Connecting Dots: Misandry, Misogyny, Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism

This soon-to-be-released new book came on my radar screen the other day, courtesy of John Durant. It’s by Helen Smith, PdD. Who’s she, beyond being the wife of the original Instalauncher, Glenn Raynolds?

Helen Smith is a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee who specializes in violent children and adults. She holds a PhD from the University of Tennessee and masters degrees from The New School for Social Research and the City University of New York. She has written The Scarred Heart : Understanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill and was writer and executive producer of Six, a documentary about the murder of a family in Tennessee by teens from Kentucky. The film highlights the inadequacies of the school, mental health and criminal justice systems in preventive treatment of troubled teens.

The book:

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.

While books like this are of value perhaps in turning some young women away from a dismal life of shrill misandry (by means of using “misogyny” in every other sentence and misogynist to describe every other thing) I personally think that the best policy is simply to boycott feminist, multiculturalist, moral relativists—both male & female—for life, with no shot at redemption. But that’s just me.

The true value of a book like this, then, is in educating young men just what they’re up against; and consequently, who to stay as far away from as possible…in life, love, work, business and in particular: mariage or having children.

Now, connect this dot from The Wall Street Journal: Judith Grossman: A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”

Go read it and weep. Basically, it’s a story reminiscent of Salem Witch Trials. Notice how there are always men involved in these sorts of perversions, either way they turn. Why do you suppose that is? Moving on, methinks that a whole lot of son-to-mother chickens are gonna be coming home to roost in the next decade. No mercy. But that’s just me. Did these feminists perhaps forget that every male ever born was born of a woman, had a mommy, loved a mommy, followed and cried eyes out for want of mommy, and would generally—all else being equal—take her side against daddy?

Another dot: Ayaan Hirsi Ali — Free & Equal: What It Really Means

Now, as I told commenter Marie—who shoved that in my face, saying, “watch it, you misogynist cretin!” (not really :) —I give it about a 7.5 / 10, but only for her advocacy of various forms of Affirmative Action: Duh, two wrongs don’t right a wrong. Just set the past aside and stop being wrong. Simple pimple.

But, her scathing rebuke of western feminism and its moral relativism on grounds of multiculturalism—that starts at about 21:00 into the 30-minute talk—is spot on. It’s always been my bugaboo about all of this. Why is the feminist focus always on white western males—tossing around the term “misogyny” like candy in a piñata factory—while turning a blind eye to the true misogynists on planet Earth: the Muslim, male, domineering patriarchy; and to lesser but still great extent, certain orthodox Jewish and Christian faiths; Indian, and Chinese cultures? Here, you have worlds where to various degrees, women have almost no legal rights, can’t own and direct assets, receive no inheritances of wealth, are circumcised, forced into marriages, can’t operate a motor vehicle, receive zero support even from their own mother if raped…or…were never even born in the first place, because modern technology affords means of gendercide now, in terms of aborting a female fetus.

So why isn’t modern feminism’s focus on all of that or indeed, is often even in stated opposition to stern and deliberate measures against it? Follow the money? That simple? Yea, I suspect so. 14th Century Dirt Scratching, Dirty Nightshirt Wearing Savages don’t have a lot of money.

…I was fortunate. I’ve never actually been very near a modern feminist, never had one in my life. The women in my life had true strength & social, familial power, whether chosen (like my wife, who volunteered to go help fix a very, very bad school and as of now, has successfully turned all but about 7 of her 30 sixth graders) or unchosen accidents of birth. Here’s the women I got stuck with, each of whom always mocked feminism generally. They wanted more power—genuine, earned self bargained-for power—than feminists could ever offer them.

  • Maxine Sholz. My maternal great grandmother (“grandnana”). Born in 1904, ran away from home with a guy about 1918, at the age of 14. Gave birth to my grandmother in 1919 at the age of 15. She subsequently had Leroy, left her husband, and raised two kids as a single mom during the Depression. By the time I came on the scene in the 60s and took note, it was a few husbands later, and she was chauffeur for stroke ridden Victor. He died when I was very young and she resumed her single, independent life for the last 25 years of it. In the early 70s, while in her late 60s, she was hit head-on at 60 mph (no seatbelt) by a car that crossed the line. All six in that other car, including an infant and a dog, died. She was in convalescence for months, in a literal body cast. A few years later she went on a three-week excursion with her church group to the lands and places of The Bible. I count myself lucky that she was part of my life until I was 28.
  • Larue Goodsell. My maternal grandmother (“nana”). She was 13 years junior in years to my artist grandfather, Clarence. Not only the strongest, take no prisoners—or bullshit—woman I have ever known, but arguably the strongest person I have ever known—and at a petite 4′ 10″ physical stature. By virtue of her lifelong marriage to Clarence, she became a competent hunter and fisherwoman. She got her mule-deer buck every single year with her favorite shot: a neck shot (why waste a lot of meat?). During the years he was hand painting every sign in every casino in Reno (and their vehicles), she ran the business end. She spoke, everyone listened. She drank, smoked and cursed like a sailor on liberty after 3 months at sea. She called me, endearingly, “the smart ass,” always reminded us that “you can’t fix stupid,” and rarely used the word “bullshit.” Instead, she just said “shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.” She was in my life until I was 40, and for the last 10 of it—once I came back from years living abroad—my absolute favorite drinkin’ & smokin’ buddy.
  • Selma Nikoley. My paternal grandmother (“oma”). She gave birth to seven children during Hitler’s regime, six of them boys. One, Claus Peter, died in infancy. You’ve read my dad—Lothar’s—story of near starvation. But it was oma who worked for three years to get him back after the war. They immigrated across the Atlantic and bussed it to Reno in 1956. She was always under the thumb of Ernst, her husband, often to the consternation of the six kids. Perhaps that’s why the brothers who lived in Reno during those years of the 60s and 70s, visited almost every day….coffee after work. In her late 70s, she got up and left my grandfather to go live with her daughter here in the Bay Area. Guess who folded.
  • Bonny Nikoley. My mother (“mom”). She was very fortunate. She only had four boys and thus, only ever four penises to worry about…because with girls, you have to worry about all of them everywhere. Nonetheless, we all got our frank, explicit, “the birds & the bees” talk at the appropriate time—from her, because dad-guys are just incapable of that shit; and let’s face it, dads are for going fishing with, fixing cars, hunting, building shit and arguing minutiae. Mom raised four boys, competent to live in the world. How fucking real is that? A man who does not honor his mother in that context (but, equally, setting sail when the time comes) is just no man at all and we owe all that to mothers…and, so, Mother’s Day is eminently more important that Christmas, eh? Consider that. Having fathers is a great convenience but when push comes to shove, real women become real animals. Mom has the most disciplined work ethic of any person I’ve ever known in my life—I know because she’s been my employee for 20 years, now, and managed things expertly at my company’s height of 30 employees. We just celebrated her 72nd last weekend on a camping trip with other family.

Yea, I adore all of the women I got stuck with and who influenced my life in the profoundest of ways; and by consequence, I knew which kinds of women to choose to be with in my life, and I have adored them all—even after parting. There is not one single women I have ever been with that I don’t hold in fondness in the retrospective: memory, dreams and banal recollections. Not one.

Why is that? Well, for one, no women I’ve ever had in my life considered that her worst day was when she was subjected to a wolf whistle…oozing patriarchal misogyny. Etc. No victims. No perpetual chips on shoulder.

…The bonds of such relationships can rather easily break on various pretense or raw circumstance—or just natural growth. But if you’ve chosen right in the first place, it ought only ever be a matter of circumstance and the direction of your own life; its values, goals—even incompatibilities—and so on. It ought never be because one hates the other for being a male or a female, nor for behavior that reflects such negative-sum attitudes. And if you have that experience either way, perhaps it’s that you didn’t experience my privilege of getting stuck with great and wonderful women (or, perhaps men, if you’re a woman). Get out now.

Let their anti-human ideas die on the vine. They will. Inevitable, or we all die. Hitler, Pol Pot, et al, were all about targeted extermination that was not gender specific. Modern feminism is about the extermination of the driving spirit of half the race…and I submit to your musing consideration: it’s something practically worse even than the physical extermination of half the human race. It’s about making half the race basically just like the other half, and such a thing is wholly unnatural, with unintended consequenses out the ass…and every orifice or leaky spot one could imagine.

The male-female, yin-yang, delicious, exciting antagonism over distinct spheres of social power and influence is what makes the world go round. And you thought it was cosmological physics. Ha! Laf. Ah, grasshoppa; you so shallow.

In once sense, this is not really a war against men; any men, even true misogynists. More fundamentally, modern feminism is a war against other women.

Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another. — H.L. Mencken, cira 1930

The real war? It’s against the real women you men love and know why you love them.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Dan on April 20, 2013 at 14:56

    If you could hear me Richard you would hear cheering from the audience stands. Well fucking done!!! And as for Judith Grossman well boo fucking hoo. After 30 yrs of fighting for a system that system suddenly turns around and fucks your son. I don’t feel sorry for her, I do feel for her son.

    Another video I would like to add to your list is this:
    This is an amazing viewpoint and works very very very well with your post. I strongly recommend watching it (unless your a feminist, no especially if you are a feminist).

    I don’t care if you tried to hit on me the other day Richard your a fucking cool guy!

  2. marie on April 20, 2013 at 16:58

    nicely rounded synthesis, you misogynist cretin (though Cretans may cringe) ;)
    I would not have thought to attribute the modern male malaise of ‘lack of identity’ to any influence of western modern feminism, since like most working women I barely notice these type of feminists myself as I get on with work/home life.
    Rather, I would have thought the male identity crisis is due to the sea-change in women rights and so their education and their newer ‘earner’ roles.

    Meaning, perhaps men still need to discover what makes a man, as women have been doing for themselves.

    I’ve said more than enough recently on modern definitions, but I’ll be sitting back with my chips and watching this avidly.

  3. Eddie Mitchell on April 21, 2013 at 07:43

    Hi Richard

    A reader made a comment in the forum below the article and he clearly knows what he is talking about.

    “A study conducted by UCLA’s Department of Psychiatry has revealed that the kind of face a woman finds attractive on a man can differ depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle. For example: if she is ovulating, she is attracted to men with rugged and masculine features. However, if she is menstruating or menopausal, she tends to be more attracted to a man with duct tape over his mouth and a spear lodged in his chest with a baseball bat up his arse while he is on fire. No further studies are expected on this subject.”

    More on this story in the Telegraph

  4. Richard Nikoley on April 20, 2013 at 18:17

    Marie. I plead auto-correct.

    No, I don’t buy that. Women have been asserting themselves for a long time in the west. Men like strong women and just because they are in the workplace and have more equal results changes nothing fundamentally, and I think most men are completely fine with that, with some exceptions, e.g., physically demanding roles like firefighters where women on average simply cannot meet long established standards (carrying a limp body down a ladder, etc.).

    I think it’s deeper than that. Various attributes that are uniquelly male are less valued, even ridiculed, and modern feminism has a lot to do with that on various levels. Traditionally, women have managed the rougher side of men very effectively, but now that gentle social evolution is not so much in play anymore because government is the husband and daddy of women, now.

  5. marie on April 20, 2013 at 19:06

    O.k., As I said, I wouldn’t have thought of it.
    I don’t listen to ‘modern feminist’ rhetoric because it doesn’t have much relevance to my life or those around me. I can see how that rhetoric is ’emasculating’, but it’s rhetoric. Do you know of many women in your life like that? Doesn’t seem so. Me neither.
    It seems to me a convenient scape-goat, maybe exactly because it is loud and emotionally evocative.

    As for ‘husband’ government, again, most women I know manage by themselves or with their partner, government isn’t in the picture, neither protectively nor financially. Unless you count the laws that say you can’t beat a wife because she’s your wife, or bar a girl from school or… Yes, those laws are important, but they are a function of that social evolution you mention.

    That social evolution is just it, women would never had had the chance to effectively ‘assert’ themselves, if it weren’t for the simple fact that in the west we moved away from manual labor to eventually a knowledge-based economy, and somewhere along that path it became both evidently possible and useful for women to take on more roles outside the home as well as in it.
    Something men can and still do.

    The rest seems like bellyaching…. and maybe more insidious, because when both men and women are ‘workers’, corporations find it convenient to have them blaming each other for job losses and other corporate garbage
    -“it’s discrimination” cries one side,” it’s affirmative action” cries the other.
    Just like blaming quotas use to be a big thing for university admissions of minorities -until you find there are reverse quotas, ie. limits, at some institutions, for example for Asian minorities.
    So yes, I haven’t been buying ‘deeper than that’ up to now.
    But I’m listening.

  6. marie on April 20, 2013 at 19:09

    Heh, and I just discovered I can’t eat chips and type at the same time. Damn you Nikoley! ;)

  7. Richard Nikoley on April 20, 2013 at 19:12


    This is explicitly why I included the piece from Judith Grossman. This is the on-the-ground unintended consequences that are likely the direct result of people like you and me not paying attention. And don’t even get me started on family court. In my business, I can not tell you how many men I’ve seen who’ve literally become slaves to an ex-wife and the children she poisons against him while he takes home 25% of his NET pay, with 75% going to her for current and back child and spousal support, and he has to beg to get a minute with his kids.

    These are the sorts of things it’s really about.

  8. Richard Nikoley on April 20, 2013 at 19:19

    Beyond that, Marie, lets make sure we’re keeping context. Smith’s book appears not to be about men trying to become activist whiners, changing laws, lobbying congressmen.

    It’s about them saying, in essence, “take this job & shove it.” That’s eveyone’s right in any case. And, I think it’s the most elegant way to deal with most problems. Either you’re a value or you’re not. Withholding all your capacities brings that value to clarity.

  9. marie on April 20, 2013 at 19:28

    Well and that’s one reason why I said it’s well-rounded.
    Still a far cry in my mind from ‘American society has become anti-male” (for every egregious example on one side you can find plenty on the other side).
    However, certainly worth looking at, if nothing else to get a sense of how far the pendulum is swinging, if it is – because history is rife with awful examples of what wild swings in sociopolitical beliefs can do.

  10. Sean on April 21, 2013 at 06:45

    While I’ve heard it said that feminism morphed from a demand for ‘equality’ to demonizing white males in the last 20 years or so, I remember my mother, a dabbler in pop feminism, telling me that “there’s nothing more selfish than a white male”. This was the early 70s when I was around five or six, and I still give her shit about that.

    So feminism was more about demonizing white males rather than equality at least back since the late 60s in my experience.

    This is the on-the-ground unintended consequences that are likely the direct result of people like you and me not paying attention.

    Libertarian Reason commenter RC Dean has a list of Iron Laws:

    7. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

    Still a far cry in my mind from ‘American society has become anti-male” (for every egregious example on one side you can find plenty on the other side).

    That ship has long since sailed. Stacking up pro and con examples is as silly as stacking up pro and con papers about the lipid hypothesis.

    I’m fortunate to live in a country where the idea that gender is a social construct has yet to make inroads. Where boys are allowed to make guns out of legos without being suspended. It’s an awful, awful place where women are unwitting victims of the patriarchy, too victimized to understand their victimization. Ignorance is bliss, which is why Czech women such as my wife are so much less embittered than so many of their (slightly) less enchained sisters in America, Canada and Scandinavia.

  11. Richard Nikoley on April 21, 2013 at 08:12


    Good rulz. I like them.



  12. Nigel Kinbrum on April 22, 2013 at 02:52

    @Eddie: Ha-ha! Women are definitely attracted to men with a big, fat *something* ;-)

    @Richard: Can you turn off auto-correct? I never use it, as my speling & grammer is allway’s perfect!

    @marie: Step away from the chips!

  13. Grant Curle on April 22, 2013 at 04:41

    It (for me) breaks down to socially acceptable and condoned forms of bigotry. If you have been indoctrinated into this kind of thing in some institution of “higher learning” it is no longer bigotry as it is considered “education”. I would use an example but I really doubt anyone needs one

  14. Grant Curle on April 22, 2013 at 05:11

    As a side note about men “dropping out” of the marriage children thing. I am one of “them” and for a reason. In times past I had many women ask me to have kids with them and to marry them. I refused for a very simple reason. I did not believe that these women could be trusted with a kid.

  15. Eddie Mitchell on April 22, 2013 at 06:39

    Hi Nigel

    If your “speling & grammer is allway’s perfect!” all you ned to do is wirk on the contant of yer corments.

    All joking and wind ups aside. I am sorry for your loss.

  16. Joshua on April 22, 2013 at 10:43

    Marie:“I don’t listen to ‘modern feminist’ rhetoric”

    I don’t think that anybody HAS to listen to it any more because it’s just understood as “fact”. It’s background noise now. It’s STILL bandied about that “women only make 73% as much as men” and forget about the fact that men die in occupational hazards 10 times as often or that childless women under 30 usually make more than their male counterparts.

    The rhetoric isn’t rhetoric any more. It’s policy.

    Do we really need a violence against women act? How about a violence against people act.

    I’ve heard anecdotally that the reason that healthy white males are more employable at this point is that employers don’t have to worry about white men filing a lawsuit. White men are easy to discipline, and easy to fire if you need to. Everybody else is a “protected” class. Wouldn’t YOU rather employ somebody you don’t have to walk on eggshells around?

  17. Richard Nikoley on April 22, 2013 at 10:58

    “Wouldn’t YOU rather employ somebody you don’t have to walk on eggshells around?”

    Careful, Joshua. That’s stepping on Sean’s toes a bit.

    I actually like the rule in a rhetorical sense. However, we’re not dealing with Joseph Stalin, but fucking morons. Yea, I just said that, because it’s true.

    Theses are “unintended” because we live in a world where average people don’t analyze anything, anymore. Consequences are indeed unintended because we have whole worlds of people too fucking stupid to do even the most cursory economic analysis.

    BTW, I had an insatiable desire to watch Idiocracy again after publishing that post, where all consequences are unintended because everyone is too dumb to even understand the word. So I watched it.

  18. Natalie on April 22, 2013 at 11:04

    Feminists are just pawns, the government is using them to create rifts in society (just like any other once genuine movement – i.e. environmentalism, Civil Rights, etc.). Traditionally, governments gave privilege to men over women (and children) in return for support. In preindustrial times, more physical strength meant more usefulness to the authorities (as workers, soldiers, etc.). This is no longer the case and I suspect the governments are more afraid of men now. Men (especially young males) are more likely to rebel against the authority than women – just look at any revolutionary/guerrilla movement. Young boys are more medicated with ADHD medication than girls – why?

  19. Richard Nikoley on April 22, 2013 at 11:39

    “Traditionally, governments gave privilege to men over women”

    This is true, but what did men bargain away for that? Things like going to war, “women & children first,” etc., and I would submit that in the general, men have held up their end.

    Then, just like in marriage contracts, a third party was able to make unilateral changes and apply them through force. I hope theat the book points out the elegance of how men are reacting. Nope, not writing the congressman, not going to be a little wanker demanding changes in laws.

    You don’t need us anymore?

    Fine. Get along, then.

  20. Steve W on April 22, 2013 at 17:43

    Solid post Richard. thanks

  21. Steve W on April 23, 2013 at 08:21

    “Since 1979, inflation-adjusted hourly wages fell 20 percent for men ages 25–39 with only a high school diploma, while wages for their female counterparts rose by one percent. In the same timeframe, the number of male high school graduates with jobs fell by nine percent and rose for women by nine percent.
    Part of this is due to the evaporation of jobs in industries that were previously filled by less educated men, like manufacturing and construction. But women have adapted much more quickly to a world in which a bachelor’s degree is increasingly important for landing a job. In 2010, among 35 year olds, women were 17 percent more likely than men to have attended college. Lower- and middle-class men lag behind women in their social class in education, employment, and wages.
    If the gender roles were reversed here and a generation of women has suffered huge setbacks, we would have a great hue and cry with blue-ribbon panels, academic roundtables, and a lot of national soul-searching. But men’s problems don’t seem to interest anyone much, not even men.
    Could that possibly be a mistake?”

  22. Nigel Kinbrum on April 26, 2013 at 14:06

    Eddie Mitchell said…
    “Hi Nigel
    All joking and wind ups aside. I am sorry for your loss.”
    Are you? I see your true colours shining through.

  23. Brian PCF on May 4, 2013 at 15:56

    Bravo! Especially the comment above “government is the husband and daddy of women, now.”

  24. […] topic has only been on my radar from time to time…over a long time. As I've posted before, I grew up with naturally strong women around me at all times. The idea of any of them going to some uniformed, suited, or […]

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.