Direct Link to Latest News


Men's Movement: Flipside of Feminism?

June 10, 2015


The Striking Similarities Between
the Men's Rights Movement and Feminism

"In essence, feminism is misogynistic and masculism is misandric. Both masquerade as attempts to improve the conditions of their respective gender, but are actually further enslaving them. Both believe the opposite sex is conspiring to keep them down."

Listen to this: Confirms McGuinness     Paul Elam To Man Up or Stand Down

from August 2014
by Sean McGuinness

The men's rights movement (or "masculism") is actually just the male counterpart of the feminism it claims to oppose.

The similarities are striking. Both believe their natural gender role is a sign of submission or weakness.

This is what makes both movements so tragic. Feminism teaches young women that getting married, having children and cooperating with their husband is an "artificial social construct" created by the "patriarchy" to keep women down and oppress them.

Feminism teaches that women in secure and loving relationships are not really happy, but are putting on a brave face, and that the real source of happiness for women is being "strong and independent" i.e. rebelling against nature, being vapid, selfish, hedonistic and materialistic.

adolescence1.jpgMasculism applies this ethos to men, encouraging them to behave as teenagers - drinking, playing video games, and having casual, promiscuous sex.

The MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) have terms such as "mangina" and "white knight" for men with families, implying that these men are in a state of servitude.

In essence, feminism is misogynistic and masculism is misandric. Both masquerade as attempts to improve the conditions of their respective gender, but are actually further enslaving them. Both believe the opposite sex is conspiring to keep them down.


As touched upon before, this is most famous among hardline feminists who claim the "gender is a social construct". This is obviously ridiculous to anyone who possesses critical thinking skills - are breasts social constructs? Are reproductive organs social constructs? Is the woman's natural caring and sensitive demeanour a social construct?

Gender is present in most species of life on Earth, clearly it is not just a social construct, it serves a real, meaningful purpose - to bring children into the world, to be able to protect and provide for them, and thus continue the species to the next generation. The "social construct" line is most commonly found among feminists, who believe it was created by the "patriarchy" to suppress women and put them in a servile state.

The masculist take on this phenomena is that women are parasites who need men to survive. Masculists who adopt the life of eternal bachelors are actually cooperating with their enslavers - who are not the female species, but are an international cabal who seek the destruction of the family unit and the nation-state, paving the way to an open goal of a one world government.


Men are encouraged to live a life that revolves around getting drunk, taking drugs, working out and having sex.

pick1.jpgWe can see this attitude most clearly in the PUA (pick-up artist) section of the manosphere ; pick-up artists' lives revolve around seducing women, having sex with them and never seeing them ever again. To Hell with the consequences.

The MGTOW have a slogan "My Wallet, My Choice" which is a way of saying that men should be able to get women pregnant and avoid the consequences, having nothing to do with his seed. It's preposterous, and something a healthy society wouldn't allow.

Feminists are told to love fashion, shoes, handbags and celebrity, as well as the obvious drinking and casual sex. The obsession with clothing and appearance is taken to whole new levels. The array of beauty products and options for cosmetic surgery and procedures available to today's young female is staggering, and creates a deep dissatisfaction in young women who view themselves as inadequate, because they cannot live up to the impossible standards set by the media. Women are suckered in by this false view family life as boring and useless, and also develop unrealistic expectations. It's a pit of misery, for both sexes and exacerbates all the existing problems. It's a vicious cycle.

Both foster self-love and hyper-individualism. Humans are not solitary animals, we are designed to cooperate with each other for the good of the whole. When we deviate from this, we see nothing but gross unhappiness and the anesthetics needed to cope with it - drugs, alcohol, materialism, promiscuity, gambling, and so on.


A man cannot produce offspring without a woman, and vice-versa. Therefore, without solid and strong bonds, where will children come from? Casual sex is often negated by birth-control methods like abortion. Babies and children need a stable, loving, two-parent home.

Many single-parents do an admirable job in the circumstances that fate sometimes unfortunately deals them, but it's far from ideal and shouldn't be encouraged as a viable, alternative style of parenthood. A child needs both parents around it to survive and grow to its full potential. It's absolutely no coincidence that the birth-rates in every single white, Western nation (those most infected by gender separatism) are below replacement levels. If it continues, the European race will be extinct or very nearly extinct by the year 2100.

Men cannot abdicate their social responsibilities and be considered men. It's time to turn this around, and not be afraid of the agenda, and refuse to play its silly little games.

Sean of     with special thanks to "M"

Related- Flipside of Feminism: Men Don't Grow Up

First Comment from KS

Robert is correct. A mangia is a servile man and a white knight is a man who puts women on a pedestal and seeks to accommodate them in any situation regardless of circumstances. Neither term has anything to do with being married or cohabiting. Any man who gets married in the western world is making a huge mistake (as I did). Marriage is a contract between three parties, a man, a woman and the state, and the state can vary the terms at any time without the agreement of the other parties.

I have found sites like Return of Kings and Chateau Heartiste very helpful as an antidote to a life time of feminist brainwashing.

I don't feel 'enslaved' by what I have learned on these sites. For the first time in my life i am having much more satisfactory relationships with both males and females because I am beginning to understand the dynamics at play.

You can learn from these sites. You still have free will and you can make your own decisions and still take responsibility for your own behaviour.

These sites enable males to resume or acquire some control over their lives. Yes, you can use that knowledge to improve your chances of having a lot of casual sex if that is what you want to do. And if you just want to see the world in a much more accurate way, they will help you do that too. Get fit, get healthy, improve your mind, learn a foreign language, achieve your goals and don't let dependance on female validation ruin your life.

See this article on Rodger Elliot

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Men's Movement: Flipside of Feminism? "

Dave Jason said (August 13, 2014):

MGTOW is drastically different from other men's rights movements because it teaches self improvement above all else. Unfortunately some MGTOW groups on the web have been overrun with woman hating psychos who give the whole movement a bad name.

Fortunately there are some good ones out there like on Facebook you can find "MGTOW Worldwide" which teaches men self improvement techniques, discuss relations between sexes, and yes, does have some occasional critique of women that borders on obscene, but that's normal.

There are also many women in the MGTOW movement and mens rights movement in general. I suggest those of you looking to join MGTOW, to join that group on facebook.

Bill S said (August 11, 2014):

The Men's Human Rights Movement exists to defend males against the deadly onslaught of Feminists and Government working together to wipe out normal male-female interactions. Marriage is dangerous and suicidal for men these days. The author asserts, "Men cannot abdicate their social responsibilities and be considered men." This is misandric shaming language, similar to "take it like a man" or "MAN UP!" Sean McGuinness is a feminist tool and mangina! Men are choosing to go their own way BECAUSE they are real men. I submit that goofballs like Sean are the ones falling short of the ideal of true manhood - which involves exercising discretion, understanding and wisdom in order to make correct judgements.

There is a small group of woman-hating misogynists out there, some of whom refer to themselves as Masculinists. If this is who Sean is targeting, I agree with his main thesis. THEY are the flip side of Feminazis. But they do not represent they majority of MRAs - Men's Rights Activists. Many of us wish we could have a supportive, sane wife and wonderful kids. Instead, we have been betrayed - first by our wives and then by the culture and court system. Our movement is akin to the Civil Rights movement for blacks. WE are the "niggers" and "Jews" of today.

Henry, I know you get it. AVFM and NCFM get it. Our situation is dire. Jesus said that in the last days, the love of many will grow cold. I have felt the chill increase as Satanism takes hold in America. The apostle Paul said it is better to remain single to devote oneself to serving the Lord. Marriage is a fall-back position for those who cannot control themselves. Most MGTOWs are not sitting around watching video games and getting drunk. This article is a slanderous caricature of reality. My spirit is polluted from having read it.

Dan said (August 10, 2014):

his article really nailed it. Here comes 'Fight Club' to save society from the Feminazis.

Yet another dialectic duo to sew discord between the two most natural allies imaginable - men and women.

Magda said (August 10, 2014):

The woeful decline of common sense and the lack of sense regarding familial responsibility is highlighted by the both feminism and the men's rights movements. Their adversarial approach to the opposite sex indicates the arrested development that you have highlighted in your previous articles( Henry ). It takes interdependence to raise a healthy family, community and society.

It will not work if you demonize and mistreat the other. The energy from both groups though in their initial stages was positive and based on a re-address of some valid grievances now has switched to the shrill sound of victimization and toxicity. An excessive focus on self is skewed and will not lead to any win/win solution in the relations between men and women. Personally I believe that there are many assholes that we come across in life, however to become one is not a desirable action as a response to their mistreatment. I would rather proactively undermine their sources of systemic power by working towards a more just system.

This author Sean McGuiness, is correct in highlighting the problems of self love and hyper individualism and the necessity of cooperating with each other for the good of the whole. Just as some societies have lost their bearings and have turned towards policies that dehumanize their citizenry and the citizens of other nations by the mis-allocation of resources. Instead of allocating resources to areas of need that would build the citizenry and the infrastructure of the country they allocate resources on the desires of those with power (warfare/industrial statism) Feminism and the men's rights movement have become toxic and dehumanze the other gender, and hurt the lives of children and the life of the unborn .

A return to checks and balances is necessary, highlighting interdependence and a holistic embrace of all would lead to better outcomes for the greater number of people, this is the stuff of civilizations and the essence of a favorite value, "do unto others as you would have others do unto yourself."

John said (August 10, 2014):

Hi Henry! While it is true that much of the so-called men's movement is childish and a mirror image of the feminists there is a basic difference. The men's movement is a not a true movement but rather reaction to an organized and well-funded Marxist cultural campaign to destroy men and the traditional roles between men and women with the destruction of the family being the stated goal of feminism. So to put feminism on the same level as some defensive knee-jerk reactions by men here and there is off the mark.

The legal system has been taken over by cultural Marxism/feminism and places men into the position of either being donkeys and/or losers, so what are men supposed to do? We have only burdens and zero rights, with the threat of loss of property and even freedom over our heads from the Courts. Marriage has become the most dangerous thing for a man's welfare as a result of the legal system. Also feminist infected women are just unsuitable for marriage, period. So men go other ways, ways that may not be socially healthy but what is destroying society is feminism, not men's reactions to it. The same men that claim MGTOW (men going their own way) would rather be traditional husbands, fathers and heads of households if the system was not stacked against men.

Robert said (August 10, 2014):

Sean McGuinness states: “The MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) have terms such as "mangina" and "white knight" for men with families, implying that these men are in a state of servitude.”

Sean is wrong, “Mangina” and “White Knight” are words used to describe men who always give in to women, not men who are married.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at