The Psychological War Against Men

Recently I came across a brilliant article (linked here) by Diana Davison from A Voice For Men (AVFM), criticising Maureen Dowd and her barely coherent ranting about why men are "unnecessary". Dowd's articles were published in the New York Times and The Globe And Mail over the course of this year. I thought I would share my thoughts on this, because Maureen Dowd and her work provide a classic example of the type of man bashing garbage that has become all too common in the filth that we call the mainstream media. Indeed I am not surprised to find her partnering up with Hanna Rosin (author of the “End of Men”, see my article on that linked here) recently in pseudo-debates with fellow feminists about why men are obsolete and sharing in the man-hate (Dare you to put MRA’s in the opposition, in place of fellow feminists).

Make no mistake, this is a campaign of psychological warfare on men, particularly young men and boys. Maureen Dowd, like Rosin, wants to promote and celebrate her twisted perception of why men are redundant, unnecessary, “devolved” and effectively obsolete. They are making a concentrated effort in the mainstream media, to cultivate an attitude of male inferiority in the public mind. If you don’t believe me, all you have to do is research their work. They mask it well behind a thin veil of false humour and pleasantry (sometimes they don’t even bother). Most people are not fooled.

Here is a thought, since the Times and Mail seem to have no qualm about articles discussing why men are obsolete, defective and devolved, I am going to write an article about black people and why they are obsolete, defective and devolved. Then I think I might start with Jews. Then I might do, gasp…women. I reckon my chances are pretty good I can get them published in the Times and Mail. Right guys? No, you say? Oh that’s right, men are dogs not worthy of being respected by our leading media outlets or society for that matter. Silly me...

Just in case the sarcasm is not obvious, I don’t consider, black people, Jews, women, men or any other segment of society to be inferior, obsolete or defective. I guess I fail the bigotry test to get an article published in the Times and Mail. Nice to know that when we say we are for equality, that is for everyone except men. We cannot call ourselves a society for equality, when examples like major news outlets such as the Times and Mail, show we are clearly picky about when that applies and to which group.

What is the aim of the work from people like Dowd and Rosin? It is an attempt to socially engineer society and it has been underway for years. They are not the only ones involved either. Many radical feminists work in the media and so do other man-haters. The easiest way to spread propaganda for a hate movement, is by having your members work in the media and write in the papers. If you don’t think their garbage can shape peoples thinking and behaviour, then I advise people to look up the elaboration likelihood model and it’s use in modifying attitudes and behaviours. The goal is to undermine the self-concept (or self-identity) of men and boys and their participation in society. Female violence is usually by proxy and covert like this. Psychological abuse leaves no visible scars and tracing the damage back to the abuser is difficult. In short it is an attempt to make men an underclass through psychological manipulation and inducing self-defeat in men.

Don’t believe me, unsure about how it all works? See my article on the self-fulfilling prophecy or Pygmalion effect and it’s role in the boy crisis in education (linked here). Men and particularly boys, are being told they are no good and not worthy of respect. They are in-turn believing it and underperforming accordingly. This is mass manipulation. It would make Goebbels impressed.

I have a message for men and boys. Boycott these major media outlets and organisations like them. Stop reading their filth and stop paying for their material. They are trying to get into peoples heads and convince the public men are some inferior creature. If this was done against any other segment of society, Dowd and Rosin would have had their careers destroyed. You need to put your psychological health first and protect it accordingly from this abuse.

I did have a look at Dowd’s rambling articles. After reading Diana Davison’s article, I can see why Dowd's work is so incoherent. Frankly, I was left wondering why Dowd didn’t just come out and say, “I hate men”. Why waste all the time writing articles full of emotion, bigotry and disdain, when you can just say what you need in three words?

A lot of her comments don’t even merit a response. So I won’t bother with most of it. With respect to the claptrap on the Y chromosome, parthenogenesis etcetera, I refer people to my section on genetics in my article on female supremacy and pseudoscience (linked here). People can also check out the commentary from a user called “Spitfire” in the comment feed of Diana Davison’s article at AVFM. Nice to see another molecular biologist/geneticist like myself (well I used to be before moving into business) sharing his criticism on Dowd’s defective Y chromosome nonsense.

I will cover two of Dowd’s points for the sake of simplicity, otherwise this article will get real long! Lets start with her final point about the Y chromosome and mice. Apparently I am meant to feel inferior because a study in mice has recently found that only two genes on their Y chromosome are required to produce sperm that will fertilise an egg and give rise to offspring. Sorry, I am trying not to laugh right now at this stupidity. I guess I will start with the obvious. Mice and humans are not the same species. Yes there are homolog’s of mice genes in humans, hence why we use them in laboratory research. However there are still very large genetic differences in terms of physiology, psychology and yes reproduction.

This is particularly true when it comes to the Y chromosome, which changes it’s composition at a much higher rate than other chromosomes because much of it does not recombine with another chromosome during meiosis. So making leaps about the reproductive genetics of humans from the mouse genome is not exactly definitive proof of anything on it's own. Not to say though that such research does not convey some useful information. Just that it has limitations to its implications. This is something the media ignores virtually every time they cover scientific research.

Another criticism worth considering, is that just because the mice with only 2 Y chromosome genes might be able to produce offspring, does not mean those offspring did not experience reduced viability (the capacity to survive) and fecundity (the capacity to reproduce). Did they experience a deficiency in metabolism, physiology, development, mating or in sperm production relative to their wild-type counterparts? Were subsequent generations of these mice bred and if so, did abnormalities arise?

Just because only 2 genes on the Y chromosome are required to produce sperm and offspring in mice, does not mean all the other genes on the Y are not performing some function. Spermatogenesis is not the only characteristic of the male sex in the animal kingdom. Some genes on the Y chromosome have been implicated in brain functioning, development, metabolism and others we simply don’t know too much about yet. Furthermore, there are non-coding areas on the Y chromosome that don’t possess genes but play a role in regulating gene activity. So the Y chromosome is far from being "junk" DNA.

To summarise, we know that far more than two genes on the Y chromosome in humans and mice are active and encode protein. We also know that a number of these genes play a role in aspects of biology outside of producing sperm which are relevant to the male sex. Thus it is extremely incorrect to suggest or imply that only 2 genes on the Y chromosome are required for maleness. Maleness is more than producing sperm.

For the sake of argument, lets assume an alternate reality, where only 2 genes are required for maleness. That would also mean that being female hangs on those 2 genes being absent. Depending on which way you want to look at it, maleness and femaleness could be framed to be “fragile” according to Dowd’s ridiculous thought process. Either way, you are two genes away from being a member of the opposite sex!

In actual reality there are hundreds, even thousands of genes which are differentially expressed in males as compared to females. Some are on the Y, some on the X and some of them are actually on the autosomes. These genes are linked to each other in biological feedback circuits we call cell signalling pathways. Some genes make direct changes in the body or are responsible for certain sex-specific processes, others regulate other genes and so forth. Masculinity is the product of a very complicated process of not just hundreds of genes, but also hormonal regulation in response to the environment. Things are not as simple as Dowd would like to think at the molecular and cellular level.

This leads me onto Dowd's next point I wanted to discuss. The declining sperm count in men is apparently a sign men are becoming obsolete or devolving. Facepalm. Are men still producing sperm? Yes. Does a declining sperm count automatically mean this will continue until it reaches zero? No. Is this regulated by the environment? Yes, partly. The reduced sperm count in men, may be a natural response of our reproductive biology to our crowded (abundant mating opportunities permitting less reproductive success per try) and low danger environments (relative to the pleistocene which modern humans evolved in). In such conditions the biological investment in reproduction in men may be less critical than during the pleistocene and such over-investment could be wasteful.

Having said all of that, there is point of concern for both genders. Phthalates or a common chemical compound found in plastics, have been shown to mimic oestrogens and interfere with sexual development. These leach into our rivers, soil and ground water from industrial activity. They have been implicated in such bizarre things as male fish producing eggs, undescended testes in boys and early onset of puberty in girls. Phthalates may at least be partly responsible for the declining sperm count in men, rather than because men are becoming obsolete. Women might also be concerned to know that these same substances can promote various forms of cancer, particularly breast cancer.

Just to finish up, women having two X chromosomes does not mean they express more genes. One X chromosome is rendered inactive in women to ensure appropriate gene dosage. Down Syndrome is an example of what happens when you get an overdose of gene expression. Women have one active X chromosome, just as men do (In conjunction with a non-homologous active Y chromosome). I elaborate on this further again in the genetics sections of my article on female supremacy and pseudoscience (linked here).

I could go on, but it is like this with so many of her other points. Either they have no basis to them in reality, make no sense or are vast oversimplifications or mis-representations of scientific research. Often they contain a combination of all three. Dowd often makes no point, just sweeping generalisations about masculinity as a whole from a handful of comments made by a few individuals.

What concerns me, is the same thing which concerned the commentator “Spitfire”. The fact that a number of people may actually follow what Dowd is telling them about male genetics and masculinity in general, without any critical examination and believe her. Don’t believe everything you read! Spitfire is right that most people don’t have access directly to scientific papers (I do) and/or have little knowledge of science (I worked in scientific research, specifically in molecular genetics). So when someone like Dowd comes along with this information, she can easily lead people astray and manipulate their perception of men. I covered another example of the misandric use of science in the media in another article (linked here). It happens often and people like Dowd thrive off the lack of scientific knowledge among the public.

Dowd should refrain from discussing scientific research and injecting her bias into such discussion. If Dowd says she struggles understanding the difference between meiosis and parthenogenesis (which she did say), then she has no business discussing genetics, let alone why men are genetically inferior to women or obsolete. I have a message for women like Dowd. Look in the mirror and say, "I am a bigot". There, now does that not feel better? Isn’t it refreshing when you acknowledge who you really are?

Women like Dowd and Rosin, remind me of how children used to be amazed by how the light turned itself on in the fridge. Just like children, Dowd and Rosin seem to think all of the infrastructure and technology that allows them to work and to even survive, comes magically into existence all by itself. It is mostly men that provide the electricity, water, gas, food, appliances, telecommunications, internet, technological gadgetry, housing, mineral resources and oil to society. It is mostly men that design, engineer, construct, maintain and repair the technology that society depends on. It is mostly men that design, build and keep the basic infrastructure of society, like roads, rail, freight, ports, the electrical grid, sewage, plumbing and so forth going. Should I go through all of the leading male scientists, academics, engineers and inventors that currently contribute to society? Or male nobel laureates and patent holders?

The reality is Dowd’s job would not even exist without the enormous amount of supportive infrastructure and technology that mostly men provide. Hell, she would not even be able to survive. These men are invisible to women like Dowd. Like a child who wonders how the light comes on by itself. Women like Dowd think all of the technology and resources they use magically appear by themselves. Men are to Dowd, what the invisible man in the fridge is to children. Just because women can get pregnant does not mean they are somehow better than men. The female uterus has no value without the male reproductive contribution. Motherhood does not exist without men. Sometimes I think women like Dowd forget that.

I dare Dowd to go over to the Middle East and tell the men fighting over there that they are unnecessary, obsolete and devolved. I dare Dowd to go to the homes of widows and mourning families of fallen soldiers and discuss her books and articles with them. Men have died in their tens of thousands over the decades so women like Dowd could live, enjoy freedom and write books and articles about why these brave men are defective and obsolete. Here is a thought to all the men out there, reading this. How about we all go on strike. Lets see how “necessary” Dowd and Rosin think men are after 24 hours. Why should we sacrifice our time and effort to support a society that treats men like garbage?

Men don't want to feel needed, they want to be respected. If we contribute all of these things to society, then we expect some form of gratitude and respect for it. If some women can’t understand that, then imagine how you would feel if you came home from a warzone and were told you were unnecessary, redundant and obsolete by men in your own country. Imagine how you would feel coming home from 60 hours at work in a software firm, to then listen to your husband explain how you were obsolete. Technology has created a perceptual distance between men and women. Some women are now failing to see the men behind the technology that makes their modern lives possible. A common source of bigotry is such ignorance.

I want women who read this article, to take a look at Dowd’s articles and imagine for a minute how you would feel if a man wrote such material about women in the Times and Mail, traveled from place to place spruiking such material and had debates about why women were obsolete. Then imagine he has a male counterpart doing the same thing and both can spread such material with the full support of the mainstream media. Then imagine that while this is happening, girls are struggling in school and in finding employment in later life. Then imagine opening a paper, watching the news or going online and being bombarded almost every week with how women were inferior to men.

That’s what we expect men, particularly young men to put up with everyday. To women like Maureen Dowd, please have a look at your handy work below, I am sure you are real proud:

Men are not invincible creatures, we are vulnerable just like women. We have feelings, we experience pain and hurt just like women. Men are deserving of our empathy and support just like women. Men are human beings and worthy of our respect. But all too often this gynocentric man-hating culture ridicules men for expressing their feelings and when they are not ridiculed, they are ignored. Men's pain, suffering, death and their issues are consistently ignored or made fun of. Then we wonder why men are in trouble? We live in a society that does not care about how men feel and revels in kicking men while they are down. Hence the epidemic of male suicide and depression (see my article on that linked here).