptable expression of hatred might include acknowledging:

    1. A distinction between speech and action: you may have a right to express hatred, but that does not imply a right to act on it; and
    2. Your hate is no more or less legitimate than anyone else’s; and
    3. It’s an equal-opportunity sport: no identity group is owed more or less protection/respect than any other.

  17. There is some sense in which the statement “All women hate men, and all men hate women,” will always be true. The biological compulsion that drives us towards one another is cruel and places us in humiliating situations. The tendency of women to include emotion in our assessments is as alien and confusing to men as men’s tendency to disregard emotions is to us. Sometimes it feels like we are not the same species at all.

    And yes, there is a reason to hate someone who has the right to control your movements, speech, attire, and conduct and enforce that control with measured beatings: marriage in the US and Europe well into the 20th century. Like racial violence, that leaves a long cultural memory of mothers warning daughters.

    There’s good reason to mistrust the people responsible for 90% of all murders and assaults. Denying that a woman (or a man!) is safer, by far, with a group of strange women than a group of strange men is just as insane as insisting that all men are rapists. Erring on the side of caution can save your life.

    Men, like firearms, are capable of explosive violence. Testosterone is gunpowder. A woman is wise to learn to handle both as if they were fully loaded and check the chamber before handling. Taking a clear-eyed approach to one’s safety and well-being is sometimes conflated with hating all men. So be it.

    • Yes you deny the reality that violence is at or near all time historical lows, despite Earth having more men today than ever before. And pretending you carry “historical memory” forward is nonsense as I don’t have any feelings about victimizations of my family in prior generations. If you suffer because generations prior did, you have a mental disorder that should be examined.

      • Peter from Oz says

        But David of K, if you believe the loony left violence is far more prevalent than ever, because the words of anyone on the right are now the same as violence.

      • David of Kirkland, Where exactly did I deny that violence is at historic lows? You can credit that to the same currents in history that produced feminism and even the misandry you loathe: recognition that disputes should be resolved verbally rather than physically and the value of peaceful exchange over conquest. Also, probably the invention of the inexpensive personal firearm, which made self-defense against bigger, stronger opponents more feasible.

        Women warn their daughters not to get in cars alone with men, to keep a secret account or stash of money to be able to get away, to not let him keep her from talking to friends and family, to leave the first time he hits you…it’s not abstract at all. Feminist rhetoric is just explicitly stating the reasons for the warnings out loud.

        And, yes, I do suffer a mental disorder: PTSD from watching my father beat the shit out of my mother and threaten to murder me and my sister if she tried to leave. Also when my grandmother was raped and stabbed in the belly three times by a strange man and left for dead. Also when I was trapped against a wall by a huge teenager at age 12 and almost suffocated while he groped and tried to penetrate me. Of all the many times I was physically and sexually assaulted on the street when growing up in a slum, only once was it by women. Thanks for your concern about my mental well-being, though.

  18. stevengregg says

    I find most young women in their twenties nowadays buy into misandry to some degree, mostly because they have been indoctrinated in school to see men as their enemy. Those women who are most misandrous tend to be unattractive to men and unable to form a healthy relationship with them or have a habit of picking bad men and generalize their bad behavior out to all men.

  19. The author writes:

    “Is it okay to hate women? Obviously not. It’s not only stupid and immoral but impractical given how many of them there are and the marked differences between each and every one of them.”

    How can it be “stupid” to hate someone or something? It might be “stupid” to hate (or express hatred) toward a financial benefactor, but other than that I don’t see how it can be “stupid” to hate a group of people.

    Why is it “immoral” to hate a group of people? For something to be “ethical”, it has to be subject to universalization (“Thou Shall Not Kill” vs. “Thou Shall Not Kill Unless They Really Deserve It”). Would it be immoral for Holocaust survivors to hate Germans? Armenians to hate Turks? White Zimbabwean refugees who lost their farms to hate Black Zimbabweans?

    Not to engage in a line drawing exercise, but the fact that a line can be drawn suggests we are not talking about an ethical concept, but a political concept. I would concede it is not politically correct to hate “women” at this time.

    Why is it “impractical” to hate a group of people? The Holocaust has been called a lot of things, but impractical?

    Last, who cares if women share a lot of dissimilarities between each other, they obviously share a host of similarities or the category of “women” wouldn’t exist. Given that loving “women” and hating “women” is really about expressing a relationship to an abstract category, I don’t see how hating “women” is much different from hating “injustice”. No one ever said you can’t hate “injustice” because each particular instantiation of injustice is distinct from other instances.

    Given that the assumptions the author starts with are neither self-evident nor easily rationally defensible, GIGO carries the day.

    But speaking from political correctness, hating women is obviously politically incorrect, whereas hating men may be rude, but it is clearly politically correct otherwise the WaPo wouldn’t give these views a platform.

    • When a group decides to pick sides, say they decide the Tamils have it coming to them, and it is announced through their official organs, the Sinhalese press blasts it through the countryside–the Tamils have it coming to them–then they have committed themselves to a conflict.

      Writing essays about how the Sinhalese should be more polite or (God forbid) examine their own role in the antagonism with the Tamils doesn’t work.

      At that point, a person faces an existential dilemma: they must side with the Sinhalese or the Tamils, and either way, they will have to face personal, and negative, consequences. They are no doubt angry to be placed in such a bind, they like the Sinhalese, they like the Tamils, they want everyone to get along. Its not fair, but when you grind into the asphalt of life, its not fair.

      The reality is that culture war has been officially declared, and you either have to leave the country or take a side.

    • Last, who cares if women share a lot of dissimilarities between each other, they obviously share a host of similarities or the category of “women” wouldn’t exist. Given that loving “women” and hating “women” is really about expressing a relationship to an abstract category, I don’t see how hating “women” is much different from hating “injustice”.

      Except there are good women and bad women – what the fuck is a good injustice?

      This is like saying that, because there are different kinds of cancer, you can’t hate cancer.

      And women aren’t an abstract concept unless you think anyone can declare themselves a woman. Women are a biological fact whatever your gender studies lecturer tells you.

      • J.Ryall says


        The category “woman” is an abstraction insofar as it represents a vastly heterogeneous group of humans based on shared biological characteristics. After biology, all we have are individuals who are distinct, concrete entities (i.e. the opposite of an abstraction). There may be large groups of individuals who share common experiences based on class, nationality, ethnicity, etc. but, even so, they will have more differences than similarities (which, based on your comment, I think you know quite well 🙂 )

      • “Women” is an abstraction. A man can marry a woman, divorce a woman, perhaps marry many women, divorce many women. But a man can’t marry “women” in the way a man can hate “women” (in contrast to hating an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend)–notwithstanding the probable causal relationship between hating some women and hating all “women”.

        As far as the criterion for what constitutes membership in the set of “women”, I agree with you that the criterion is biological, but the debate is not whether “sex” is biological, the debate is whether we should change how we use the concept of “sex”. Obviously, for some the concept of “sex” was never broken, and never in need of repair. For others, the redefinition of “sex” follows as a logical necessity from the Divinely Revealed Doctrine of the Blank Slate and Social Constructivism, a dogmatic religious tradition that I am not a member of.

        As far as good women and bad women–well, I agree–but as the famous expression goes “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”–some people regard all women as bad, at least as long as they live. That is to say, some believe that women existing in the stream of life, similar to white males in the eyes of the Enlightened Ones, are by definition an injustice.

        But remember, love and hate is simply an expression of an attitude toward something. One can hate all men–we had an Enlightened One share this perspective in a leading newspaper. One can hate all women, although goodthinkers “obviously” disapprove of this attitude. Not going to help you get tenure.

        But to say someone’s emotional affect toward an abstraction, whether it be communism or social justice or women or democracy, is somehow irrational is only partly true. All affect is on some level irrational, or perhaps driven by threat assessment (wealthy industrialists probably have negative affect to communists because they threaten them, and vice versa).

        But I don’t know how you can say it is immoral, impractical, or stupid. I read the WaPo editorial, the writer who hates all men is clearly educated, I don’t know that she is particularly immoral, nor is the institutionalized misandry impractical–it serves her political interests of replacing men in positions of power with women.

        The Nazi’s provide a text book political case of how you can use abstract hatred against a group to marginalize them and ultimately eliminate them, and most of “post-mo” arguments you can learn from Goebbels and simply substitute “white male” for “jew”. I can’t imagine a more practical political program–what is astonishing is the cheap re-furbishing of anti-semitic conspiracy theories and tropes to create an “anti-racist” critical theory and no one is suppose to notice or comment on the use recycled Nazi tropes and rhetoric (employed for the “good” of course this time). The inspiration for “Cultural Marxism” is not Marxism, it is an inverted German National Socialism.

        Further, all you need to do to create a Nazi movement is to take these brain-washed children imbibing this ideology in colleges and get them to replace “white males” with “Jews”. It was much harder to make real Nazi’s when children were taught critical thinking skills, the historical literary cannon, skepticism about conspiratorial thinking, and respect for the scientific endeavor.

        • Obviously, genocide is immoral, but you can’t just leap from an abstract hatred of a group to a political will to commit genocide against that group. I certainly don’t believe most of the people who hate “women” or who hate “men” intend on genocide. They generally stop at something short of the Nuremberg laws for the “other”.

          A thought or attitude isn’t immoral just because it might lead to behavior that is immoral.

        • Peter from Oz says

          Interesting and thought provoking post.
          Could we say that it is stupid and impractical for men to hate women because it will bring down odium and social death on any man who is guilty of it, and no clever or practical man would wish that?
          The same in’t the same for misandry, because as you rightly point out, the left has provided the excuse that misandry is, within certain limits, acceptable as a reaction to centuries of instituionalised misogyny.
          The marxists and their fellow leftists, the Nazis, perfected these techniquesof blackguarding groups of people. The Soviet Union demonised the Kulaks and the borzoi who were the enemies of the proletariat and the revloution. The Nazis used the Jews as the monsters who had brought Germany low.
          As you quite rightly point out, the feminazis and all the other trolls on the left now use the same tactics, but with white males as the jews or kulaks.
          At the base of all this is the real lie, that the right (by which I mean the old order) actually consciously kept women down, and that women were the kulaks or the jews of past generations. What actually happened was that most people just accepted the differing roles and characteristics of the sexes. Some only realised that some or all of the old order’s mores were worth preservation when they were under threat.
          Conservatism is organic and leftism is artificial, designed to give power to the agitator who pretends to act for a disadvantaged group but who really doesn’t make things much better for that group.

    • RadixLecti says

      Well the Nazis lost loads of great German scientists by hating Jews so yes hating an entire group based on their faith or race is impractical.

  20. wigsf3 says

    A word to the wise: watch out before dissing prog rock. Prog rock fans no longer lurk in the shadows, emerging from their parents’ basement only to sup on macaroni and cheese. With social media, they can appear any where to single out the one phrase in an otherwise rational, thought-provoking article and rant about the wonder that is prog rock.
    Now I must return to my parents’ basement. The sunlight burns…

  21. Wow, written by a man, huh? Please, get off our side. Women by and large are hard to please, many will admit it, my wife does. Men are perceived by women to have it made. Wrong! Women complain that they don’t get recognition or even get a word in edge-wise in a world full of men. It’s all elbows and hips shoving them aside. Newsflash ladies it all elbows and hips for us men too – 100% of the time. The only respite a man gets is when he comes home to his wife and family. Yeah, yeah, life is hard for women, no one doubts that, but it isn’t a bed of roses for men either.

    • augustine says

      Well said.

      Men suffer, have always suffered, in terms of death and injury in their duty to protect women and children, and others in the tribe who cannot defend themselves. We also suffer demanding and dangerous jobs that women clearly do not want to do. Historically, men’s actions have led to the possibility of the very existence of malcontented feminists in a free and civilized society. Men defend culture, institutions and infrastructure, and we protect those we love. This is an immeasurable service, as is the role of women in society. Both make a 100% contribution and for either group it sucks to make that effort much of the time.

  22. I don’t condone hating entire class of peoples.
    Elliot Rodger killed 7 and injured 14 people because he hated women. All other women haters rejoiced and called him a hero.

    Women who hate men, write op eds that hurt men’s feelings. And certainly if any of the men haters commit murderous rampage (none have), other men haters would not celebrate her in the same way.

    Women haters have organized into many groups and developed different ideologies from red pillers, MRA, return of kings, incels, mass shooters, serial killers, serial rapists, (religion???!!!) and many more examples.

    “men haters” are what, feminists? feminazis? there is no secret underground conspiracy plot to murder, maim, take over the world from men. There is no booklet about hating men. Women don’t call men chads and betas, men call men chads and betas.

    Don’t equate men haters and women haters. They are not even closely related.

    • Yes, murder is wrong but ruining someone’s life by falsely accusing them of rape (Duke Lacrosse scandal, UVA frat hoax) is just bad manners. Especially when the main stream media and the Academy is actively promoting and empowering the false accusers.

      Injustice A can be distinguished from Injustice B when Injustice A is aided and abetted by powerful institutions in society. They are not even closely related: its the difference between a Pogrom and a race riot.

      • @ KD

        “ruining someone’s life by falsely accusing them of rape (Duke Lacrosse scandal, UVA frat hoax) is just bad manners”

        It is far more than that! Accusing someone falsely of heinous crime is outright immoral.

    • @khadijah, Sigh….

      What kind of real social power do “Red pillers, MRA, return of kings, ……et all.” have? None. They linger on web-pages and chat groups because they have nowhere else to go. A few, like Elliott Roger have lashed out in violent outbursts, but if you knew anything about him (see below) you would know that story goes much deeper than just misogyny. It was the very fact of Elliott Roger having no social power, no friends, no interest from females, no social outlets that drove him to act out violently. He literally wanted to punish society for rejecting him. He certainly wouldn’t have identified with any sort of ‘patriarchy’, he felt rejected and oppressed.

      Of course “men haters” don’t turn to these same violent tactics, they have actual social power. They can get their hate published in high brow national newspapers, even while admitting it is hate. They get research grants and tenured faculty jobs, so they can distill and teach their hate to the next generation. They don’t have to turn violent, that would be against their interest of accumulating social power to balance society against those they hate.

      Instead the “Man Haters” use other tactics. They start by making up nonsensical definitions of “Rape” and ‘Assault’ that inevitably lead to “all men are rapists because all heterosexual sex is rape’. They come up with bullshit stats that show modern college campus’s are more dangerous than third world war zones. They fight to change laws and remove basic legal safeguards and equal protection under law, and are not at all bothered when ‘innocent men’ are affected. They are angered when laws like title IX are used against women, cause the point isn’t to end sexual harassment; it is to empower ‘Man haters’ by destroying just enough men to frighten all the rest. They smear men with guilt by association, where just being male means you are responsible for the actions of others you have nothing in common with other than the existence of a Y chromosome. They argue for disenfranchisement of males, where the author of the piece in question explicitly argues that “male allies” should ‘lean out’, “not stand for office, not be incharge of anything.” They literally take the point of view of the anti-suffragists, except with a single twist, they want to be the oppressors:

      “So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy.”

      The ‘millennia of woe’ where people are richer, live longer, healthier, and freeier than anytime in human history. The great patriarchy that gave women the right to vote, be educated, hold any career/elected office, join the armed forces, or damn well do as they please. If this is ‘doing them wrong’, what else could they want but the exact same social domination they so vehemently denounce?

      Make no mistake, the Elliott Rogers and Susana Walters of the world are two sides of the same coin and have the same ultimate goal of domination of the opposite sex. They only differ in tactics; mostly because only one side has an actual shot at getting what it wants.

      On a side note:
      Elliot Roger killed 6 other people, not 7. The 7th death was killing himself. There is no point in adding his suicide in, except to increase the “Killed” number and make a mass murder sound 1/7th worse. Oh, and 2/3 of his murder victims were men, not women. If you must insist on including his suicide, then 5/7th’s of his ‘Killed’ victims were male. If his motivation was killing women cause he hated females, he sure sucked at it.

      The real story is Elliot Roget was nuts, in all the worst ways. I met the guy, and you could smell the crazy on him the way you can smell alcohol on a drunk. It oozed out of his pores and hung on every sentence. He hated people. He hated the “Chads” just as much as he hated the “Stacies”, and all due to the fact that people rejected him at every turn. People just don’t do well accepting ‘bat shit crazy’ into their lives, and have a nasty tendency to bully and demean those who suffer whatever afflictions he had. He wrote terrible horrible things about men and women, and was horribly racist. What is interesting is that the focus has only lingered on his misogyny, and not his overall hate. wonder why that is…….

      • Martin28 says

        “What kind of real social power do “Red pillers, MRA, return of kings, ……et all.” have? None. They linger on web-pages and chat groups because they have nowhere else to go.”

        And they have no place to go because they are denounced as haters wherever they go with exactly the same prejudice as @khadijah, and those who say that all feminists are man haters. All MRAs are no more woman haters than all feminists man haters. There was nothing in the film The Red Pill that was about woman hating, the film-maker was a woman who identified as a feminist, and yet it was all but banned.

      • Martin28 says

        And I would add that feminists outnumber MRAs by at least 1,000 to 1.

        • I don’t necessary disagree with you, that was the OP’s definition; not mine. I have never even heard of the ‘return of kings’ group.

          I was just trying to avoid the argument about “who” is in each camp. That is why I called everyone: “Man Haters” for the rest of the piece. There are real people who hate all women. There are real people who hate all men. I didn’t want to get into the quagmire of defining who is who because i was rather trying to make the point that ‘because bigots like Susana Walters don’t kill people the way Elliott Roger did, they are not dangerous’ is wrong. They don’t kill people because they have more powerful tactics available to them, making them more dangerous to our society, not less.

  23. Northern Observer says

    I have to say, the feminist turn to misandry in academia, media and corporate life has made me question our social order and reconsidered 19th century Western Patriarchy. How much have we really gained from the turn to social equality and at what cost? How do we minimize the cost and what do we have to do as a culture to change.
    I think the idea that the future is feminist is at best a question mark. Feminism is not addressing the failures of its success, in fact it can not even see the failures, this makes for instability ahead.

    • Martin28 says

      And given that feminists are not reproducing themselves, I would say it is a definite question mark. Western women are reproducing at well below the replacement rate across the board—but college-educated feminists are far below the average.

  24. X. Citoyen says

    The real story here, to my mind, is not whether “hating men” is justified or not–it’s too absurd to merit an response. The real story is how this puerile drivel can make it into public discourse? We’ve apparently reach a level of decadence where the immature posturings of 14-year-old girls gets into supposedly serious newspapers.

    • Saturn Black says

      Pretty hard to distinguish between a mainstream journalist and a 14 year old girl these days. The only women who respect these leftist cucks are ugly and overweight lesbians. At least all that soy might make them more attractive to men when they eventually run out of options and turn gay. What a bunch of flunkies.

      Also, Nazis are cool.

  25. Farris says

    This article some good points but goes off the rails a bit. The author says it is permissible to hate Nazis and pedophiles for what they do, unlike men for simply being born. The problem is the radical feminist would naturally retort she hates all men for being rapists and oppressors. One of the tenants of radical feminism is that all heterosexual sex is rape. The notion that ALL men are rapists and oppressors is what needs to addressed. For instance to use the author’s reference both men and women have been convicted of pedophilia (admittedly most offenders are men). The fact both sexes have been convicted would demonstrate that rape is not solely a function of gender. Furthermore most women desire to procreate illustrating the absurdity of defining all heterosexual intercourse as rape.
    There exists many societies where female subjugation is still practiced (ex. Burka regiments and genital mutilation). These practices are largely rejected by western men, indicating some men have little need or desire to oppress women. Feminist would do well to target these societies and support those sisters where actual oppression is practiced. However acknowledging western civilization’s progress toward gender equality would conflict with radical feminism’s true goal of maintaining the exalted status of victim. Would hatred of all men include gay men, brown men, Asian men and mentally challenged men? Do these women truly hate their fathers, brothers and sons? Is hating half the world’s population realistic or constructive? The claim of hatred of all men is nothing more than low brow over heated rhetoric from people who have nothing useful to bring to the conversation regarding gender equity.

    • Saturn Black says

      Women have a higher propensity to negative emotion (see J B Peterson’s talks) so if they’re discouraged from hating men it’s probably inevitable that they’ll end up hating themselves.

      Real men let women hate them. Soy boys just cry and make women’s lives worse.

      • Northern Observer says

        At the level of the couple and extended family this is fine, normal even as you indicate. It is when it gets abstracted out into an academic discipline and a socio political ideology complete with policy proposals and rules that you need to sit up and pay attention. That’s the sound of the toxic matriarchy knocking on your door and if you ignore it, it is liable to run you over when your back is turned. Heads up.

  26. Brent says

    What I don’t understand is we built it with our blood and sweat, protected freedom with our lives, and paid for it with our hard word and now everyone else is claiming they have a right to what we built and paid for. When I ask that they pay they say that misogynistic or that’s old white man privilege or some other stupidity they have created to try and give themselves worth without working and paying the bills it costs. Here’s the deal people I am one of the ones that has built and paid for this nation with blood, sweat and tears not to mention a couple of body parts. so good luck trying to steal what I paid for the fight back is coming soon and it will be nasty and we will watch the snowflakes cower because they are basically gutless back stabbing thieves, no more and no less.

  27. Concetned citizen says

    A Patriarchy by definition is a social system and since the social system most common in the West is democracy, what these haters really are after is to destroy democratic society – a very marxist idea, indeed. Mix in some post colonial guilt and you soon have new power structure that denies biology, thinks you can do away with scientific objectivity since science is only a male construct and that there exist no truths since everything is about how YOU feel and your status measured after your place in the hierarchy of victims.

  28. Mark says

    The Moderate Left speaking out. Fantastic. Please, continue to separate yourselves from the radicals who have taken over the Left.

    I was at the Cornel West / Douglas Murray discussion here in Melbourne a couple of nights ago. It was very civil and great to see two men — with very different opinions — have a respectful conversation. They even agreed on a few points, which was encouraging to see.

    We need more of this.

  29. John says

    A small issue with this article is that its assumption that the New York Magazine, The New Statesman and the Washington Post are mainstream us wrong. Outside of the elite readership of these small circulation publications men and women are getting along famously living their lives in partnership.

  30. Pingback: Mainstreaming misandry « Quotulatiousness

  31. Saint37 says

    I think part of the problem is anger/outrage has become fetishized in the social media era. A lot of people think that hating a bad thing, whether it’s racism or Trump or sexual harassment, is enough to make them a good person. It really, really isn’t. History is full of people who had very legitimate complaints about the societies they lived in but were still exceptionally cruel and vicious in their own right (the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, Che Guevara & Fidel Castro, etc.).

  32. This article is so laughably idiotic. Women hate men because men commit nearly all the rape and violence against women. “Misandry” is a BS term made up by men’s rights activists to demonize feminists who rightfully point out that it is men, and only men, who bear the lion’s share of responsibility for all the destruction and oppression targeted at women in all cultures throughout history. Can’t believe Quillette published this drivel.

    • Ah, the disproportionate crime rate argument. That old chestnut used to be reserved for the KKK and the white supremacists arguing for segregation and lynchings based on black male’s disproportionate rape and homicide rates! How “woke” you are sister!

      People really need to educate themselves–the Left is perpetually recycling the worst arguments of yesterday’s racists. Yes, per the FBI, Black males have twice the rates of rapes and six times the rates of homicide as white males. No, that doesn’t entitle you to hate them, nor does it make “racism” a made up problem by Black males.

    • youranus says

      Your admission that women (you?) “hate men” clearly identifies the women to which you refer as misandrists.

    • Martin28 says

      And of course rape is by definition a male thing, because the male is the sex that is required to penetrate for heterosexual intercourse to occur. And that was needed to generate tens of thousands of generations of humans, which ultimately resulted in the miracle of Liz being alive. Rape is simply a line that is drawn saying some of this penetration is unacceptable. And both women and men agreed to draw this line, which doesn’t exist for other mammals. The category of crime that is exclusively male is a special burden that male humans have agreed to carry. Women in turn agreed certain sexual behavior that had to do with not tempting men and expressing sexuality within certain bounds—a burden that feminism entirely denounced and abandoned. Meanwhile, the “rape line” has moved radically in recent years with no questioning allowed of the behavior of women. Metoo took this to new levels, and the birth rate continues to drop. Interesting population control method.

    • M.D. says

      @ Liz

      They also commit nearly all the rape and violence against other men. I don’t hate all men I know because I once got beat up by a man and because men fought in all the wars in history.

  33. Itzik Basman says

    A lot of wasted words over not very much.

    You were right the first time:

    ….It is tempting to shrug off this new misandry as just silly and something of a sideshow…

    This is the silliest piece I’ve seen at this site.

    I hope not to see more of similar nonsense.

  34. Just Me says


    well I’m a woman who used to consider herself a feminist, before feminism went off the rails like this, and I feel the need to speak up.

    Yes, this is misandry, the mirror image of misogyny, and just as misguided.

    The history of the world isn’t all about the “the destruction and oppression targeted at women”, that is a ridiculous oversimplification of a much more complicated reality.

    Life used to be a lot harder, and humans needed to value men’s strength and, yes, aggressiveness, and women’s fertility, to survive, and that had some unfortunate side-effects which our modern society now sees more clearly and tries to mitigate.

    We should be appreciating how lucky we are to live in modern societies which, thanks to mostly good men, have become a lot more pleasant for women to live in.

    • dirk says

      What I think, Just Me, and what I fear: you will nowhere be allowed to speak about these affairs, in any academic institute, (humanities I mean, because technical and natural sciences is something completely different), it’s just too silly and true, your message, that’s not what the students like to hear. And not only because they are so young!

  35. Almost thirty turgid paragraphs, when “Because it’s wrong, stupid, self-destructive, and makes human society impossible” tells the entire story.

  36. dirk says

    What I now, as an old man, all of a sudden am thinking, after these comments and article above: in fact, as young boys, we were all misogyne, without maybe even realising. Girls were crying for nothing, couldn’t throw with stones or a football, never were first on the ice, or in the field, always sought support with the teachers if they thought to be harassed by us, etc, etc. We never thought that, maybe, they would have the same, or similar complaints about us, boys. That, now, in the age of the child, seems to be the case, and worth comments in adult journals, blogs and other media. Of course, it’s all human, all too human. It’s really funny.

  37. harry gondalf says

    I didn’t read all the comments, so this may have been reported earlier. It’s a glaring misstatement that taints this very nice essay: ” (although a Google search of “I hate women” reveals zero results, unlike a search for “I hate men”).

    I just did a Google search (23:37 hrs, Thurs 18 August, s018, GMT+5:30): about 300 hits for the exact phrase “I hate women”

    • ga gamba says

      Strange, I just did a google search of “I hate men” in inverted commas and received “About 1,210,000 results (0.62 seconds)”.

      Omitting Quora results, videos, and song lyrics, here are the top 5:
      www(dot)newstatesman(dot)com/politics/feminism/2016/09/suzanne-moore-why-i-was-wrong-about-men (The url gave me hope, but the article begins: “As a class, I hate men. I’ve changed my mind. I am no longer reasonable. I want to see this class broken.”)

      The Cut is a New York Magazine web site. The Guardian is one of the world’s most influential newspapers. The New Statesman is the UK’s most influential leftwing publication – the author of the that piece is on the Guardian’s staff, so a twofer for the Graun. I don’t know about Odyssey Online, but it proclaims to be democratising content. And XOJane is a prominent feminist website.

      The time & date of the search was Fri 16 Aug 03:52 AM, GMT +8:00.

  38. Carl Craven says

    A woman’s place is not in the home. That is the place for MAN and WOMAN.

    Man as a species should not be working in the service of others. Women who think they are missing out on something are denying their biological urges. I don’t want to work, I don’t want a career. I want to look after my family with a strong connection to nature in the way that human’s as animals did as recently as 500 years ago.

    Working in a factory or office or other sphere of modern life is not making our species or our planet a better place for anyone or anything.

    • augustine says

      Your last paragraph: seems like I’ve been waiting for someone to say that out loud. It resonates.

    • Just Me says

      Sorry, don’t agree.

      Life today is a whole lot better for billions more people than 500 years ago, and especially for women.

      Most people have no desire to go back to living the way their ancestors did.

  39. D Bruce says

    The idea of hating men is neither here nor there, it’s boundary seeking behaviour.

  40. ccscientist says

    Here is what is so insane about this. Every guy I know views it as his duty to care for, protect, and provide for his wife and kids. His wife runs the house and their social life and spends most of their money. Men are willing to commute farther, and take riskier jobs in order to provide for their families. This is oppression?
    From the other perspective, women are the ones who enforce many of the norms of male behavior. Women expect and demand that their man be stoic, strong, and calm at all times, be able to fix things, and make more $ than they do. They are not tolerant of their man complaining or getting sick. They shop for his clothes in many cases. Who is the boss again?

  41. The reality is that dependence brings hatred.

    When one group is dependent on another group for security, they will manifest hatred, and sometimes, like an eight year old, they will “run away from home” for an hour and fantasize about replacing their fathers.

    It is interesting that man-hatred is most pronounced in females who strive the hardest to imitate traditional male role models combined with repeated romantic failure. In contrast, men who hate women generally are pretty pathetic judged by the standards of traditional masculinity, but also suffer from repeated romantic failures (see the incel subculture). It generally has little to do with rape (either traditional or modern “divorce rape”). Just a failure to meet the traditional requirements of masculinity due to biological or characterological flaws, combined with multiple romantic rejections. We say hatred, but its really about envy and slave-morality style ressentiment.

    • dirk says

      What I read not long ago, I don’t know exactly where: “paid work is the ultimate form of respect”. It struck me, because, is that not the root of all evil and women and feminism problems and discussions? My mother, and I respect and loved her very much, didn’t work (for some stupid boss, government or institute) one day in her life. Does that mean she deserved less respect or love? Yes, in the USSR, half of the workforce were women, the babusjka took care of the kids!

    • The incel subculture isn’t about hating women. They are just telling each others that they have subhuman genetics and that today’s society is awful as it both leave them in sexual misery while at the same time being openly contemptuous of those same genetic lottery losers.

      There isn’t slave morality in the incel movement, slave morality implies value inversion. Incels fully agree that they are physically repellent. They just complain that they are painted as evil people instead of just being acknowledged as simply genetic losers.

  42. dirk says

    Genetic losers, Arnold, what do you mean by that? Are you thinking of breeding? Eugenics? Harari’s evolutionary humanism?

  43. David Cook says

    “yes, men commit nearly all the rapes, and most of the violence, there’s no getting away from that, and it’s no small thing, not in the least.”
    If instead of rapes you say sexual abuse and of course women DO rape, as well as acknowledge that women ARE JUST AS VIOLENT as men, then this article has no validity at all. Women are more psychologically controlling and abusing, about 70% women,30% or less men according to Dr. Elizabeth Bates of the University of Cumbria.


    Non reciprocal intimate partner violence, where one partner attacks the other without retaliation from the victim is over three times as likely to have the woman as the perpetrator than the man.
    The Dundin Study in New Zealand, which says women are 50% of the perpetrators of domestic violence and an allied study by Dr. David Fergusson of Christchurch in New Zealand, found the same thing. Both studies have been running for 40 years over now three generations of families under the direction of the Otago School of Medicine based in Dunedin, New Zealand. Bettina Arndt in Australia and Marinda Devine, also Australia, say the same thing.
    Erin Pizzey, who started the first ever woman’s refuge in London in 1971 also says women are as violent as men. Of course Dr. Murray strauus from the U.S.A. spent his life time studying this and also debunking the Duluth Model states exactly the same. Women are as violent as men. There are many many more studies that support my statements above.The author needs to do a LOT more research.

    • Just Me says

      Women may be as violent as men, but the effects are very different, as they can’t do as much damage to a man as a man can to a woman, because of the difference in strength.

      Smarter women know that and avoid provoking men, those that do…

      • dirk says

        The difference in (physical) strength doesn’t matter so much, Just me, read Harari about it. Women know especiallly much better how to poison, very effective, once, but the last time, with all that medical knowledge, maybe not he best method any more.

  44. I’m glad you touched on the bit about by hating men you justify them to hate you back.

    Can you imagine how young boys will feel growing up in a world being told they’re bad and broken? I can see two terrible outcomes. They come out depress with their lives or react with anger and violence in the opposite direction.

    Sending a message saying you hate men isn’t going to bring about the change you want. Only exacerbate the issue in the worst kind of men that are the problem.

  45. Andrew Roddy says

    There are aspects of human nature that are not easy to own. It is always nice to find some ‘other’ on to which to project this ugliness. We like to do this collectively and find a collective ‘other’. This is itself one of those said aspects that’s not really all that edifying.
    For reasons something like these, I have come to suspect that, at least in part, women’s hatred of men my represent a manifestastion of a very deep-seated and dangerous self-loathing. I don’t present this as the whole truth of the matter of course. But there might be enough truth in it for us to wonder what will happen when this relentless projection can no longer be sustained. If there is any merit in these intuitions it might be women we should be fearful for.

  46. Ocean Creature says

    Oh, women make me sick. And when did they decide they owned the moral high ground? Just ask any human about all the ambivalent feelings they have towards their mothers! If men are, as the author puts it, “arrogant, ego driven, entitled and insensitive.” Then, women are “haughty, self-centered, grasping, and cruel.” Oh, oops, same list, just different words…
    I am a woman and on average, I have been treated far worse by women my whole life than by men. The sisterhood is bullshit. They turn on their own – mothers who eat their young…

    We’re ALL equally sinners.

  47. M.D. says

    “Is it okay to hate women? Obviously not. It’s not only stupid and immoral…”

    I disagree. I say it’s ok to hate whoever you want. Hate is fine! Don’t force me to like you. But also don’t attack people physically or start denying them jobs. Just hate them and maybe call someone a name once in awhile. They’ll call you a name back and then you both go on your way.

    The fact is we all hate people and have biases. I would just rather know someone hates me and be able to see them coming, rather than have them hide it and pretend.

  48. Just Me says

    This kind of hate is just one subset of the more general hate against whites, straight, cisgendered, i.e. majority, mainstream society.

    And that is a complicated phenomenon, but basically happens because we now have it so good, many can’t understand why we don’t have utopia. If we don’t, it can only be because it in in the interest of some evil people not to…

  49. Fluffylucy says

    Interesting and thoughtful article, but you’re a man so what you write doesn’t count.

  50. dirk says

    I hate wolves, they eat all our meek sheep in the meadows. In fact, I like them, like I like bears, but what about these predators in our civilised nations? For me, women is a different type of beings as men, and psychologists seem to agree. But, they have the same territory as us, so, you have to share (something what the polar bears do not, if the males see a female with young, they simply eat these youngsters, his own offspring, just to able sooner to mate with the mother.

Comments are closed.