Men are “going Galt”

Now that women control the world, every man haz a sad. And so men everywhere are going Galt: Not getting married, not going to college, and taking low-wage jobs. Haha, TAKE THAT, WOMEN!

Or at least that’s the thesis of Men’s Rights Activist Helen Smith and Independent Woman (TM) Charlotte Hays:

Smith has a book coming out from Encounter Books entitled Male Strike: Society’s War on Men. The thesis of the book is that the deck is so stacked against men that they are “going Galt,” as Smith puts it. The term comes from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in which society’s productive members went on strike—led by John Galt—because they were being exploited.

“In the case of men, the government and the politicians work in cahoots with women to extract money from men,” Smith says.” And then men aren’t entitled to a lot of the benefits, such as WIC (Women, Infants and Children Program) or a lot of welfare.”

The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women.

Sure. Men — and she’s talking about blue-collar men here, mostly — are intentionally taking low-paying jobs and intentionally not going to college just to screw over women. Good revenge, boys! If a feminist wrote that, she’d be (rightly) pilloried for being a man-hating idiot, bulldozing over the legitimate problems faced by blue-collar men to prop up a bizarre conspiracy theory about how women are “in cahoots” with the government (a government run by… who now?) and men are irrational, stupid and vindictive. But Dr. Helen is a Friend To Men. Good friend there, men.

Also: Men can qualify for WIC if they are pregnant or have recently had a baby. And, if like most low-income people they do not qualify for WIC, they can apply for TANF, unemployment and a variety of other programs. Yes, they will get more government money if they are the sole provider for their children — because children cost money, and the purpose of many of these programs is to make sure no one starves. But it’s a new level of wah wah to say that you’re going to play videogames all day because you don’t want your hard-earned tax dollars to go to poor kids.

Not that many men are actually saying that. This is a nice reminder, though, that a lot of the folks who are anti-feminist “men’s rights” activists not only don’t really represent the interests of men, but seem to have a fairly dim view of the male population.

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Gender and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

173 Responses to Men are “going Galt”

  1. pheenobarbidoll says:

    Oh, I get it! Women must not pay taxes. That’s the only way money can be taken from men to support welfare programs. Otherwise, it’s money taken from women AND men to support welfare programs and that’s less unfair because it doesn’t just target poor poor men.

    I guess women bribe all those male politicians with sex, because we’re floozies too.

    • Fayeraylina says:

      Also, childless women don’t exist. I guess we’ll have to pay ALL the taxes now since the boys want to pout.

      • Tracey says:

        But by paying taxes and therefore providing for them, we are emasculating them by being the breadwinners and providers.

  2. mxe354 says:

    Objectivist language and MRA bullshit combined? I need to stab my fucking eyes.

  3. James says:

    I- What?

    This baffles me to no end.

  4. Linnaeus says:

    If these blue-collar men are going Galt, then I guess they’re just lying when they say they want better jobs. Sneaky!

  5. Lolagirl says:

    Just a few days ago I was driving through a fancier part of town and ended up behind a car with “John Galt2″ on its vanity plate. I wanted to stop and ask if the driver was being ironic, but sadly knowing how my neighbors think I’m going with no.

    And now I know that the driver may also be part of some MRA movement intended to stick it to us ladies for taking over the world and throwing them aside in the process.

    • deadleaf says:

      well to be fair, there are other ideologies and fandoms that use the John Galt character as a mascot other than that AREN’T bat shit insane radical MRA’s.

    • Ledasmom says:

      So, if I understand vanity plates correctly, he paid the state government extra money in order to reference John Galt on his license plate?
      Funniest Ayn Randian misstep since somebody decided to call the apartment complex near us “The Fountainhead”.

      • Lolagirl says:

        Yes, that about sums it up.

        My aforementioned neighbors? Have lots of talking points and canned rants about self-sufficiency, bootstrapping and small government. Clearly, any honest to goodness perspective wrt to their mindsets is sorely lacking.

      • im says:

        Self sufficiency is nice. Being an asshole about self sufficiency is not.

      • Alyson says:

        The ones who talk the most about self-sufficiency are the assholes. The good ones are quiet about it.

    • littlem says:

      At least he’s got a plausible identifying marker.
      TBH, I’ve prayed for that as I then know whom to stay away from without either endangering myself or wasting my time talking to someone like that.

  6. Odin says:

    Other ways that the government conspires to steal money from men and give it to women:

    – Roads (women are allowed to drive, even though everyone knows they’re all terrible drivers)
    – Schools (why are we educating women, again? the smart ones should just go to finishing school and get a rich husband)
    – Libraries (all those trashy romance novels!)
    – Child support (totally unfair, why do women get the right to choose what happens to their unimportant bodies when men don’t have the right to choose what happens to their important wallets)
    – welfare queens (insert racist statement here)
    – lesbians

    • – lesbians

      I feel like I should expand on why lesbians are a tax conspiracy in America. My evidence:

      1) Lesbians can have children by artificial insemination, thus oppressing men they haven’t even met.
      2) Lesbians are women who live with women, which means that men have to pay for not just ONE woman, but TWO women living together!
      3) Some of these lesbians are still on birth control, despite not needing to stop procreating! Thus, they stealz money from the medical establishment that could otherwise be curing men of important and horrible diseases like the inability to have six-hour erections on command.
      4) Lesbians earn much less than a straight or gay male household, thus paying fewer taxes. Men must therefore support them harder.
      5) Lesbians, after taking all these benefits, also regularly refuse to have threesomes with men! Unjust and unfair.
      And finally:
      6) The word “lesbian” is English, and comes from Greece. Which is in Europe, like England. ENGLAND WANTED TO TAX THE STATES, REMEMBER?

      • Jadey says:

        I feel like I should expand on why lesbians are a tax conspiracy in America.

        My god, you’re right! Quickly, we must throw all the lesbians into the harbour.

        LESBIANS. THE HORROR.

      • I’m up for the harbour-throwing! But my wife says she isn’t.

        I’m already Indian, though (the actual, subcontinental kind), so how does that work? I R SO CONFOOZED.

      • Unrelated but important: “Indian” is considered a horrible slur for First Nations or Aboriginal peoples here in Canada. I’m given to understand it isn’t in the US? D: I have a confusation, as this guy I knew used to say.

      • Chataya says:

        Unrelated but important: “Indian” is considered a horrible slur for First Nations or Aboriginal peoples here in Canada. I’m given to understand it isn’t in the US? D: I have a confusation, as this guy I knew used to say.

        Largely depends on who you are talking to. Some use it because they feel that “Native American” is just a PC word to alleviate white guilt. The accepted term seems to be “American Indian,” although most activists push for naming the specific tribes instead.

        Interesting reading:
        http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_070101.html
        http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96arc/ivatuck.pdf (census survey about term preference)

      • EG says:

        I try to err on the side of caution, not being of Native descent myself, but I do know of politically active Native Americans who use “(American) Indian.” One of my favorite bloggers, Debbie Reese, does:

        http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com

      • im says:

        Words I have heard used for them in a respectful context:

        American Indian (Which sounds like it means an immigrant from the subcontinent in Asia)

        Amerindian

        Native American (can be confused dictionary-wise with an American born citizen of European or other descent)

        First Nations

      • pheenobarbidoll says:

        Unrelated but important: “Indian” is considered a horrible slur for First Nations or Aboriginal peoples here in Canada. I’m given to understand it isn’t in the US? D: I have a confusation, as this guy I knew used to say.

        Depends on who you’re talking to. I use Indian, but I don’t really like it when non Indians do. NA is fine generally and sometimes American Indian (but this is just me, keep in mind) is ok. A lot of times it depends on who’s saying it. For instance, if you and I were speaking privately and you used the word Indian, it wouldn’t really bug me. Total stranger or someone who has shown racial ignorance? It would piss me off.

        The best advice I can give is use Indigenous People. Like the Indigenous Peoples of the US.

      • Huh, all the replies are really interesting! I’ll definitely keep that in mind. (I’m safe enough in Canada using First Nations or Aboriginals – though ideally I’d love to know the nation in question so I could pick the more appropriate one – but the US has always given me a bit of a headache, that way.) It’s really refreshing to be given a quick tip!

        I use Indian, but I don’t really like it when non Indians do…for instance, if you and I were speaking privately and you used the word Indian, it wouldn’t really bug me.

        Okie, I’ll keep that in mind. I actually have real difficulty addressing NA people as “Indian”, though, both because of the Canadian background making me flinch instinctively, and because it just feels…weird, and wrong, to call someone Indian who isn’t from India. I know, I know, Indian-centric thinking much? but we’ve had our cultural heads up our asses for thousands of years and the self-absorption’s hard to root out entirely.

        I will say, though, that the way Canadians goggle at me when I use the word Indian to describe subcontinentals, assessing me for racism while completely ignoring context (I mean, seriously? I was speaking of the Mughal motherfucking Empire. There wasn’t one in Manitoba, the last time I checked) annoys the shit out of me. And unfortunately, their tendency to correct me to “East Indian”, when I call myself Indian, accidentally emphasises the north-south imperialistic bullshit going on in India since around the Raj and pisses me off even harder. South Indians have a hard enough time asserting identity without random other people insisting we call ourselves East Indians, lol.

      • Jadey says:

        Late to the party, but there’s a really good post on this topic by âpihtawikosisân, in her words “a Plains Cree speaking Métis woman in Montreal”: a rose by any other name is a mihkokwaniy, which might shed some additional light on the discussion. Basically the same message as the other posters, but with more specific Canadian context too.

      • DouglasG says:

        #5 is an interesting variation on the Jimmy Beck Theory. Although he’s not above letting a riotous crowd waiting outside the police station know that they’ve picked up and are bringing in a “shirtlifter” suspected of murdering a teen boy, he does not at all mind “two queers doing it” because that means two women going spare. As he takes “two lesbians doing it” to mean two men going without, he must just be a little less ambitious than those who think – ooh, Threesome?

      • cherrybomb says:

        5) Lesbians, after taking all these benefits, also regularly refuse to have threesomes with men! Unjust and unfair.

        Indeed, it seems this is the crux of the issue…. A lot of straight men really hate lesbians for not being bi and into threesomes. They also hate bi women who are not into threesomes, since it defeats the whole point. What’s the point of a woman who bangs other women if there is no man present to enjoy it? Selfish womenfolk!

        Also, since I don’t want to make another post, I’ll say it here… the reason my son refers to himself as Navajo and Native American and not Indian is because calling himself Indian is geographically incorrect. :P

      • Also, since I don’t want to make another post, I’ll say it here… the reason my son refers to himself as Navajo and Native American and not Indian is because calling himself Indian is geographically incorrect. :P

        Lol…IKR? Fucking 17th-century Brits and their tendency to wander all over the world going “You Indians? You? How about you? I KNOW, UR ALL INDIUNZ LOL” like eager imperialistic tailwagging marauding puppy dogs.

      • miga says:

        Minirant: I jumped into online dating, and it annoys me to no end the messages from straight guys who are otherwise homophobic.

        I’m bi. It’s stated on my profile, my personality questions all state that homophobia is unacceptable, my about me page says don’t fucking exoticize me, yet men who believe gayness is a sin still come knocking. FFFUUU

        End rant.

      • J says:

        Oh noes… I iz offending teh menz with my existence. Commence ritual suicide :'(

    • John says:

      You forgot to mention that women trick men into getting themselves pregnant by stealing our sperm and then claim rape, but it’s obviously not even “rape-rape” or “forcible rape” if they’ve got themselves pregnant. (Correct, GOP?)

  7. Noadi says:

    Men can qualify for WIC if they are pregnant or have recently had a baby.

    My cis-male cousin received WIC benefits for his children when they were babies (twin boys plus a sister a year older) because he had sole custody of them. So men certainly do benefit from WIC in terms of their children getting adequate nutrition or because they are babies who will grow up to be men.

    • (BFing)Sarah says:

      Babies can grow up to be MEN???!!! Can children do this, too?

      Seriously, though, that is completely true that men can get WIC benefits. And, honestly I’m not sure how WIC works, but I do know that a married female friend of mine and her husband got WIC benefits for their infant b/c neither of them were employed so their income was zero. You don’t have to be a woman to get it…and the program definitely benefited two guys (including the baby)…I mean, I assume that the husband considered himself benefited by getting the things they need for the baby. “In order to apply for the WIC assistance program, one must be a pregnant woman, breastfeeding for up to one year, postpartum for up to six months, or have young infants (0–1 years old) and children (under 5 years old) with specific nutritional needs.” Doesn’t sound like that excludes men to me…unless they can’t have young infants or children with specific nutritional needs…

  8. John says:

    Hahaha!
    This is hilarious. Let me tell you, as a man, the MRA crowd speak for nobody but themselves. I don’t know why they are that way, maybe their mommies didn’t cuddle them enough when they were kids, to quote Full Metal Jacket. But they are a total irrelevance.

    Societal changes can be slow and you can only see the picture after a few years, but I can predict with complete confidence of being right that the “loser” young man trope (Seth Rogan etc) will soon be history. When young men realise they are being out-earned by their sisters and GFs, the better ones do do something about it: either accept / come to an arrangement about being stay at home dads If applicable), or get off their backsides. This Atlanticist End of Men shit is just that, a pile of steaming shit.
    Frankly, I am more concerned that many men and women are finding it hard to make ends meet and to get a job, any job, to care for their families and keep a roof over their heads in this current economic climate. No-one wants to live off welfare or food stamps. We don’t need this divisive garbage.

    • im says:

      The MRAs….

      There is exactly ONE issue that they do not completely fail at and that is father’s rights. And they don’t seem to care about that as much as antifeminism. Nor do they seem to have any room for gender nonconforming or gay men.

      And their unholy, misgendering alliance attempt at trans women…

  9. matlun says:

    Hahaha! This is hilarious.

    It is really not any more than the Tea Party movement or religious right are hilarious. Those people are actually serious and are part of a movement with significant influence. It is depressing and a bit frightening.

    I am getting depressed here. Please can we get a post about hats or kittens?

    • John says:

      Honest, you need to keep a sense of perspective. These idiots are just masturbatory losers.

      • matlun says:

        I definitely hope you are right.

        It is just that it has been too many times I have seen something from the tea party or christian right that made me go “this must be satire, no one can really believe this”, and then realize I was wrong. In fact, that these are both influential movements that have to be taken seriously in US politics…

      • John says:

        They don’t speak for me or for any other man I know. Being normal and sane isn’t very newsworthy, I guess. Remember, there are more of us than there are of them. :)

        And if Mitt gets elected, I’m sure you’ll all be very welcome here in England if you want to claim political asylum!

      • Fat Steve says:

        They don’t speak for me or for any other man I know. Being normal and sane isn’t very newsworthy, I guess. Remember, there are more of us than there are of them. :)

        And if Mitt gets elected, I’m sure you’ll all be very welcome here in England if you want to claim political asylum!

        Yes, because in England all the MRA’s wear superhero outfits!

      • Brennan says:

        Meh, I have trouble taking these types seriously, but even if the “going Galt” bullshit is somehow true and reflecting an organized movement (I had trouble typing that with a straight face), I fail to see the downside. Worst case, we have fewer MRA douches searching for a wife to wash their socks and fewer entitled asshats competing for limited jobs and educational opportunities. Meanwhile, there’s a whole country full of people, many of whom would just love to be making so much money that Uncle Sam can take some of it away. Not exactly a lethal strike for the patriarchy. As for Smith, her “Oppressed Men!!!11!” bull is tiresome, but it’s nothing we haven’t heard before.

      • Bagelsan says:

        I don’t think you have to worry about men going “Galt” like you do the Christian right, for example; worst case is they succeed and then…they’re gone. Aaand problem solved. Hell I wish disappearing were the goal of the Christian right, too!

      • EG says:

        Right? Like…please. You don’t want to marry me? You don’t want to take the good jobs? You don’t want to learn things? Well, who’s forcing you? Go ahead. By all means, go Galt. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. Please go away and leave us alone.

      • im says:

        YEah. We know what else that means?

  10. Milquetoast says:

    The outrage and hand-wringing produced by anybody talking about going “Galt” is only matched by the severity of my eye rolling.

    I would be on board, however, with “going Galt” if it meant everybody received a nice weekend in Louisville. We could even use “men´s taxes” (can anybody really say this with a straight face) to fund it.

    • cherrybomb says:

      “men’s taxes” just makes my mind go straight to this (NSFW) barats and bereta video, which refers to men’s higher auto insurance rates as being a “penis tax.”

  11. Miss S says:

    Good. They should really go Galt, and drop out of society and disappear to a faraway land so we don’t have to see or hear from them ever again. I think this is a fabulous idea. I’ll even help them pack.

    • Mike says:

      There could be other reasons for men not serving the patriarchy. Just like women found out there is more to life than pleasing a husband, getting married and raising children, maybe more and more men are realizing there is more to life than pleasing women, getting married and raising children.

      In the past men submitted to “the norm”, now men and women alike have more options. You cant give the people options and freedom and then complain when not everybody is doing x.

      • Mike says:

        The main problem I see here, is that men are opting to not live like grandma and grandad and that is somehow seen as a problem. Where is it written, that every man must get married, or invest his energy in maximizing his income, rather than taking up a job he can live on and pursue other interests as well?

      • Where is it written, that every man must get married, or invest his energy in maximizing his income, rather than taking up a job he can live on and pursue other interests as well?

        Not on this site, that’s for sure, trollbutt.

      • Lolagirl says:

        Mike, catch up! We aren’t complaining, we are mocking.

        There is a difference.

      • Mike says:

        I was talking about the POW presented in the article.

      • the POW presented in the article.

        Mike, honey, I know you think that men are horribly wronged in today’s society, but referring to them as prisoners of war is going a little far, don’t you think?

      • EG says:

        1) Women always knew there was more to life.

        2) You…didn’t read the post, did you?

      • tinfoil hattie says:

        Yes, and that’s fantastic!

        And it’s not what Smith wrote about!

        Fling your straw if you must, but we will laugh.

  12. Mike says:

    Maybe it is the successful women whom do not want to marry men they view as underachievers, rather than the other way around.

  13. pillowinhell says:

    And the funniest thing about men going Galt? Is that civilation will end! OMG !!!!elventy!one.

    Go ahead guys, take the lower paid jobs and enjoy your life in whatever way you see fit. I won’t mind at all, because it means that jobs will open up for me that I wouldn’t have gotten before and hopefully with so much competition between employers I’ll get a better wage to support my family with. I have zero problem with supporting a family, I have zero problem with men not choosing to be unwilling breadwinners or marital partners. So go for it and make both our lives a little better.

    • catfood says:

      And it means more talented, successful women available for the remaining straight guys who prefer to up their game instead of “going Galt.”

      Win-win-win, I say. Bring it on!

    • im says:

      Two Thumbs Up for heterosexual badass- badass romances!

      I am mainly worried about their attempts at exploiting women from 3rd world countries with more patriarchy.

  14. Jamie says:

    More and more, I just don’t understand how I live on the same planet as someone like Smith.

    Of note: both she and her husband work for the big scary government, at least when they aren’t trying to keep others from doing so.

  15. zuzu says:

    a bizarre conspiracy theory about how women are “in cahoots” with the government (a government run by… who now?) and men are irrational, stupid and vindictive. But Dr. Helen is a Friend To Men. Good friend there, men.

    Fun fact: Dr. Helen, as a forensic psychologist, works for the government.

    Fun fact #2: Dr. Helen’s husband, Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, is one of the biggest Glibertarians on the Internet. He is also a government employee, a tenured law professor at the University of Tennessee.

    Fun fact #3: While Dr. Helen writes columns about men going Galt and receives plaudits from her MRA readers, Instapundit writes about a future where he will have sex with robots.

  16. shfree says:

    So….men are deliberately taking crappy jobs as opposed it being a function of the crappy economy? HAHAHAHAHA. Because really, I can’t see someone who can work a sweet job making upwards of 50,000 a year choosing to live at an income level where they would pay no taxes just to “stick it to the women”, no matter how big of an asshat he is. Plus, I don’t think those authors have the faintest idea of what it means to live at that sort of income level. It sucks, because it usually comes with no benefits like insurance or sick leave at all.

  17. dan_brodribb says:

    ‘The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies”

    Wow. Except for the ‘not going to college’ part, I was going Galt before going Galt was cool.

  18. tinfoil hattie says:

    Maybe, just maybe, men’s bodies and medical needs aren’t the norm. Somaybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t be held up as the standard by which medical costs should be figured.

    • John says:

      You need some of that evil socialist medicine like we have in Europe… all for free. Free healthcare at the point of delivery, where abortion up to 24 weeks isn’t an issue, neither is free contraception… where you don’t get crazies bombing clinics or shooting doctors.

  19. roro80 says:

    That article made me throw up a little in my mouth. Or, like, a lot.

    What I find interesting is the use of the term “going Galt” in this context. The term is of course used to indicate a specific type of superman-like benevolent titan of industry — someone who truly makes the world go around, or would if the rest of us stupid assholes would just do what they told us to, and without which society would literally collapse. I just find it very interesting that the article is characterizing every man who got stuck in his 14-year-old lazy slob phase in this manner.

  20. karak says:

    I like how being someone with a low-paying job, who refuses promotions or further education, in order to play video games, is now a hero and paragon of male virtue.

    If this does become a “thing”… so what? I’m sure I can find a hardworking self-achieving person who isn’t male, and either adopt or use sperm banks if I/we want kids.

    Fuck, that idea sounds pretty baller, if you want to know the truth.

  21. Cagey says:

    “Going Galt” is sort of a perfect encapsulation of the MRA mindset. It manages to communicate their huge degree of entitlement, sound whiny and overblown while also being self-aggrandizing. Because women would totally be lost if dudes didn’t bless them with their sparkling mediocrity, right?

    • Mike says:

      No going galt presumes men are indeed “on strike” and that getting married etc. . is something we are expected to do. Men are going “galt” because with many of the societal pressures removed they can, not because of a strike.

      If somebody feels getting married is not good for him, or the risk of divorce is not worth it, that is not going on strike, its just making a personal choice. Its like saying women getting abortions go on labo(u?)r strike.

    • Kaija24 says:

      Maybe this will be another manifestation of “men going their own away” except this time, the subset of men who are into this sort of thinking WILL actually go away (promise? pretty please?)…one can hope.

  22. Henry says:

    I wish Ayn Rand had never been born. Her filth continues to pollute and corrupt. This is just another manifestation of it.

    • kungfulola says:

      Yes. Someone very dear to me was mistreated in childhood because zie’s parents drank the Ayn Rand kool-aid and used it as their life philosophy. It’s evil.

    • im says:

      She is a tragic figure. The communists took her money twice. I would not wish that on a random child.

      And so she was damaged, and so, from her damage, springs a movement that shall perpetuate that damage on all parts of the earth.

  23. Kristen J. says:

    This is the most logical explanation for Ayn Rand’s philosophy I’ve ever found…but that could just be me (Cracked).

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5YWTFW5WMw&w=560&h=315

  24. Dibbit says:

    Ooh, great….

    I miss ONE lousy secret man meeting and NOW we decide to take drastic measures?

    Great… now all the good loafing couches are already taken, and I’m stuck here NOT playing video-games and with a college education.

    I hope they don’t take away my Gold membership card, you need that to be able to park in all the best parking spots, it was the best thing about being an active member of the Patriarchy.

    • Mike says:

      Its just sour grapes that some men are not behaving the way she wants them to. Of course it must be because of some kind of strike and not because of individual choices based on interest. Not every man wants to get married before he is 20. And some pull a Charlie Harper. Its not a strike, its men exercising their options.

  25. Mike says:

    Not on this site, that’s for sure, trollbutt.

    You slow or something?

  26. Kristen J. says:

    What’s with all the lazy gamer hate. I mean if I win the lotto tomorrow, it’s me and Mr. Kristen, on the sofa, playing guild wars 2, for the forseeable future (okay, at least for several months). Not living up to your full potential isn’t a moral failing. I say go forth hypothetical, probably not real young men and play video games, ignore your potential. Someone has to flip burgers and I’d rather it be you.

    • Mike says:

      Its the ole game of musical chairs. No woman wants to be stuck with an underachiever, either because she cant afford it, or because she can, but does not want to be taken advantage of or because a gentlemen in distress isnt quite as attractive as a damsel in distress.

      As some men marry the girl they met in medical school and other men with a future marry a girl whose professional prospects are not quite as rosy, some women feel like “all the good men are taken”. Of course that does not mean they should adjust their expectations, but that men need fixing.

      • EG says:

        What is it you are reading, exactly? It’s obviously neither the OP nor any of the comments here.

      • Mike says:

        So the OP does not feel men are on “strike” and need fixing? She does not complain about men in “low paying jobs”, which is a problem, because no woman whether rich or poor should have to be stuck with a man in a low paying job?

        She has not an issue with men choosing alternatives to marrying, like cohabitation, or even not moving in with a woman long therm period?

      • EG says:

        …no. She doesn’t. Jill is making fun of all those ideas.

      • Mike says:

        …no. She doesn’t. Jill is making fun of all those ideas.

        I meant the author of the book not Jill. I can see how OP was missleading.

      • marle says:

        Generally, the (heterosexual) female underachiever want to do your laundry and clean house, while the (heterosexual) male underachiever wants to play video games. I have no problem dating men who have low-paying jobs and don’t really care, but I haven’t met one who would clean up after himself. Obviously I haven’t met every man, but the statistics do show women doing more housework than men, no matter how much they work. It’s hard paying all the bills and doing all the housework, I’ve been there. It would be one thing if one of the partners was disabled or something, but if they just video games then that doesn’t work. That’s why women avoid underachievers.

      • Mike says:

        Sure women can avoid underachievers unattractive men, just like men can avoid underachievers, unattractive women. If you can get a successful hunk, why settle for less.

        If a man cant get the fit woman of his dreams, it does not mean he should bless womanhood with a handbook on manpleasing, in a dib to increase the pool of women he deems worthy of himself. The same goes for women.

      • EG says:

        What are you talking about?

      • Mike says:

        I am being critical of the article. The author comes across as if she feels entitled to men being a certain way. “Not enough men are meeting my expectations, they have to be more willing to marry and need to be more motivated to get a high paying job.” At least thats the way the article comes across and I am pretty sure thats what she wrote.

        What would your reaction be if an author published an article on the ways potential female partners displease him and how they need to change, so that there are more women around whom he deems worthy of himself instead of (gasp) adjusting his expectations?

      • EG says:

        What would your reaction be if an author published an article on the ways potential female partners displease him and how they need to change, so that there are more women around whom he deems worthy of himself instead of (gasp) adjusting his expectations?

        My reaction would be “Another one? Is it Tuesday already?”

      • PrettyAmiable says:

        EG, is that a Buffy reference??

      • EG says:

        I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t!

      • Kristen J. says:

        @Mike,

        Whhhaaa? This has nothing to do with relationships. Once you’re in a relationship you have to be responsible for yourself and other over the long run. You can’t ignore the future consequences of your action and you can’t fail to help in the maintenance of your relationship (whatever that means for the people involved).

    • DouglasG says:

      [Not living up to your full potential isn’t a moral failing.]

      If you’ve ever said that to a Tiger Parent, did hir head explode?

    • Pseudonym says:

      Why does somebody have to flip burgers? Wouldn’t we be better off if more people had higher-paying jobs doing things like designing and manufacturing burger-flipping robots instead? I think burger-flipping is a better activity for a robot to perform than, say, sex.
      There are a number of comments posted along the lines of “well, if men are going Galt and flipping burgers, that just means more high-paying jobs for the rest of us.” At the risk of taking a throwaway line too seriously, I’d argue that even contemporary capitalism isn’t a zero-sum game and a better-educated and more productive workforce benefits everyone.

      • Kristen J. says:

        Maybe, but if someone really doesn’t want a job where they have to think or be responsible for anything…that’s okay too. Mr. Kristen relates that when we are older he intends to spend his twilight years working in a pro shop which was one of his first jobs. Sure he could be doing something more productive, but his dream is to hang out all day on a golf course talking about golf and golf paraphenalia.

  27. bekabot says:

    I think Mike and Ayn have one thing in common, which is that English is not their first language.

  28. Bloix says:

    Smith’s book is the usual victim-status claim used over and over again by every element of the right. War on Christmas. War on faith. Class warfare. War on guns. War on White People (really). And the War on Men. All designed to create an alternative universe where oppressed rich white fundamentalist Christian men with armories in their basements are bravely fighting off the liberal elites with every ounce of their strength.

    It’s coordinated. There’s a meme-generating engine at the heart of the Right Wing Noise Machine that churns out every possible permutation on every theme and sends it out to the minions like Helen Smith and Glenn Reynolds, and they blast it out to the public.

    • ManUpManDown says:

      Why must you feminists insist on reducing MRAs and those who sympathize with them to simplistic caricatures: you know, all or most of them must be predominantly right wing social conservatives who want nothing more than own 15 pit bulls, put women back in the kitchen, and return prayer to public schools.

      I realize that viewing the other side as such feels good; some MRAs, like all people, do this to some degree. It’s a ritual that provides self-confirmation that we’re clearly on the right side of history. But it’s also just lazy. Your post reveals that you’re thinking is about as sophisticated, nuanced and open-minded as a dude who thinks that the only people who are feminists are ugly women who hate men because they can’t get laid.

      Please pull your head out of the sand and realize that to be an MRA is not necessarily to be a right winger. In fact, many of us are former-feminists; we consider ourselves to be more progressive and sincere than feminists in the pursuit of genuine equality. The problem with feminists like those here is that they seem to view feminism as representing an extreme on a continuum of progressiveness; it must follow, then, that anyone who disagrees with them are not as progressive. By contrast, MRAs see you as falling about ½ of the way toward ideal change, with us even further down the line. We seek to push gender consciousness forward, not restore the “good ol’ days” when “men were men” and women couldn’t vote.

  29. Jeff says:

    I honestly feel that the Authors conspiracy is way off. However, I am startled by the lack of compassion that some commenters have had here. Perhaps I have been misinformed, but many feminists have told me that feminism is about equality. Then why are we not taking the massive failure of an entire gender seriously? We should be asking why men are dropping out of college at an alarming rate. Why are 88% of suicides men? Would we simply turn our heads if the roles were reversed and it was women who were in demise?

    • kungfulola says:

      Men have male privilege, which means that they have more societal power. Men, as a group, are taken more seriously, have absolute unquestioned bodily autonomy, and are automatically perceived as authoritative and capable. The men who fail in our society are failing because they have run afoul of the patriarchy which would otherwise be propping them up and handing them opportunities. The default is to support (white, cisgender) men at the expense of everyone else. Not every man benefits every day for their entire lives from these systems, but most have, or do, or will. Women, meanwhile, are completely excluded and never have the chance to benefit.

      • Jeff says:

        Kungfu, If men have male privilege than women have female privilege. In order to see the whole picture than one cannot Concentrate on a genders positives without looking at the negatives and responsibilities as well.

        Men do not have more societal power in the west. We both possess power and in different ways.

        “Men as a group are only taken more seriously”. Who is the audience?

        “Have absolute unquestioned body autonomy”. I did not give consent for my circumcision. Also, by not registering for selective service, a man may face prison, fines, and denial of government loans, grants, and financial support.

        “The men who fail in our society are failing because they have run afoul of the patriarchy which would otherwise be propping them up and handing them opportunities.”

        Must be. And good riddance?

      • kungfulola says:

        If men have male privilege than women have female privilege.

        No, it doesn’t work that way. Learn something about Anti-oppression and come back when you can discuss the realities of the Western world. (As a group) Men are more powerful than women. They are given power disproportionate to their “responsibilities”, which is reflected in the statistics on abuse. There is a societal trend of men using their power to get out of taking responsibility. In any power structure, once you hit a certain threshold of status, you can leverage it to do anything you want and get away without having to clean up the mess. Individual men have access to varying levels of status, but almost any given man has more than a given woman.

        I was reluctant to engage with someone who is not beyond social justice 101; I should have followed my instincts.

      • im says:

        I would claim that women have some female privilege but it is nothing compared to male privilege. Mostly cases where feminists won, but there has been no corresponding movement for men, or where a side effect of liberating women has been the perpetuation of gendered norms. There is no equal about it.

    • Would we simply turn our heads if the roles were reversed and it was women who were in demise?

      Jeff, no one’s ignoring the (very real) plight of men in the kyriarchy. However, this author’s claim that men are the victims of some sort of tax conspiracy at the benefit of women is ludicrous, and this post is about that. And if you want to know where you can find feminist writing on men’s issues, might I suggest the archives of this very site? Men’s issues are dealt with fairly frequently (unless you don’t consider men of colour to be men, I think there’s even one in the last five posts, about Obama).

      • im says:

        … I would consider that (some) men of color issues to be race issues, not gender issues. Intersection, yes, but it’s a bit like how radfems tended to see all oppression in terms of gender.

        A good resource for men’s issues that does not make mistakes is No Seriously What About Teh Menz, and to a lesser extent the Good Men Project.

      • … I would consider that (some) men of color issues to be race issues, not gender issues.

        Right, so articles about men of colour are concerned with race issues, about gay/bi men with sexuality issues, about trans men with trans issues, disabled men with disability issues, Muslim men are Muslim issues…. then I guess that, since this site doesn’t extensively cover the Horrible Oppressions of straight, white, abled, neurotypical, USian, Christian, rich cis males, we’re not that egalitarian after all. I see what you’re trying to say, but it just doesn’t make that much sense.

        A good resource for men’s issues that does not make mistakes is No Seriously What About Teh Menz, and to a lesser extent the Good Men Project.

        …which isn’t an explicitly feminist site, and so doesn’t disprove Jeff’s point one bit.

      • Jeff says:

        Thank you for the information. I think you may be confused on my beliefs, which I can’t blame you because I really didn’t vocalize them in this post. I do not care for feminism, or MRA, because it is blatantly obvious that both have massive amounts of followers who have a deep rooted hatred for the opposite sex. Many being abused in someway grow jaded and bitter.

        All feminists claim they want equality. Ironically, not all feminists have the same opinion of what equality is. The link in which you provided lists a major feminist blog in which a major contributor lobbied for the removal of a mans due process in a rape case. So, in her idea of equality, would a man only have as much rights as a woman’s honesty?

        I am a Humanist. I believe in the true equality of gender, race, and sexuality. I believe in a life where the chains of religion and oppression are broken. I fight for the rights of not just men, but women as well.

      • Li says:

        Jeff, it is increasingly clear that this may not be the site for you. If you do not care for feminism, hanging out on a feminist blog is probably not going to be very useful for you, especially if you’re going to do things like call women bitter, feminists man-haters and argue that women have privilege over men (note, this is not how privilege works).

        I’d suggest having a very, very thorough read through of theFinally Feminism 101 site and, if you still feel like frequenting this site, taking a step back and focusing on just reading for a while.

      • Jeff says:

        Li, It seems you have misunderstood me. Matter of fact you stated that I said things in which I never wrote. I never said women are bitter. I said there are many feminists, and MRA who have a deep rooted hatred for the opposite sex. Are women not apart of MRA, and are there no male feminists? I never said women had privilege over men either. Did you thoroughly misunderstand me or is it because your perception is skewed due to standing on one side of the court. Once you take a step back to the stands everything becomes so clear.

      • Li says:

        From your comment to mxe354 on the “Is it rape…” thread.

        I am sorry that you have such anger. I hope you one day are able to release your bitterness so you may live a happy life.

        (note to mxe, sorry if I misgendered you by using the term “women” to refer to you and others Jeff has attacked)

        From a comment above:

        Kungfu, If men have male privilege than women have female privilege.

        Now, I’ll admit that this isn’t explicitly saying that women have privilege over men, but it’s difficult to understand what you imagine privilege to mean if you’re not using it comparatively.

        So, no, I don’t think my perception is skewed here. I think, actually, that I kinda know my shit re: gender mechanics fairly well, and that I’m reading what you’re saying in a fairly plain language way. And your insistence that you somehow have greater objectivity than everyone else here because of what is frankly a lack of expertise just reinforces my opinion that you need to take a long and quiet breaktime.

      • EG says:

        I am sorry that you have such anger. I hope you one day are able to release your bitterness so you may live a happy life.

        Ugh, what annoying bullshit. Jeff, I am sorry that you have such smugness. I hope you one day are able to release your sense of superiority so you stop annoying the shit out of everyone around you.

        Ironically, not all feminists have the same opinion of what equality is

        How, precisely, is that ironic?

      • mxe354 says:

        @Li

        (note to mxe, sorry if I misgendered you by using the term “women” to refer to you and others Jeff has attacked)

        Oh, it’s no problem. I’m only offended when I’m misgendered as a result of sexist attitudes e.g. someone assuming that I’m a woman merely because I sound “too sensitive” or something. You, however, most likely misgendered me only because it’s easy (and reasonable) to assume that most Feministe commenters are women – and it’s not like make it obvious as to what my gender is on this blog. So yeah, no worries. ^_^

        That said, however, I really appreciate your sensitivity.

  30. rain says:

    Talk of men going on strike made me think of the women’s strike in Iceland:
    On October 24 1975, 90% of Iceland’s women refused to work, cook or look after children.
    If men went on strike for a day/ all took a day off, the country would not be “almost brought to a standstill”. A reminder of how much our economic system relies on the unpaid labour of women.

  31. Arvan says:

    Unlike most of the commentators, I agree – partially- with the central thesis of the quoted text. Similar feeling is expressed in comments at the site that is perhaps contrary to the world-view prevalent among posters here. Well, audiatur et altera pars.

    http://www.amren.com/news/2012/09/the-silent-war-on-noncollege-educated-white-men/

    • thestarsapart says:

      Really? American Renaissance? The magazine that claims that racial inequalities are due to genetic differences in intelligence? You’re going to have to do better than that.

  32. Datdamwuf says:

    As a woman who was arrested for domestic assault after defending myself from my husband and calling the police to save me. I take special exception to her statement:

    “A man’s rights go only as far as a woman’s honesty,” Smith says. “If a woman says a man is domestically abusive, hardly any evidence is needed. Women can just point the finger at you, and men don’t have rights in terms of getting kids.” In the past, men had more say in marriages. This was not right, Smith says. But today men have far fewer rights than women in a marriage, and that isn’t fair either.”

    It’s funny how men can lie too, ain’t it?

    The mandatory arrest laws are a win for men, arrest of females has soared under those laws and it is not because women abuse as often as men. I was forced to attend group due to my arrest, I can attest that 6 of the 8 women were abused, not abusers, 1 was in a mutually abusive relationship, the last was indeed abusive. On the up side, my deferred dismissal probation will be up next week…

    • Jeff says:

      Abuse is a horrible situation. I hope you are able to overcome it and lead a fulfilling and happy life. I do not know the circumstances of your situation, however, your arrest under the situation stated is a rare case indeed.

      Mandatory arrest states the individual with the least amount of bodily harm does not get arrested. When neither party have bodily harm or minor harm, majority of the time the man is arrested. If a woman is intoxicated, acting incoherent, or aggressive and the man is not than she will be arrested.

      I was once a victim of false abuse. It was a sad thing that kept me distant from woman for quite some time until I regained my strength. I was ran off the road (I-75) by a young woman who clearly only had her best interest in mind. My rim and side of my car was destroyed in the ordeal. She slowed down and got off the next exit, I was hopeful that she was doing so in order to exchange insurance information. Not likely. She ran through the red light and pulled into a gas station. I turned in got out of my car and began to write down her tag number. She got out asked me what I was doing, I responded to her that I was getting her tag number and calling the police. I took out my phone and began to dial when she grabbed at my shirt and started yelling stop touching me, don’t hit me. She then slashed my face with her keys. In this instance 3 men ran to not my, but her defense. Automatically they thought that I was the abuser (They admitted not seeing anything and only thought I was the Assaulter do to my size and gender). Fortunately I talked them down, and one told me to get in my car and leave. She of course screamed somebody call the cops, and tried to prevent me from leaving by standing in my doorway. I left and drove to my apartment. Called the cops. They came, took down my story, and put me in cuffs. Then the deputy got a call in, fortunately the gas station had a camera. The young woman was arrested. The deputy told me that I was lucky. If it hadn’t been for the cameras, I would be the one going to jail. Unfortunately I was young and dumb, I didn’t press charges. Like most men, I didn’t even use the victims relief programs.

  33. Pingback: Weekly Feminist Reader

  34. Mia says:

    Helen Smith is a handmaiden of the patriarchy. Someone please drown her already and liberate some air for those deserving of it. As for men going Galt. Go ahead, and good riddance.

  35. Bloix says:

    Yesterday’s WaPo had an article about a new bill in the House that would weaken environmental regulations. The name of the bill is the “Stop the War on Coal Act.” Yes, there’s a war on coal, along with the war on men, faith, Christmas, guns, and rich people.

    • Hamgravy says:

      There is a war on coal, actually, but unfortunately coal (rebranded as “clean coal”!) is winning big time.

  36. Joe from an alternate universe says:

    My cis-male cousin received WIC benefits for his children when they were babies (twin boys plus a sister a year older) because he had sole custody of them. So men certainly do benefit from WIC in terms of their children getting adequate nutrition or because they are babies who will grow up to be men.

    Seriously, this is not well advertised. I hired a day laborer to work on a property of mine a while back. His wife went back to her home country without him or the kids. When he enquired with county employees about what programs he was eligible for, they said WIC was not one of them (kids aged 2 and 4). They may have been wrong, but they can’t be blamed as even WIC’s web site doesn’t make that clear. Sorry for derailing.

  37. Omar says:

    Behind the hyperbole and conjecture, there is a recent trend among many young men and women (mostly men) who search for get rich quick schemes instead of attending college. According to The Economist, the two main reasons cited by young Arab men in the Middle East and North Africa in foregoing post-secondary education was they felt there were no jobs and that education was too expensive and had a high opportunity cost. Their future role as a breadwinner pressures them to join an older male relative in starting a business or developing a trade.The same phenomenon can be seen in Asia and the Americas.

    I don’t think there’s a better argument for increase in stimulus spending and funding for colleges.

    • Mike says:

      I am not sure how well that comparison holds up. Maybe those boys in the middle east and north africa feel that the industry of their own nation does not offer a lot of prospects for certain degrees and they gauge their chances to emigrate to countries where those degrees would meet a bigger market as slim or do not want to emigrate and therefore pursue paths of which they fathom a more realistic chance to draw a living with.

  38. Shoggoth says:

    Well gee ladies, just think about all the fine specimens you’ll be missing out on. A true shame!

  39. Shoggoth says:

    I’m going Galt on my phone bill.

  40. Lydia says:

    Good on them.

  41. alanc says:

    This is only describing white guys, other guys still have the drive to make money and rule their lives

  42. friday jones says:

    Heaven forbid that men experience what women have experienced forever: Responsibility without control.

Comments are closed.