The Cure for Toxic Masculinity? Regular Misogyny!

You guys remember blogging? Remember how anyone could just start writing about whatever and have it hosted online? And further, do you remember how legacy media outlets decried it as the worst thing imaginable and a mockery of the journalistic world and the written word and an affront to God and akin to a war crime?

I do. That's why I find it so funny to see "news" outlets like the Telegraph churning out shit like this:

"Forget the knife wound. It's the infection we need to worry about."
"Forget the iceberg. It's the commingling of social classes we need to worry about."
"Forget the bone-dissolving gun we just invented. It's the thinness of your stupid skin we need to worry about."

If you're going to write op-eds like the news is your personal blog, then I'm going to treat it as such and mock you relentlessly. That's right: It's time for a good-old Fisking. Am I being rage-baited? Possibly. But this bait is delicious.

As the mother of sons, I wish we didn’t spend quite so much time knocking young men. TV talking points like Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere have focussed our attention on problematic blokes to such an extent that few pose an important question: What’s up with the femosphere? It seems that for every male who’s found his mentor in Andrew Tate or the late Charlie Kirk, there’s a young woman who’s been radicalised by Greta Thunberg and AOC (Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to you and me). On both sides of the Atlantic, polling shows young women are far more likely to skew Left than their male counterparts. It’s fair to say this emerging female cohort seems to live in ceaseless dread and fury of fossil fuels, Elon Musk, toxic masculinity, TERFs and neo-Nazis.

Alright, look. I'm far from an expert on logical fallacies (even though I have this adorable and excellent book about them). But this sure feels like a false equivalence to me. Yes, our boys are being impressed upon by intellectually dishonest grifters and sex traffickers, but isn't it just as bad that our girls are being "radicalized" by ... climate change activists and community-oriented politicians? Also, it's funny you mention AOC, a woman of Puerto Rican heritage who has definitely faced her share of racism and sexism. Why mention racism? Oh, no reason. Don't worry about it. It probably won't come up later.

Also also, I love any sentence that starts with "it's fair to say" and ends with a bunch of sweeping generalizations. "Ceaseless dread and fury," is it? Damn. Sounds exhausting. Sounds like we should really do something to address that.

I have some sympathy for this campaigning brigade of seething young women. The dark revelations that flowed from MeToo, the Epstein Files and horrific episodes like Sarah Everard’s murder at the evil hands of Met officer Wayne Couzens made most women’s blood boil. But my generation wasn’t raised on the sewer-tide of social media and fake news, where – if you’re not constantly vigilant – rage-inducing algorithms propel you towards blood-boiling content and agitators sweep you into causes you’re being groomed to embrace, rather than challenge.

You hear that, angry young ladycucks? Back in Rowan Pelling's day, women had the good sense to not let things like "sexual assault" or "fear of murder" or "institutional misogyny" get their goats. Everything was chill, yo. If a man got inappropriate or violent with a woman, it was totally copacetic as long as that woman wasn't you. What ever happened to sitting down after a long day of not working (because you weren't allowed to) in your husband's house (that he didn't consult you before buying) with a big glass of red wine (that you better not have with any food – can't be getting fat) and just vibing about how dope the universe is? When did subjugating yourself become a bad thing?

I tell you what: I'd like to see that lippy AOC spout her liberal nonsense in front of Archie Bunker. Whatever happened to role models like him? No wonder our young men are so lost.

To no one’s surprise, this mass seething isn’t making the Gen Z sisterhood happy. The Left’s own in-house magazine, The New Statesman, has a cover story this week titled “Meet the angry young women: the new feminism reshaping Britain”. ... Suffice to say, Lawford’s findings make for deeply depressing reading that should trouble us all. The more privileged class of women “are the most pessimistic of all” and less likely than working-class contemporaries to believe hard work will propel them to success. Equally startling was the fact young progressive females seem decidedly more negative about their male peers than vice versa, while “white women are more likely to feel the country is racist than non-white women”.

Man, this piece is a mess. It's all over the place. That's on me for expecting any different from a personal blog published by a men's rights activist, I guess. Wait – I forgot. This was in the Telegraph. Even by their standards, this feels inexcusable.

What's funny to me is that the rebuttal to that wall of text is actually pretty simple: Uh, yeah, obviously. Why wouldn't you expect privileged people to recognize their privileges? Why is it "startling" that progressive women are more negative about male peers after decades (or centuries) of terrible behavior from men going completely excused or being covered up? What evidence is there that the country – Britain in this case, but I think generally applicable stateside and elsewhere – doesn't suffer from some amount of institutional racism? These are all deep-seated problems. And it's the article that's depressing? Girl, it's society that's depressing. Don't get mad at people for noticing.

I was reminded of how US commentator Rob Henderson coined the phrase “luxury beliefs” after attending Yale following service in the US air force – having also survived a traumatic childhood, where he was fostered at the age of 3. Henderson noted that the affluent, privileged students around him constantly espoused opinions that bore no relation to the stable circumstances that had jet-propelled them to the top of the heap. His peers would denounce capitalism, the nuclear family, marriage, fidelity and the key role of fathers, while not acknowledging they’d benefitted from that very system.

Jesus. This is like that comic about criticizing society, but in written form.

I sort of get what I'm reading now, at least. This personal essay from a high school history student isn't really about "checking in" on women. It is – you guessed it! – blaming them for society's ills. That's why "fidelity" and "the key role of fathers" are mentioned by name. Grr, women! If you'd just stop holding men accountable for things, there wouldn't be so goddamn many single moms out there and society could thrive! Stop cheating on men and they won't need Andrew Tate anymore! See? It's easy when you make shit up and scapegoat someone. Can I be an op-ed writer now?

This might be surprising, but one anecdote from one political commentator doesn't really tip the scales all that much for me. I don't even think Rob Henderson's Yalie peers really believed social structures didn't benefit them, even if they had critical things to say. I think that they, rightly, think a lot of those circumstances are overrated or outright horseshit. Unless the implication here is that everyone would be an Ivy Leaguer if they just worked hard and had a dad at home. In which case: Hey, Rowan Pelling, where do you buy your art supplies? I could really use a paintbrush that broad.

Last thing before I move on: It's 2026, people. If you aren't denouncing capitalism, you're behind the times. All the cool kids have been doing it for a while, so don't expect to just jump on the bandwagon once it goes mainstream.

What are we to do with female malcontents and their apocalyptic pessimism? If an increasing number of educated young women feel hopeless about the world’s future, hostile towards men, intend to spurn relationships (let alone marriage), declare themselves non-binary and don’t want to have children, as Lawford reports, then we’re all up Faeces Creek without a paddle. And that’s before we examine their desire to overturn capitalism, without having the faintest grasp of basic economics. I see signs of this generational disaffection in my four beloved nieces, while the four male cousins are more happy-go-lucky. Three of the four young men have girlfriends, while only one of the nieces is currently dating a young man – and two of them have declared they don’t want children, while all the boys remain baby-positive.

Now this is the kind of unvarnished crazy shit I was waiting for. This is an insane position. Silly females! While you were busy inventing new pronouns and sexual orientations, young men were out there happily-go-luckily going on a little something I like to call "dates." Ever heard of them? Yeah, didn't think so. Maybe you should spend a little less time reading The Communist Manifesto and a little more time learning how to put on makeup, you prude whores.

What's truly dumb about this whole exercise is that not once does Pelling put the pieces together that maybe this pessimism and anger has a root cause ... a root cause she already identified. There are a LOT of reasons to be angry and depressed and generally ambivalent toward a society that constantly tells you that you aren't enough and that you should be grateful for what you've got because it could always be worse. And since she's so keen on anecdotal support for sweeping generalizations, might I direct your attention to Exhibit A: The very thing she's currently fucking writing. She's doing it live! Why aren't you happy, you ungrateful sluts? You'd look a lot prettier if you stopped crying and smiled more.

This type of thing bothers me to no end. When faced with a problem, why are people so quick to disparage the reaction instead of looking at the problem itself? I know the answer – because they don't want to, or it'll help score some cheap political points, or because people can be sullen dicks about things, whatever it is.

Not for nothing, but considering this piece laments how pessimistic liberal women are, its tone sure is pessimistic. Maybe we should check in on Rowan Pelling while we're at it.

This imbalance between the sexes is perilous for wider society. How on earth do women of my generation persuade these young Green Amazons that the most certain forms of consolation and meaning in an often bleak world reside in passionate love, family life and the blessed distraction from Armageddon that is parenthood? And that men are, by and large, decent, chivalrous, thoughtful and disarmingly funny? Just ask the Millennial socialist I know, who recently married a Conservative-voting Army officer.

Don't you see, ladies? Your place isn't out "solving" the world's so-called "problems." It's at home, re-arranging your personal lives in order to focus on a different, more myopic set of problems. I mean, unless you want the straight, white population to die off, which it kinda seems like you do. That's racist, babes.

Remember that book of cute animal logical fallacies? This is what we in the business call a "false dilemma." In essence, either:

1. Women can keep their principles and be glum, depressed, fugly lesbians who hate men, hate their countries, find righteousness in their anger, don't want children, and all have massive sapphic crushes on AOC, OR:
2. Women can forget all about those problems by just settling down and starting a family with a nice man!

To which I say: uh, do women get a say? Because it sure sounds like you're giving them two shitty options. Maybe there's room for women to find happiness beyond the traditional context of a husband and kids? Maybe a few pieces of anecdotal evidence that things are peachy keen isn't super compelling when you have eyes and ears and a brain that tell you otherwise? Hey, I'm not a woman and I'm also furious at the state of the world. Can we go back to blaming the manosphere for my woes, or should we just cut out the middleman and blame Greta Thunberg?

Perhaps that’s the answer: we stage an experimental, civic version of Love Island, involving scores of unhappy, Green-voting young women being stranded on an island with a troop of cavalry officers or Royal Marines. At the very least, they’d be forced to acknowledge that we’re often drawn to people for the ways in which they differ from us, rather than despite it. In fact, the more I think about it, Leftie Island could prove the salvation of humanity.

Okay. I don't know much about this aspiring young writer, so it's possible this is her version of a joke. From a comedy standpoint, I'm offended, but it's better than the alternative: that she means this somewhat sincerely and that women's situations would improve if they had to Stockholm Syndrome their way through an even smaller, less appealing dating pool.

I just can't fathom thinking this is an acceptable stance to take. Yes, there are countless examples of people overcoming incredible odds, navigating horrifying circumstances, and still finding happiness and fulfillment. No one's questioning that it happens. No one's minimizing how incredible it is to see. But Jesus, wouldn't it be cool if everyone had an easier path to happiness instead of being told to shut the fuck up and deal because others have it worse?

Let's put it another way: if I tell you I'm angry about how expensive my blood pressure meds are you tell me to calm down because hey, man, lots of people don't even have insurance, you've got it good ... is the real problem that I'm ungrateful? No, of course not. That's insane, and I should be allowed to slap you in the mouth for suggesting it. The real problem lies elsewhere and no amount of gaslighting will convince me otherwise, just like young, educated British women know better when it comes to their own issues. Then again, what do I know? I run a blog that is currently mocking another blog. Curious!