All the Cards: The Pleasing Limits of Feminism, Misandry and Hypoagency


The concept of hypoagency is gathering pace as an explanation for the preferential treatment afforded women in many areas of life. It is also used to explain the widely-observed female obsession withinfiltrating all-male institutions, sub-cultures and societies.  Karen Straughan’s analysis of hypoagency suggests that inactivity has long been an advantageous evolutionary strategy for women – it confers personal and genetic survival for minimal personal risk. Men, by contrast, have had no such option:  for men, inactivity leads only to genetic and personal extinction.  Of course, we see most of these claims proven every day. Men who fail to act functionally are treated very harshly, compared to women: 98% of the homeless in Britain are men, for instance. Indeed, the basic concept of hypoagency coheres well with my own ‘nothing’ theory of women: women never evolved anything beyond physical charms because, in the simplest terms, it was not necessary. Male dominion and prowess obviated the need for any such ‘development’.


Hypoagency has also been used to explain the widely observed-female tendency to ‘invade’ all-male spaces. The video games subculture is a good example – increasingly infiltrated by women and their ceaseless demands for non-sexist story-lines, PC speech, and so on. By bending male agency to their collective will, so the story goes, women can secure resources both for themselves and their offspring. Hence, they have evolved a strong tendency to infiltration andmanipulation, as well as a reflexive suspicion of all-male groups and subcultures. However, this is improbable. Why? Because, as I have already stated, women never evolved complex, active patterns of behavior in relation to mensex or gender interaction.
Why would they? Aside from looking as comely as possible, female behavior mattered little for most of evolutionary history. Omnipotent male agency obviated any need for such complex adaptation – men of power coerced women to their will, whatever they said or thought. And male prowess on the hunting ground or the battlefield ensured the survival of their children, not feminine ‘wiles’

So why, then, are women so attracted to all-male spaces? Why are they so fearful of male autonomy – and indeed, the Men’s Rights Movement? In my view, simple fear: fear of abandonment, fear ofstarvation, fear of death. There is no need for long, complex explanations based on female evolutionary adaptation. And a cursory glance at contemporary feminism demonstrates this. In the final analysis, women need men a lot more than men need women.


Consider Anglo-American feminists. Despite their misandry, it will be noted that Feminists – and women in general – never seek authentic detachment from men. Ultimately, ‘separatist’ feminists are nothing of the kind. They may live in communes from which men are excluded, so that the inhabitants never see a male for years, if not decades. However, it will be noted that they still  use the technologies developed by male science very freely. Further, their communes can only exist within a protective male context – one that affords safety from wild animals, natural calamities and the criminal underclass.  Hence, it will be noted that female separatism is always selective: even the most ardent feminist retains many aspects of the despised ‘patriarchy’ in her otherwise ‘man-free’ life.


Why is this? The simple answer is that women cannot survive without men to protect and provide for them. Every supposedly ‘all-female’ institution – from nunneries to sorority houses – retains male janitors, ICT workers and security guards, literally without exception. In sum, the all-female institution is a feminist myth. And this ubiquitous, underlying dependence best explains the female obsession with infiltrating all-male social, cultural and intellectual spaces. The matter is one of sheer survival. Even the most rabidly misandrist female knows deep-down that, if men withdraw their consent from any enterprise, it will fail. And that applies to lesbian communes, not just the real-world institutions that (ultimately) sustain them.




Las Vegas Primitives Host ‘Choose Purity’ Event Claiming Premarital Sex Turns Girls Into Prostitutes

Girls who are not sexually abstinent, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer Regina Coward reportedly said, typically wind up victims of sexual assault. Or they become members of a gang. Or they take drugs. Or they become prostitutes.

To drive this message home, Coward organized a “Choose Purity” event that was co-sponsored by her police department. The message of the event, according to the Las Vegas Sun is that “[g]irls who ‘get promiscuous’ can wind up dead.” Approximately 125 parents and children attended.

The event’s program mingled its pro-abstinence message with video about women in dire circumstances. One video included interviews with a pimp and prostitutes and emphasized that women who sell sex for money are often forced into a kind of modern-day slavery. Another showed gruesome images of people who used hard drugs, including a woman who lost limbs in a meth lab explosion.

A survey published in 2006 found that 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex. Most of these people are not prostitutes. Most of them also have never been injured in a drug-related accident.

Netherlands: One way to fix the gender gap in academia – only hire women

If you want more women in your organisation, advertise jobs that are designated for women only. That’s what Delft University of Technology did.

To increase the number of women on their faculty, Delft decided in 2011 to hire the ten best women researchers they could find. Applicants could be at any stage of their careers and in any field of research covered by the university. These new employees received favourable conditions to push their research projects forward.

Crucially, the program was open only to women. Needless to say, there were legal challenges on the grounds of gender discrimination. But, as the rector of the university, Karel Luyben, described in a recent speech, he was able to convince the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights that it was essential to have more women faculty members and that more gentle measures had not succeeded.

The university won the case in December 2012. Ultimately, the university was able to move ahead with its plans and is currently conducting hirings for a second cohort for the fellowship.

And this is the funny thing about the Delft experience. The university leadership identified a need – more women in faculty. They developed a plan – only hire women. And it worked: they succeeded at hiring ten excellent new colleagues. But along the way, 30 men applied, too.

In addition to presenting a real-world example of quotas, the Delft fellowship offers an amusing example of gender-based differences in self-promotion – sometimes men lean in so far they fall on their faces.’

Boko Haram also murder boys. Where’s the ‘selfie’ protest for them?

The kidnapping of the 276 Christian schoolgirls by Islamic terror group Boko Haram is an atrocity, but it is not the first atrocity they have committed. It is just the first one to trip the West’s interest switch. A girl’s right to an education has become an important pillar in western ideology, and an important pawn in the battle against radical Islam. It is why Malala has seen herself elevated to an almost saint-like position.

The recent kidnappings have enraged western sensibilities, because they desecrate hallowed ideas about female equality. The West has responded in the only way it knows how: a self-righteous selfie protest using the hashtag ‘Bring Back Our Girls’. Michelle Obama, Cara Delevingne, Jessica Biel and Anne Hathaway have all involved themselves in it. On a more pragmatic front, Britain announced this week that it would send in a small team of Whitehall experts (the subtext being that they are members of our intelligence services and Special Forces). In a toss-up between a selfie and the SAS, I know who I’d back to ‘bring back our girls’.

But Boko Haram – whose name means ‘western education is sinful’ – does not distinguish between the education of  girls and boys. In February, the group attacked another Christian school. After boarding up every exit, its men seized 59 boys and gunned them down or cut their throats with machetes. Some buildings were sealed up and set alight. The girls were ordered to go home, abandon their ‘wicked’ schooling and seek husbands.

Where was the selfie protest then? Or does a savage affront to male education matter less than a savage affront to female education? The answer should clearly be no. For equality to count, both boys and girls need to feel safe in school. By focusing only on the girls – ‘Our Girls’ – we forget the boys who are also in danger.