In August of 2025, I was contacted by a journalist who was writing an article about “mankeeping” and the role of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Division 51 in publishing the idea in its journal Psychology of Men & Masculinities. Given my essay/podcast from June 2025, “
"In the old days, this used to be called love. It was called love because many women understood that in exchange for the emotional and social care that they provided their partners, they received something in return".
In my marriage, and in the marriages of all my relatives and friends this is still the case.
It is the source of happiness and contentedness in life and the basis for all we do.
Ferrara et al appear to have a very distorted view of the realities of life.
I believe the ideal relationship is one based on mutual devotion. I have such a relationship. The idea that I have to suffer from "womankeeping", or that she has to deal with "mankeeping", is ridiculous. We are different, as man and woman. We both bring things to the table as a result of our biological sex, gender roles, etc. And those differences are celebrated.
Feminism is a fundamentally hateful ideology based on ridiculous, patently false assumptions. It pits women against men as if we are at war and women must win. No such war exists except in the minds of feminists.
I appreciate you calling out the blatantly sexist notion of "mankeeping."
Is it sexist? As always, reverse the sexes and imagine the results. Imagine a mainstream media outlet publishing an article about how men are tired of "womankeeping" and imagine the results - cancellation, street protests, government intervention.
I was quoted with credit in the article in The Dispatch. I was not quoted in full, presumably because the journalist had a word limit for the article, and can only include a selection of quotes. But that's why I have published all of my quotes here.
A brilliant response James. This type of woman expects the world to revolve around them - I call it 'The Princess Delusion'. If only they could see how absolutely 'silly' they are...
How can they ever see how silly they are when people keep taking them seriously, like James responding seriously to the idea of "mankeeping". They are narcissists who crave validation, and being taken seriously provides that validation. It's called narcissistic supply.
Thank you, James. A woman on Substack just posted an article on male sexual anatomy, and how the partners of men could please them. There were some comments that said, "No, not interested". This is the rot caused by feminism.
Typical. After women spend several years industriously alienating their husbands/ boyfriends from every friend they've ever had, they start complaining that their husbands have no social life outside the home.
In another context--a discussion of moral philosophy, say, or even theology--someone could raise the important but often ignored topic of what the word "love" actually means--what it has meant, could mean, and should mean. But this context of "mankeeping" that Ferrara assumes (or "womankeeping" for that matter) is very limited in its ability to account for human needs.
Marriage, a universal institution, originated to serve a variety of needs--notably to ensure the best possible environment for children (its sine qua non) but also to exchange property, increase status and form clan or tribal alliances and so on. We have no archaeological, cross-cultural or literary reasons to assume, however, that marriage has ever meant nothing more than a division of labor. Ideally, at least in Judeo-Christian communities, marriage is not merely an institutional ledger to keep score of economic, social or any other debts. Even in ancient times, people hoped that marriage would rest on a firmer, richer and more enduring foundation that that. And they described it in ways that went far beyond material, physiological and demographic needs. They saw "love" as a continuum between gratifying personal wants or needs and, ultimately, satisfying the need to give and receive what could be called "altruistic" devotion--sometimes to the point of self-sacrifice in one way or another. We all need to be needed, in short, whether as men or as women. Denying that, as Ferrara implicitly or explicitly does, amounts to denying a fundamental feature of human nature and thus to trivializing relations between men and women (or any other relationships).
Sounds like a classic case of the motte and bailey fallacy. I didn't have a name for this tactic until recently but I most definitely have experienced it when I've pushed back against some of the man-bashing on social media.
I would look closely at 'research' claiming to compare emotional support provided by women and men towards their partners. Was it based on anonymous surveys in feminist magazines, or by sampling females at feminist-saturated universities? Was there any effort to establish the validity and reliability of responses? Were men asked at all?
There may well be a sex difference in partner emotional support but, like partner violence, it's a matter of degree, statistics and nuance. Men most certainly are not limited to contributing practical support. Many men are the emotional rock for their female partners and find themselves consoling, reassuring and affirming the woman in addition to providing practical help if possible when she is in a state of depression or hysteria. Females suffer more often from emotional disorders and personality disorders including Borderline Personality.
"In the old days, this used to be called love. It was called love because many women understood that in exchange for the emotional and social care that they provided their partners, they received something in return".
In my marriage, and in the marriages of all my relatives and friends this is still the case.
It is the source of happiness and contentedness in life and the basis for all we do.
Ferrara et al appear to have a very distorted view of the realities of life.
I believe the ideal relationship is one based on mutual devotion. I have such a relationship. The idea that I have to suffer from "womankeeping", or that she has to deal with "mankeeping", is ridiculous. We are different, as man and woman. We both bring things to the table as a result of our biological sex, gender roles, etc. And those differences are celebrated.
Feminism is a fundamentally hateful ideology based on ridiculous, patently false assumptions. It pits women against men as if we are at war and women must win. No such war exists except in the minds of feminists.
I appreciate you calling out the blatantly sexist notion of "mankeeping."
Is it sexist? As always, reverse the sexes and imagine the results. Imagine a mainstream media outlet publishing an article about how men are tired of "womankeeping" and imagine the results - cancellation, street protests, government intervention.
Enough.
Great responses Jim. You nailed it! I am curious if you heard anything back. I am guessing not.
In the article in The Dispatch, the journalist states that Ferrara declined to comment on my email responses.
Which means you beat her. You gave her the iron fist in the velvet glove.
So the only thing they included was the bolded text? That likely wouldn't not make any sense?
The bolded text represents the quotations from me that the journalist weaved into their article.
were you given any credit? So basically they didn't really quote you they simply used your ideas? Now that sounds like div 51. lol
I was quoted with credit in the article in The Dispatch. I was not quoted in full, presumably because the journalist had a word limit for the article, and can only include a selection of quotes. But that's why I have published all of my quotes here.
A brilliant response James. This type of woman expects the world to revolve around them - I call it 'The Princess Delusion'. If only they could see how absolutely 'silly' they are...
How can they ever see how silly they are when people keep taking them seriously, like James responding seriously to the idea of "mankeeping". They are narcissists who crave validation, and being taken seriously provides that validation. It's called narcissistic supply.
Thanks for the work you do. Great stuff.
Thank you, James. A woman on Substack just posted an article on male sexual anatomy, and how the partners of men could please them. There were some comments that said, "No, not interested". This is the rot caused by feminism.
Typical. After women spend several years industriously alienating their husbands/ boyfriends from every friend they've ever had, they start complaining that their husbands have no social life outside the home.
Excellent, James, excellent.
In another context--a discussion of moral philosophy, say, or even theology--someone could raise the important but often ignored topic of what the word "love" actually means--what it has meant, could mean, and should mean. But this context of "mankeeping" that Ferrara assumes (or "womankeeping" for that matter) is very limited in its ability to account for human needs.
Marriage, a universal institution, originated to serve a variety of needs--notably to ensure the best possible environment for children (its sine qua non) but also to exchange property, increase status and form clan or tribal alliances and so on. We have no archaeological, cross-cultural or literary reasons to assume, however, that marriage has ever meant nothing more than a division of labor. Ideally, at least in Judeo-Christian communities, marriage is not merely an institutional ledger to keep score of economic, social or any other debts. Even in ancient times, people hoped that marriage would rest on a firmer, richer and more enduring foundation that that. And they described it in ways that went far beyond material, physiological and demographic needs. They saw "love" as a continuum between gratifying personal wants or needs and, ultimately, satisfying the need to give and receive what could be called "altruistic" devotion--sometimes to the point of self-sacrifice in one way or another. We all need to be needed, in short, whether as men or as women. Denying that, as Ferrara implicitly or explicitly does, amounts to denying a fundamental feature of human nature and thus to trivializing relations between men and women (or any other relationships).
Sounds like a classic case of the motte and bailey fallacy. I didn't have a name for this tactic until recently but I most definitely have experienced it when I've pushed back against some of the man-bashing on social media.
I would look closely at 'research' claiming to compare emotional support provided by women and men towards their partners. Was it based on anonymous surveys in feminist magazines, or by sampling females at feminist-saturated universities? Was there any effort to establish the validity and reliability of responses? Were men asked at all?
There may well be a sex difference in partner emotional support but, like partner violence, it's a matter of degree, statistics and nuance. Men most certainly are not limited to contributing practical support. Many men are the emotional rock for their female partners and find themselves consoling, reassuring and affirming the woman in addition to providing practical help if possible when she is in a state of depression or hysteria. Females suffer more often from emotional disorders and personality disorders including Borderline Personality.