In March of 2025, I was contacted by a journalist who asked me to comment on a 2019 Washington Post article titled, “Why the Patriarchy is Killing Men.” The notes below are my response to the journalist verbatim, other than minor changes in format and grammar.
I agree. The author basically used the WEF Gender Equality Index as a measure of patriarchy. In my first note, I mentioned that the WEF's Index is invalid. Therefore, the notes could have stopped there.
Even if the premise of the article were true, it would mean that we could live 80 years as traditional masculine men, or 84 years as feminized men in a feminist utopia. I'm pretty sure most men would happily forfeit the extra four years.
You have to let go of your hang ups about feminized vs masculine men. Also it is a false dichotomy. Also most enforcers of feminism tend to fight the masculine stereotype. Obedient work horses who dish out violence to men on behalf of women.
So your definition of masculine vs feminized is not a good one form my point of view then. Traditionally masculine men are the biggest servants of women.
The white knight thug cop or bully boy is considered masculine. The traditional stoic provider man is considered masculine.
Traditional masculinity is servitude to women.
Effeminate men or feminine men are not much better. Most men are servants to women, and are hostile to other men.
What you're describing is an artificial and purely Western conception of masculinity, rooted in medieval notions of chivalry and corrupted by modern feminism. It's a grotesque usurpation of masculinity defined not in terms of Man, but of Woman. As you put it: "Traditional masculinity is servitude to women." But non-Western cultures have no such history or tradition, and in these cultures, masculinity is natural manliness, strength, self-reliance, virility, machismo. Of course, this has been redefined in the West as "toxic masculinity" which must be purged from society. Accordingly I have purged myself from Australia to South East Asia, where I'm not required to serve, obey, listen to, and believe all women, and attack other men who fail to do so, in order to prove my masculinity. Therein lies the difference in our definition of masculinity - Western vs. non-Western.
Bravo James! Great work in breaking down the misandry that is so invisible to people who nod when they hear the word patriarchy!
Women love men who are independent, financially or otherwise. They are not so hot on men who are dependent in just about any way. Given this, men strive for independence, or at least to look independent. Then she expects him to go into therapy where he must leave his independence behind or worse yet be dependent on some doctor for his health care. Now she expects him to be dependent, like her. It's easy right? Just make a 180. LOL
From Google: patriarchy is a social system where men control a disproportionately large share of social, economic, political and religious power, and inheritance usually passes down the male line. For most men none of the above applies. We are just common, ordinary shmoes working at soul destroying jobs to keep the system working for everyone. Yes I have done risky things in my life and I'm lucky to be alive and I learned much and I had some success. Life is not preordained for anyone.
Thank you, James. I like to tell the feminists that feminism and gynocentrism is killing me, not "patriarc hy". Feminists were the ones that made sure there is vastly more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
Great work James but I think you overlooked the obvious problem with her diatribe.
The patriarchy doesn't exist so any beliefs along the lines of "The patriarchy is..." are nonsense.
I agree. The author basically used the WEF Gender Equality Index as a measure of patriarchy. In my first note, I mentioned that the WEF's Index is invalid. Therefore, the notes could have stopped there.
Denial of patriarchy is proof of patriarchy.
*sarcasm*
Yes that is feminist logic I have seen used without irony online.
Even if the premise of the article were true, it would mean that we could live 80 years as traditional masculine men, or 84 years as feminized men in a feminist utopia. I'm pretty sure most men would happily forfeit the extra four years.
You have to let go of your hang ups about feminized vs masculine men. Also it is a false dichotomy. Also most enforcers of feminism tend to fight the masculine stereotype. Obedient work horses who dish out violence to men on behalf of women.
I don't have any "hang ups" about feminized men, I simply despise them for pandering to women, at the expense of masculine men, as you describe.
Masculine men pander to women all the time. Your assumptions are wrong
We seem to have different ideas about masculinity. To my mind any man who panders to women is by definition NOT masculine.
So your definition of masculine vs feminized is not a good one form my point of view then. Traditionally masculine men are the biggest servants of women.
The white knight thug cop or bully boy is considered masculine. The traditional stoic provider man is considered masculine.
Traditional masculinity is servitude to women.
Effeminate men or feminine men are not much better. Most men are servants to women, and are hostile to other men.
What you're describing is an artificial and purely Western conception of masculinity, rooted in medieval notions of chivalry and corrupted by modern feminism. It's a grotesque usurpation of masculinity defined not in terms of Man, but of Woman. As you put it: "Traditional masculinity is servitude to women." But non-Western cultures have no such history or tradition, and in these cultures, masculinity is natural manliness, strength, self-reliance, virility, machismo. Of course, this has been redefined in the West as "toxic masculinity" which must be purged from society. Accordingly I have purged myself from Australia to South East Asia, where I'm not required to serve, obey, listen to, and believe all women, and attack other men who fail to do so, in order to prove my masculinity. Therein lies the difference in our definition of masculinity - Western vs. non-Western.
Bravo James! Great work in breaking down the misandry that is so invisible to people who nod when they hear the word patriarchy!
Women love men who are independent, financially or otherwise. They are not so hot on men who are dependent in just about any way. Given this, men strive for independence, or at least to look independent. Then she expects him to go into therapy where he must leave his independence behind or worse yet be dependent on some doctor for his health care. Now she expects him to be dependent, like her. It's easy right? Just make a 180. LOL
From Google: patriarchy is a social system where men control a disproportionately large share of social, economic, political and religious power, and inheritance usually passes down the male line. For most men none of the above applies. We are just common, ordinary shmoes working at soul destroying jobs to keep the system working for everyone. Yes I have done risky things in my life and I'm lucky to be alive and I learned much and I had some success. Life is not preordained for anyone.
Thank you, James. I like to tell the feminists that feminism and gynocentrism is killing me, not "patriarc hy". Feminists were the ones that made sure there is vastly more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
"Giving up a small slice of privilege in exchange for a longer (and happier) life seems like a pretty sweet deal to me."
A "small" slice of privilege? But I thought we men enjoyed immense privilege and power over women. That's what they're always telling us.
What publication is the 2025 journalist writing for?
I think the journalist writes for a couple of different outlets. If their piece is eventually published, I will share it at The Nuzzo Letter.