Women hate men. Everywhere you look, from Politico to Daily Mail, from X bots to Instagram influencers, unabashed misandry is the modern feminist’s rallying cry. The uglier they are, the louder they roar.

And the world cheers.

It’s the one form of objective animus that nobody cares about, men included.

In 2020, French blogger Pauline Harmange went viral with an essay titled, “I Hate Men.” While the essay was more bark than bite, France’s “Ministry of Women and Men’s Equity” staged a short-lived censorship campaign on the seemingly obvious basis (for the French) that blanket hatred of an entire group of people violates the French prohibition against “hate speech.” As it turned out, the public at large found nothing objectionable about hate speech toward men, Harmange was celebrated, and Grand Frère backed off.

Unlike the spitting, snarling purple-haired specimens of American feminism, Harmange appeared for her moment in the spotlight as a surprisingly unremarkable mid—sullen and insecure, but not Lena Dunham ugly. Her pensiveness in photos, performative or not, served as a counterbalance to the blunt rage of her pen. In a moment you’ll understand why.

The online Right’s yeah-but brigade of proudly principled “pointing soyjacks” love to highlight hypocritical examples of the Left getting away with Woke Code violations that the Right would be skewered for.

Nary a Popeye’s would be spared in the fireball of “mostly peaceful protests” if a blue-eyed devil dared publish a commensurate polemic on race, for example. Topless sky screamers would flood the capitals from Pennsylvania Avenue to Downing Street if a 6’3″ Chad with a Sol Brah jawline ever published an article titled, “I Hate Women.”

But “I Hate Men” barely made a ripple, even in the overly-sensitive waters of our modern corpus politicum.

Why?

For one, as stated, misandry isn’t particularly offensive, even to men. This gripe is actually central to Harmange’s thesis—that men, beyond being rapey and homicidal, are “immensely indifferent” to women in society. She was proved right when her essay was published. The male shrug was heard round the world.

But more importantly, Harmange isn’t entirely wrong.

Despite the title, Harmange’s demands aren’t unresaonable. She believes standards for women are too high, that violence against women deserves rebuke, and that men’s role should include “policing their male friends and acquaintances, for example, instead of explaining to women how to go about fighting their battles.” She makes no call to action inciting violence or discrimination against men. Rather, she calls on women to “insist that men make the effort to become better people,” and vows for herself to be a better advocate of women.

 

“Given the way so many men manage to bulldoze their way through the world without remotely approaching perfection in any domain, perhaps it’s time to give ourselves a break as well.”

 

She’s no Voltaire, or even Vince Lombardi, but to advocate that men strive for perfection? Touché, madame.

Where Harmange veers from a generally rational analysis is in dredging up long-debunked “wage gap” complaints and blaming men for high standards of beauty, success, and power, when it’s clearly women who are women’s greatest critics. This isn’t the 1940s, and Harmange isn’t Simone de Beauvoir. As with modern anti-race, anti-gay, and anti-trans theories, the modern feminist’s angst is based not on the current culture, which overwhelmingly accepts non-white races, queer sexuality, and women’s equality, but on historical grievances.

Today, women nearly match men in the workforce. They represent a third of business owners, nearly a third of US congress members, and more than a third of UK MPs. More than 60% of college students in the US are now women. They can vote, get credit cards, and serve on a jury. In the last 75 years, labor force participation for women has increased 24 percentage points, from 33% to 57%, while male participation has fallen from 85% to 68%, as of February 2024. Workplace discrimination based on sex has been illegal for 50 years, and the “wage gap” is simply explained by the fact that men work more and in more lucrative (and dangerous) professions.

What more do you want? As Joe Rogan famously put it, “You make all the people. And you want to be president too?”

Evidently ignorant of sexual dimorphism and the female’s unchallenged domain as sexual selectors, Harmange’s essay not only fails to appreciate the biological roots of men and women’s roles, but also misattributes the source of misogyny. It is women who hate women, and from an evolutionary perspective, it is a completely rational hatred.

As sexual selectors, women compete for reproductive resources, whereas men compete for actual resources. This is the biological difference that modern feminism either ignores or simply didn’t learn (because biology isn’t a requisite for a degree in Feminist Theory). Female value is inherent to her reproductive ability (to make a family and pass on genes), while male value must be earned.

While men can reproduce a thousand times a year, a woman has to ensure that she is protected, physically and materially, during that very vulnerable nine-month period of incubation. This fact alone explains why men have traditionally dominated “society”—they have to. Labor, politics, and war are domains men have traditionally occupied as a means to accumulate the resources (money, land, social status) that make them marriageable. Women, in contrast, have traditionally occupied the home, because that was the reward of wisely choosing a valuable mate. Historically, only peasant women worked outside the home.

Women’s high criticism of other women comes down to simple competition. Good men are hard to come by.

Like many universal truths, the concept has become a meme. “The Ideal Man”—a less vulgar take on the 6-6-6 rule (which advocates dating only men who are six feet tall with a six-figure salary and a six-inch salami)—lists traits biology and society agree are desirable in any relationship: hardworking, strong, moral, likes kids; wants a wife to stay home, doesn’t watch porn, “has no female friends,” “averts his eyes from other women,” and “doesn’t spend time alone with other women.”

Most (straight) women would find most of these qualities attractive in a man.

By comparison, a search of “the ideal woman,” if you scroll past the photos of comely pawgs, returns equally non-controversial traits men seek in a female mate: moral, modest, feminine, and beautiful; knows how to cook, has only female friends, a low body count.

While some may bristle at the mention of pawgs and beauty, it’s necessary in these scientifically ignorant times to remind people that beauty standards are not a product of modernity. A .80 hip to waist ratio, C cup breast size, and a Body Mass Index between 18 and 20 (which science also considers “healthy”) are all considered “beautiful” not because Gucci said so, but because these traits proved ideal for child-bearing.

Consider the viral photos of Selena Gomez, thin-waisted, breasts busting out of her blouse like an incel gooner’s AI dreamgirl. Despite an unremarkable face, Gomez is fawned over as “stunning.” There is no equivalent privilege for mid-dudes with dragon dongs. Theories abound—black, big nosed, French?—but who’s actually swinging a meatbat is pure speculation until the trousers fall. Could be anyone: the guy who cooks your meals, hauls your trash,… guards you while you sleep. Anaconda appreciation doesn’t exist in polite society outside of the bedroom because men who aren’t playing trans dress-up at an elementary school library would be arrested if they flashed dick root in public the way the top-heavy brandish their massive milkers for public consumption. And thank the Good Lord for that.

Nobody is arguing for more dong-flaunting. Or, at least, I’m not. The point is that women publicly advertise their innate value as child-bearers, while men’s value, as providers and protectors, must be demonstrated materially.

For years, the mainstream media has been on a mission to destroy qualities in men that only lesbians think are unhealthy. In 2022, Time ran a piece titled, “The White Supremacist Origins of Exercise.” Countless articles proclaim Christianity, pro-natalism, even “hard work” and “rational, linear thought” (Smithsonian Institute) as racist. In 2016, Psychology Today wrote, “Monogamy Is Not “Natural” For Human Beings.”

Without irony, the same bastions of modernist social ethics will then bag on the very incels they’ve created. Women, as sexual selectors, are dominating the airwaves with anti-male propaganda, and while they may not be reading, men are definitely listening. They are getting fatter, lazier, less religious, and dumber, preferring the comfort of their mom’s basement to the workforce, to college, and to the military—all categories in which male participation is down. Not surprisingly, as men fall from society’s graces (and the labor force), per capita rates of rape have skyrocketed.

The result is not more young feminist-adjacent non-toxic marriageable men. The result is fewer marriages.

But that’s not a concern for Harmange.

Our beloved French heroine, despite hating men in the streets, is making babies in the sheets. With her husband.

Yes, the French man-hater is happily married. To a man.

It would be easy to dismiss Harmange as a limelight-seeking hypocrite, save for the fact that her reproductive philosophy paid off. And what honor Harmange’s humble homme must feel to be chosen above all suitors by the loudest critic of his entire gender. One wonders what honor she might feel if he felt the same of hers—to be the one true love, the single soul who destroys all stereotypes.

Men in general should be better. Women should be better. But for the individual, it is in the eyes of a life-mate, not the gaze of the gooner mob, that the light of perfection shines.

If through misandry women hold out for the highest-valued men, those rare and marriageable exceptions to the stereotypes of their brutish and violent brethren, settling only for “the ideal man,” then shouldn’t men also honor their future spouse through the sexual isolationism of generalized misogyny?

If we are to uphold the tenets of modern feminist equality, then yes.