Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke12/14/17
Don’t vote for men!” is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, “Who can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?”

She answers that it’s the candidate who doesn’t have one.

Now, a person could easily go tit for tat (not that I’d ever consider such a thing!). Noting how some voters, addressing politicians’ pusillanimity, lament how we need leaders with “a pair,” one could ask “Who can you trust most to have a pair?” and answer “The candidate who by definition has one.”

But the anti-male bias animating Nessel has long been brewing. In 2004, Sweden’s Left Party (yeah, that’s its actual name) proposed a “Man Tax,” a special levy on men designed to compensate society for the cost of male violence. I always answer that I’ll be happy to pay my man tax — as long as I also get royalties for all of history’s man-birthed inventions and innovations. I’ll then use what’s left over to self-fund a presidential run.

Of course, responding to Nessel’s claim that sexual misconduct is a male domain, we could highlight the continual stories about female teachers having relations with young male students or the NYC juvenile-detention center where female guards were allegedly using the teen boy inmates as “sex slaves.” And man-tax misandrists should note that women are actually more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.

Yet, in reality, sound bites and simple facts don’t truly illuminate this issue. For there is some truth in Nessel’s nitwittedness, man-tax twittering and in my responses to both.

USA Today recently ran the headline, “’Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say,” which is about as insightful as stating “Men are taller than women.” Of course, even though blacks and Hispanics commit 98 percent of all gun crime in NYC, we’d never see the headline “Big Apple Crime: Guns don’t kill people; blacks and Hispanics kill people, experts say.” That said, it has always been known that men commit the bulk of major violence; it’s also not news that men are the more lustful sex and are more likely to commit sexual misconduct.

Yet crime doesn’t completely tell the tale — because the sexes sin differently. Consider: When a little boy gets upset, he may have a temper tantrum and explode like a volcano, creating quite a scene. Yet 10 minutes later he may act as if the event never happened. A little girl is more likely to not boil over but simmer for a long time, even perhaps holding a grudge. Thus, the amount of negative energy expended may be the same; only the intensity and duration vary. But which trespass is far more likely to bring punishment?

This is evident throughout life: Men’s sins are more overt, women’s more covert. Boys are more prone to get into fistfights, but girls may be more apt to bully peers to the point of suicide. In this case, the trespass more likely to bring punishment is the less severe.

And so it goes. Male violence is matched by female emotional manipulation and vindictiveness; male lust by female vanity; male gluttony, sloth and anger by female pride, envy and avarice. (Yes, there is overlap; I’m speaking of characteristic faults.)

Which set is worse? It may all balance out, but I certainly would rather endure a firm slap in the face than a 10-minute, emotionally abusive harangue. The point is that just as something’s value doesn’t always correspond to its price, something’s wickedness doesn’t always correspond to the worldly price you have to pay for it.

However visible men’s sins, though, they are today, as they’ve always been, recognized. What’s new is that while men are, again, virtually all history’s inventors and innovators, this is minimized. Men’s faults are now treated as innate — or, at best, as a function of deeply ingrained “toxic masculinity” — while their triumphs are written off as nurture, the result of mere opportunity.

Feminist Camille Paglia once noted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” (a naturally imposed grass ceiling?). Paglia was getting at an age-old truth: Men are the actuating sex, the wilder one, which accounts for both their dynamism and their dangerousness. They’re two sides of the same coin, giving men the capacity to be a Churchill or a Hitler, to write the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution. Yes, most murdered women are killed by men, but women only now outlive men (they once died younger) because of male-born medical science. Men have been killers — but many more lives have been saved because they’ve also been curers.

There are two reasons, one more politically incorrect than the other, why men are the groundbreakers: inclination and ability. Ivanka Trump has been on a crusade to get women into scientific and high-tech fields. She ought to watch the excellent documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox,” which points out that women are more likely to enter non-traditional fields (e.g., computer tech) in relatively patriarchal India than in über-egalitarian Norway. Why? Because India’s poverty forces women to go where the money is; in rich nations, however, they can afford to follow their hearts. As for where this takes them, there’s a reason boys would play with erector sets and girls with dolls — and, no, it’s not conditioning.

Dr. Larry Summers lost his job as Harvard University’s president in 2006 for saying that there may be few women in top science positions because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” When analyzing this, one could point out (not that I’d ever consider such a thing) that, contrary to popular myth, men have somewhat higher IQs than women do (and brains approximately 11 percent larger). Moreover, the gap in intrinsic scientific aptitude is likely even greater than that I.Q. gap of five points would indicate.

Yet none of this matters. You see, it isn’t the average person, or even the average intelligent person, who makes the great breakthroughs. It is the genius, the fantastically gifted.

And such people are virtually always male.

For example, “[A]t the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one,” wrote Professor Richard Lynn in 2010. Of course, the ratio varies depending on what data you use, but the pattern is unmistakable, consistent and finds no disagreement among experts: As you move up the I.Q. scale, the ratio becomes more skewed in men’s favor until (according to the study here) the category “I.Q. over 176,” where there is no ratio — because no woman scored that high.

Why this disparity? I’d theorize that it’s for the same reason why males are more likely to develop X-linked chromosomal abnormalities (such as color-blindness or hemophilia): because, put simply, the Y (male) chromosome increases the chances of anomalies’ emergence. And, well, genius is an anomaly.

Of course, this phenomenon would apply to other abilities as well, whether in music, art, athletics, cooking, chess, writing or, well, most anything else under the sun.

This is why virtually all history’s inventors and innovators have been men. It’s why, barring some bizarre, nature-rending genetic engineering (which would also be birthed by men), they always will be.

What implications does this hold for society and policy? First, it’s a fool’s errand and highly destructive to try to equalize the number of men and women in the STEM fields. After all, if we ever instituted what the Bill Clinton administration desired — applying Title IX “proportionality” mandates to STEM — it would not magically breed female geniuses or even spark women’s interest in STEM.

But it might result in denying some brilliant men the opportunity to exploit their potential.

Now, China already produces 10 times as many scientists as we do (with just four times the population). Do we want to make that ratio 20 to 1? Thirty to one? Then just keep it up with the political correctness.

Second, as wise parents have always understood, boys must be given outlets for their boundless energy. As someone I knew once put it, “Boys always have to be doing something — even if it’s the wrong thing.” It will more likely be the wrong thing (e.g., gangs) if we rob them of right things, which is what happens when in the name Equality™ we remove their necessary outlets (e.g., applying Title IX and eliminating boys’ athletic opportunities).

Remember, again, the choice is dynamism or dangerousness, whether that dangerousness is violence or the self-destructiveness of drinking or drugs. The same thing causing little boys to explore, sometimes where they shouldn’t, motivates them to later explore all manner of arenas, pushing back frontiers in science and medicine, creating and innovating, building and breaking through. Active little boys become actuating grown men, for genius without impetus goes as far as an engine without fuel.

Returning to anti-male insanity, years ago feminists in Sweden, Germany and Australia adopted a new cause — compelling men to sit down while urinating — and did succeed in getting the urinals removed from a Swedish elementary school. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of, as Dr. Walter E. Williams related it, “triumphing in their masculinity.” Of course, it’s triumphant masculinity that created the whole modern world and that made arguments over urination technique possible. Because, yeah, men invented the flush toilet, too.

Speaking of which, that’s precisely where feminism and equality dogma ought to be put.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (334 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Very interesting. Note that in the original movie version of Bedazzled, Lust, Gluttony, and Avarice are portrayed (I’ll let you guess which one is played by Raquel Welch), and Anger, Sloth, Vanity, and Envy by men.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think men do pretty well at gluttony as well. But consider today’s state of affairs where even suggesting that there are endemic differences between men and women (unless those differences paint the female as superior, thus is birthed the beta-male) can, and likely will, get you fired from most of corporate America and academia.

      These are sad times in that regard. There’s a certain underlying point that is difficult to refute though: Men made a horrific mess of the last century in terms of wars fought and the overall body count. That doesn’t mean that women can’t do worse. Their mess (such as the idiot Merkle in Germany) can bring about destruction in less dramatic, but as significant, ways. And what is the body count now on abortions?

  2. John Sandhofner says:

    Interesting article. You can image what the feminist will be saying about it.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The proper response, John, is to beg forgiveness for our toxic masculinity and to pretend that men and women are always and ever exactly the same…except for those times when women say they must be treated as superior. And all of those distinctions are left entirely to their discretion.

      The male of the species is currently in quite a bind. As my brother wryly notes, given that Islam is a man-centric religion/social system, if they just modernized their marketing, they could make great gains in America from conversion and not just “refugee” immigration. Maybe something like: “Tired of being treated as second best because you’re a man? Would you like to turn the tables on women and put them under veils and back to the status of barefoot-and-pregnant? Then have you heard about the Prophet Mohammed, blessed be his name?”

      Or something like that. I’m sure Madison Avenue could do even better.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I can name a dozen reasons why Hayden Christensen and Anakin Skywalker were all wrong for Star Wars. But appearing not at all on my list was his supposed Toxic Masculinity. Toxic acting, maybe.

    Anyway, if you’re now dating a woman I recommend a dash-cam like the police use now. Maybe you could have one implanted in your forehead. Plus, you’ll need various waiver forms at the ready. These can probably be conveniently done as an app on the iPhone.

    + May I look at you? [Sign here: __________________]

    + May I dream about you? [Sign here: __________________]

    + May I touch your hand? [Sign here: __________________]

    Etc. Of course, some colleges have already gone this route to some extent. As my brother and I quip, “We should buy stock in the sex doll industry.” I can’t help but think those life-like robots will grow even more lifelike. And until they are official granted “rights,” it might be the safer bet for the male of the species.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Of course, sex dolls can be used for more than one purpose. In Tom Sharpe’s novel Wilt (first of a series; most of his novels are stand-alones), the title character finds himself trapped at one point (waking up after a party in which he evidently drank too much) in the embrace of an inflatable sex doll. He then uses it to do what he’d like to do to his wife (though they get more or less reconciled by the end of the novel), leading to interesting problems with the police.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Of course, women never lie about rape: A woman accused this football star of rape after he stopped replying to her texts.

    All men know that women are the better liars and can hold a grudge longer than any man. And they excel at emotional blackmail.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    It seems that a Democratic congressional candidate in Kansas has fallen afoul of the sexual harassment war. In this case, the candidate is a woman and the accuser is a male who, after bring fired a dozen years ago, claimed it was in retaliation for refusing to engage in sex with her. The company settled with him, but the woman always denied it — but was pretty much forced to drop out anyway. The link is:


  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    A local talk radio DJ is convinced with all the accusations of sexual harassment/etc coming out that the Dims are positioning themselves as the party of women to the exclusion of men in general.

    If the Dims can get the majority of women and the eunuchs, who are an ever-growing portion of the populace, maybe they can win. But I doubt it.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Their problem is that married women not only don’t hate men, but tend to be very concerned about their husbands’ rights as well as their own. No doubt some single women have a similar view of their housemate (Elizabeth would be a good example).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I’m thinking, Mr. Kung, that there are always good (cynically speaking) politics to flow from whatever is happening in the culture, particularly if your culture is deeply rooted in the politics. You and I, of course, would likely be in complete agreement that there is a connection between culture and politics (government) that is much stronger on the Left side of the spectrum than the right. And when we do try to connect the two, we get a Trump (and once in a blue moon, a Reagan). And that’s not to diminish any of Trump’s accomplishments, few of which would have been accomplished even by a Ted Cruz.

      Probably the best definition of an Establishment Republican (and their lackeys) beyond pure monetary and power concerns (and that is a very large slice of the pie) is their ability to assimilate the continuing Orwellian absurdities of the Left and thus to help define and establish an always new (and leftward moving) “politeness point.” That is the point where only the retrograde Roy Moores believe otherwise, whether it be gay marriage, transgenderism, and even global warming.

      The Republican Establishment and their lackeys will, can, and have adapted to the meme of “women as chronic victim of male oppression.” They will thus be “polite” (that is, acquiesce to the Left’s agenda and help solidify it). The Republican Establishment never has any problem embracing whatever “new normal” comes down the pike. Their mouthpieces in the media (such as National Review) may not be short of articles intellectually critiquing feminist overreaches. But at the end of the day they will attack as retrograde, if not entirely offensive, any attempt to stem or roll back those overreaches.

      In essence, the Establishment Republicans (and their lackeys, including media lackeys) are the new normal of the beta-male, those who “gentlemanly” champion (if only passively) the idea of women-as-victims and view themselves as heroes for their groveling. To actually stand up to women as they overreach is not thinkable. Thus — click, click, click — the Left continues to ratchet society leftward with no small help from the useful idiot Establishment Republicans.

      You and I and the rest of the world who have not accepted the Orwellian insanities are left to pick our way through this as best we can. Few, if any, of us are rapists, sexual cads, or bully males. But we understand that such prejudices will always be the underlying assumption about us. As we play fair with women because we are gentlemen first, we transcend the Orwellian insanities to some degree. But the good graces and manners of gentlemanliness have their limits. At any time our dark underbelly of toxic masculinity, white privilege, etc., can be revealed, if only by an otherwise benign compliment of, “You look very nice today, Susan.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        A pretty fair description, though I will note that sometimes the GOP Beltway Bandits do fight back — at least if they don’t have to challenge someone with an Official Victim Identity.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Nothing spectacularly new to the crowd here, but here’s Rise of the Zeta Males by Derek Hunter.

    • Rosalys says:

      I made the mistake of clicking onto the links provided for the Hilary tattoo and the “Brony.” Ugh! What a mistake! For once you see something, it’s very difficult to unsee it.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I confess. I had never heard of the Bronies:

        They’re not overly effeminate. Many aren’t gay. They aren’t predatory, or even being ironic. They are just guys. Dudes. Dudes who like My Little Pony.

        If you say so. Count me as more of a “Frankie.” In theory, at least, I sing classy songs and chase Ava Gardner.

        As for that Hillary tattoo, the image itself is somewhat complimentary to that hag. But unless worn on one’s butt, it’s hard to imagine the type of moral decrepitude it would take to think etching that into your skin would be a good idea.

        Merry Christmas, Rosie.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’ll believe the backlash when I see it, but Kyle Smith has an article titled: A male backlash against #MeTo is brewing:

    Consider what’s happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found “many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately,” reported The Miami Herald. “I had a senator say, ‘I need my aide here in the room because I need a chaperone,’ ” lobbyist Jennifer Green told the paper. “I said, ‘Senator, why do you need a chaperone? . . . Do you feel uncomfortable around me?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘anyone can say anything with the door shut.’ ”

    Women could find themselves being marginalized because it is too risky to work with them.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is a frequent potential consequence of anti-discrimination laws. If you face potential discrimination claims for firing a member of some group, the easiest way to deal with that is to minimize the number you hire. (Ideally that might be none, but that would be considered proof in itself of discrimination.)

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This is the first time I have heard anything near to the truths mentioned here at ST, particularly by Brad.


    Watch it and spread it. There is a fight for the soul of humanity going on.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      He’s 100% right on. And while watching this I kept thinking “Parents, pull your kids out of the public schools. Pull your kids out of the public schools.”

      So I was tickled pink (maybe tickled red-state red) when Petersen advised parents to take their kids out of classes if they were teaching the usual hogwash about white privilege, “diversity,” “inclusiveness,” etc., because that’s not education that’s indoctrination.

      Blather blather blather from most of the talking heads on TV. Selling books. Selling face time. Bitch bitch bitch. Analyze analyze analyze. An incestuous echo-chamber industry onto itself. But this guy raised himself above that by suggesting specific actions that people can take. Bravo.

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Why am I not surprised that the New York Times appointed this idiot to its editorial board? Both a racist and man-hater. But mainly a racist.


    Maybe she is a secret weapon of Kim Jong Un, or maybe she is simply expressing the well-know xenophobia of many Koreans and adding man-hate on top of that.

    Being only 30 years old, she has a lot of time to spread her nonsense.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The amusing thing is that the Slimes is run by white male leftists. Clearly they suffer badly from the usual white leftist guilt trip, and this is the price they pay (which, like all their notions, comes at someone else’s expense).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s not racism if they deserve it. It’s “social justice.”

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        In case you didn’t see this yesterday, I thought it might amuse you.


        Funny how the people who go violent because of political beliefs appear to be leftists.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          These people are partisanly insane. There is almost certainly nothing Trump has done to effect this woman negatively in any material way (and because of the bettering economy, likely in a positive way).

          The Daily Drama ain’t just a river in Egypt. People are going seriously out of their minds as they are rope-a-doped by all the people (Democrats and Leftists) who find it useful to have a population that is kept in a state of being enraged.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            About 20 years ago, looking at some of the comments we got from liberals in FOSFAX, I came up with the theory of virulent liberalism to explain it. The idea is that something happens (the 1994 election, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the election and then re-election of Bush, the election of Trump) to terrify dextrophobic leftist paranoids. At that point, they will do anything to escape that which they fear. The fact that the fear is totally irrational is irrelevant.

            Of course, the Inner Party (who aren’t frightened, just greedy for total power) encourage the Outer Party’s fear with vicious lies about the GOP and conservatives (as we all know, not exactly the same thing). So what happens (riots, for example) are acceptable to the Inner Party because they think it will help their quest for total power, and by the Outer Party because they’ll do Whatever It Takes to deal with their terror.

  11. pst4usa says:

    We’ve come a long way from the , “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” Democrats haven’t we.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      When Elizabeth and I visited the Gettysburg battlefield in 2001, we came across some patriotic message by FDR up on (I think) Oak Hill. I think it had to do with unity (a logical choice for the location). Elizabeth commented that his party would say the opposite then (and also now). The party’s change from patriotic liberal to America-phobic left has been in process since the late 1960s, and really speeded up under the Black God, the first president to share the full leftist mindset.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *