As a political strategy, this was all laid out in the 1930s by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci who advocated a long march through the institutions (schools and universities, the church, the courts, etc) rather than a revolutionary frontal attack on government itself. In short, a long and 'quiet' revolution from the inside.
Quite right. And you may have noted that I pinched his usage of the term hegemony without a name-check. In my defence, my research suggests he didn’t have great influence on feminism outside the academy. So while Gramsci (and Dutschke) got there first, feminists found their own way to much the same place.
The Melbourne Age, a left-liberal newspaper here in Australia, published an article online the other day titled: "How do I stop my son from becoming a monster?" and underneath: "Mums of baby boys are pleading for help from experts, already fearful of the men they might become." It was paywalled, but the headline says it all.
When women became a recognised disadvantaged group, their takeover was almost immediate as they were given leverage over merit for controlling positions. It was never about equality and this has outplayed brilliantly for the feminists in Australia to the detriment of men.
Humanity, and in particular those with decision-making authority - at all levels - would do well to learn a little history and, while they're at it, a little biology.
Smaller and weaker and infused with a much higher level of neuroticism (risk-aversion, anxiety, feeling of vulnerability), throughout history women have defended themselves by craft: manipulation, reputation-damage, and yes, false accusation. In olden times it was well understood: witness sharia courts, where a woman's testimony is weighted half that of a man's. Misogyny? Perhaps, but more than that, centuries of experience.
Now for the first time able to control their fertility and with a lot of time on their hands, many women cast about for venues other than the home to exercise control, and they've found it in education, corporate boards, and politics. Anyone who has dealt with a female-controlled HR department knows whereof I speak. Sugar and spice and all things nice? Don't you believe a word of it.
Sadly, the state of democracy vis a vis feminism is equally bad throughout the English speaking world. Ironically, the increase in Muslim immigration will challenge the feminists in these societies as one illiberal ideology combats another. It would be justice of a tragic sort if feminist embrace of illiberal feminazi conduct resulted in their becoming enslaved by Sharia Law.
I’m no fan of feminism and repeatedly refer to it as a cult. You’re either in or at least supportive, or you’re the enemy, even if you’re a woman. Your point about the shift in atmosphere through the infiltration and embedding of assumptions to the point where the accepted position can’t really be questioned within institutions hits home. The effect is that men learn quickly that disagreement equals misogyny. Women who don’t align, particularly when they notice the misandry, are treated as suspect. People don’t end up saying what they think, so after a while they don’t even think it.
I appreciate this breakdown of the Australian landscape as there's relatively few commentators here. When I share similar observations with colleagues, I either get blank looks or the conversation gets shut down with statistics about violence against women.
The fundamental incongruence between liberal democracy and feminism is simply in how women tend to behave together when they gain control. That is, they tend to rule by exclusion based upon whom they agree with. Group consensus is enforced; debate isn't well tolerated. Opposition to outside challenges are a forgone conclusion because "the truth" will have been decided upon. Censorship then easily follows. A state of illiberalism; backed by the threat of state violence, is not an unrealistic outcome.
Excellent essay, as usual, Tony. Thank you for that, and I hope to read many more of your efforts to challenge feminism.
Men are no better off here in Canada than they are in Australia or Britain and many other Western countries. But a significant minority in at least one country, the most influential of all, is fighting back. That would be the United States. Say what you will about the raucous and chaotic political culture (especially but not only in our time), Americans still have a constitution that their founders designed in the eighteenth century as a product of the Enlightenment (something that no modern constitution, such as Canada's, could ever replicate in this irrational age). There are those who campaign openly now to "reimagine" it, but they'll have to win a few more elections to do that. Meanwhile, our only hope, no matter how faint, is that the Americans will succeed in restoring their own liberal democracy and thus indirectly influence the outcome in other countries--unless anti-Americanism takes priority over every other consideration, as it now does only a few miles across the border in Canada.
By the way, among the most potent venues of feminism has nothing to do with government bureaucracies and courts of law. I'm thinking of the "entertainment" industry and its destructive effect on the court of public opinion. Yesterday, for example, I read the following review (fortunately a hostile one) of a new Netfix movie. See John Anderson,”‘ The Second Sex No Longer,” review of Ladies First, Wall Street Journal, 22 May 2026; https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/television/ladies-first-review-the-second-sex-no-longer-78a02877?mod=MorningEditorialReport&mod=djemMER_h. This movie is only the most recent example of feminist propaganda masquerading as entertainment. And The View (presumably the one and only politically acceptable view) has been doing the same thing for many years by masquerading as a news show on television. This pattern was established decades ago. See Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture: Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2001).
Your point about the US has got me thinking. The US does have a huge influence on the global elite and feminism is arguably the most globalised of all political ideologies today. So, as you imply, feminism’s fortunes might well wane globally in the right circumstances.
I also agree strongly that misandry in the entertainment industry, popular culture & media doesn’t get the attention it deserves. And I warmly recommend your book Spreading Misandry to any who want to learn more.
But don't stop with Spreading Misandry, Tony! The series has three more volumes: Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against men (2006); Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010); and Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men (2015).
I wish that these problems (not only feminism but now closely allied ideologies) were outdated, but they're not. That's because they have emerged from a context that's much older and much deeper than the current legal or social-scientific ones. Tinkering with law reform and pedagogical theory alone will not restore Western civilization, let alone liberal democracy. Only a renewed moral vocabulary could do that, one that relies not on utopian or hedonistic fantasies but on closely observed realities (such as the innate inter-dependence of men and women).
The canary in the coal mine lies in the questions you cannot ask. “Why do want or need equal sex parity in xyz?” In marketing, media, art and the like it's even an easy question to answer. It gets harder in policing, firefighting, and the military, but still it moves forward as if the question has already been answered. Despite evidence to the contrary.
Tony, keep up the great job of shining a light on the excesses of feminist ideology. Once seen and identified in the eyes of the non ideologically captured, I hope it will be hard to completely ignore and some of the information will stick.
However it will be a long and windy road given how much the ideology has permeated every facet of life, and how many men succumb to gaslighting and sophistry, and seem accepting of gamma bias and gyno centrism.
thank you so much for this analysis... I am a victim of this abuse. I lost my house, my livelihood and my well being because of false allegations that were aided and abetted by ' women's rights" and support groups. I lost my voice and my agency. I was treated as persona non grata by the legal system....
Emilyslist.org.au
Emilyslist.org.uk
Emilyslist.org
Three progressive feminist organisations get together every 2-3 years. Embedded in the political parties.
The liberal party has two similar but differently named organisations. I believe they are the commandos tearing the liberals down from the inside.
There is another overarching feminist structure across party lines. The sovereignty of our parliaments have been solidly compromised.
Some of what I have said is facetious, like ‘commando’ units, however there is a very solid compromisation.
As a political strategy, this was all laid out in the 1930s by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci who advocated a long march through the institutions (schools and universities, the church, the courts, etc) rather than a revolutionary frontal attack on government itself. In short, a long and 'quiet' revolution from the inside.
Quite right. And you may have noted that I pinched his usage of the term hegemony without a name-check. In my defence, my research suggests he didn’t have great influence on feminism outside the academy. So while Gramsci (and Dutschke) got there first, feminists found their own way to much the same place.
The Melbourne Age, a left-liberal newspaper here in Australia, published an article online the other day titled: "How do I stop my son from becoming a monster?" and underneath: "Mums of baby boys are pleading for help from experts, already fearful of the men they might become." It was paywalled, but the headline says it all.
How many abortions are because the child is male I wonder?
When women became a recognised disadvantaged group, their takeover was almost immediate as they were given leverage over merit for controlling positions. It was never about equality and this has outplayed brilliantly for the feminists in Australia to the detriment of men.
Feminism is a global movement. The rest of the world is in much the same position.
This is exactly why the argument that we live in a patriarchy is complete nonsense.
Humanity, and in particular those with decision-making authority - at all levels - would do well to learn a little history and, while they're at it, a little biology.
Smaller and weaker and infused with a much higher level of neuroticism (risk-aversion, anxiety, feeling of vulnerability), throughout history women have defended themselves by craft: manipulation, reputation-damage, and yes, false accusation. In olden times it was well understood: witness sharia courts, where a woman's testimony is weighted half that of a man's. Misogyny? Perhaps, but more than that, centuries of experience.
Now for the first time able to control their fertility and with a lot of time on their hands, many women cast about for venues other than the home to exercise control, and they've found it in education, corporate boards, and politics. Anyone who has dealt with a female-controlled HR department knows whereof I speak. Sugar and spice and all things nice? Don't you believe a word of it.
Sadly, the state of democracy vis a vis feminism is equally bad throughout the English speaking world. Ironically, the increase in Muslim immigration will challenge the feminists in these societies as one illiberal ideology combats another. It would be justice of a tragic sort if feminist embrace of illiberal feminazi conduct resulted in their becoming enslaved by Sharia Law.
I’m no fan of feminism and repeatedly refer to it as a cult. You’re either in or at least supportive, or you’re the enemy, even if you’re a woman. Your point about the shift in atmosphere through the infiltration and embedding of assumptions to the point where the accepted position can’t really be questioned within institutions hits home. The effect is that men learn quickly that disagreement equals misogyny. Women who don’t align, particularly when they notice the misandry, are treated as suspect. People don’t end up saying what they think, so after a while they don’t even think it.
I appreciate this breakdown of the Australian landscape as there's relatively few commentators here. When I share similar observations with colleagues, I either get blank looks or the conversation gets shut down with statistics about violence against women.
The fundamental incongruence between liberal democracy and feminism is simply in how women tend to behave together when they gain control. That is, they tend to rule by exclusion based upon whom they agree with. Group consensus is enforced; debate isn't well tolerated. Opposition to outside challenges are a forgone conclusion because "the truth" will have been decided upon. Censorship then easily follows. A state of illiberalism; backed by the threat of state violence, is not an unrealistic outcome.
Excellent essay, as usual, Tony. Thank you for that, and I hope to read many more of your efforts to challenge feminism.
Men are no better off here in Canada than they are in Australia or Britain and many other Western countries. But a significant minority in at least one country, the most influential of all, is fighting back. That would be the United States. Say what you will about the raucous and chaotic political culture (especially but not only in our time), Americans still have a constitution that their founders designed in the eighteenth century as a product of the Enlightenment (something that no modern constitution, such as Canada's, could ever replicate in this irrational age). There are those who campaign openly now to "reimagine" it, but they'll have to win a few more elections to do that. Meanwhile, our only hope, no matter how faint, is that the Americans will succeed in restoring their own liberal democracy and thus indirectly influence the outcome in other countries--unless anti-Americanism takes priority over every other consideration, as it now does only a few miles across the border in Canada.
By the way, among the most potent venues of feminism has nothing to do with government bureaucracies and courts of law. I'm thinking of the "entertainment" industry and its destructive effect on the court of public opinion. Yesterday, for example, I read the following review (fortunately a hostile one) of a new Netfix movie. See John Anderson,”‘ The Second Sex No Longer,” review of Ladies First, Wall Street Journal, 22 May 2026; https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/television/ladies-first-review-the-second-sex-no-longer-78a02877?mod=MorningEditorialReport&mod=djemMER_h. This movie is only the most recent example of feminist propaganda masquerading as entertainment. And The View (presumably the one and only politically acceptable view) has been doing the same thing for many years by masquerading as a news show on television. This pattern was established decades ago. See Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture: Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2001).
Your point about the US has got me thinking. The US does have a huge influence on the global elite and feminism is arguably the most globalised of all political ideologies today. So, as you imply, feminism’s fortunes might well wane globally in the right circumstances.
I also agree strongly that misandry in the entertainment industry, popular culture & media doesn’t get the attention it deserves. And I warmly recommend your book Spreading Misandry to any who want to learn more.
But don't stop with Spreading Misandry, Tony! The series has three more volumes: Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against men (2006); Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010); and Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men (2015).
I wish that these problems (not only feminism but now closely allied ideologies) were outdated, but they're not. That's because they have emerged from a context that's much older and much deeper than the current legal or social-scientific ones. Tinkering with law reform and pedagogical theory alone will not restore Western civilization, let alone liberal democracy. Only a renewed moral vocabulary could do that, one that relies not on utopian or hedonistic fantasies but on closely observed realities (such as the innate inter-dependence of men and women).
Mea culpa!
The canary in the coal mine lies in the questions you cannot ask. “Why do want or need equal sex parity in xyz?” In marketing, media, art and the like it's even an easy question to answer. It gets harder in policing, firefighting, and the military, but still it moves forward as if the question has already been answered. Despite evidence to the contrary.
Tony, keep up the great job of shining a light on the excesses of feminist ideology. Once seen and identified in the eyes of the non ideologically captured, I hope it will be hard to completely ignore and some of the information will stick.
However it will be a long and windy road given how much the ideology has permeated every facet of life, and how many men succumb to gaslighting and sophistry, and seem accepting of gamma bias and gyno centrism.
Simply brilliant Tony.
The most startling thing about this article is how few the examples of such clear minded analysis there are presently.
thank you so much for this analysis... I am a victim of this abuse. I lost my house, my livelihood and my well being because of false allegations that were aided and abetted by ' women's rights" and support groups. I lost my voice and my agency. I was treated as persona non grata by the legal system....
U R not alone.🫶
This link is well worth listening to in the context of this article.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FGCy8i9SK/
ALL men keep ALL women in a state of fear
Susan Brownmiller
A thinking woman sleeps with monsters
Adrienne Rich
In no way are men (under feminism) allowed to be men. Feminism is a death wish on our sons.