MenAreGood
TheMan in the Mirror
by Moiret Allegiere
January 19, 2024
post photo preview

This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere.  He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.

__________________________________________________

 

Women can do anything men can do. And do it better. And do it in heels! So it is spoken. It is spoken, and so it has to be true.

Now – kindly deliver me from evil, and fetch me this woman who can stand behind my (almost) functional Agria 5300, mended to the best of my (lacklustre) abilities with only the finest rubber-bands and greatest duct-tape that money can buy.

Find me this magical mystery woman, so that she may mow the grass and the weeds of my bountiful fields, and do it better than me, and do it in heels to boot!

Get me this woman, show me that she can do this, and I shall fall to my knees right then and there and deliver her the finest blowjob hard work and sacrifice may buy.

There may be a certain animosity, a certain mean-ness in writing the above, but I am at the very least not condescending. I can not imagine thinking so little of women that their every act and action must, necessarily, be compared to the acts and actions of men as though men are the default, and women merely a shattered mirror-image of said men. Or, you know, made by one of our ribs.

Our strengths and our weaknesses as men is something that should be mirrored by the strengths and weaknesses of women. The way I see it, the way I understand it, we are meant to complement one another. There is little point to life, viewed from a purely biological perspective, except surviving and procreating. Does it not then make sense that the one can not do without the other; that the one must pick up the slack – so to speak – of the other? To co-exist and communicate, to cooperate, to not compete constantly.

Who does what matters little when there are things to do. What matters is that the things are done, and that they are done by those most suited to them. A strange and rather marvelous symptom of relatively easy lives, this, when one has the time and the inclination to fight over who does what, rather than seeing the things that has to be done as things that first and foremost has to be done. Particularly so when this fight involves which gender does what. Imagine seeing this from the outside, as someone completely alien to all this nonsense. It is a symptom of illness. A social malaise.

 

I believe that our greatest flaw as a society, as a civilization, as human beings is our ability to complicate matters to the point of utter absurdity. Even more so now than before, in this dawning of our great apocalyptic downfall. The absurd complexity of the M.C. Esher-esque Ziggurat of oppression-points and privilege-points constructed by cocaine-fueled sociopaths – excuse me – sociologists, and stamped and mailed and agreed upon by humanities-scholars crazy on brown acid should be seen as so ridiculous that Monty Python – in their hey-day – would stop and think that this, old chap, is a bit too absurd, wouldn’t you say, old chum, hey-hey… now, let’s get back to the guy choosing his method of execution be one where he is chased off a cliff by a horde of topless women wearing g-strings, and then for a spot of brandy, ho-ho.

Still – we accept this nonsensical screed. Probably due to feeling as though there is no choice but to accept this. After all – none of us plain proles could possibly have the mental awareness, nor the intellectual capability to argue with one so wise in the ways of science as to being unable to define a woman. Or, for that sake, having the testicular fortitude to engage with the ravenous mob of this’s and that’s and they’s and where’s and who’s and xir’s and xadam’s that will eventually descend upon one’s head for daring to state such heresy as “men have greater upper body strength than women”. Something that should, by all measures, be a fairly innocent factual statement. But it ain’t, brother, oh bother, it ain’t.

Unless one is a TERF, of course, who all of a sudden understood that there are differences between men and women which would give biological men an unfair advantage in women’s sports, despite these same pundits having said and pushed and meant and furthermore stated that there are no differences between men and women which would mean that men and women fare differently through life. But, oh, never mind – history is so easily rewritten. Obviously, this is nothing but a sinister MRA-plot to undermine and utterly destroy women in women’s spaces. For all that is bad in the world is the fault of those pesky men, after all. Never have I ever seen a greater case of “careful what you wish for” than this absolute stupidity. You might get what you wish for. Shame it bent back and slapped women across the face.

God-damn it; it was only men meant to be inconvenienced. Back to the drawing-board, ladies, and figure out how this – built on feminist rhetoric – is the fault of men.

It is not man-made horrors beyond our comprehension that will be our downfall. It is man-made absurdities beyond our comprehension. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or crawl to the top of our barn and wave my dick about with all the dick-swagger I can muster, as some sort of strange and arcane sign of dumbfounded masculinity. Things eventually reached a point where the only thing left to do is sit, mouth wide open in abject horror, and laugh hysterically at everything. Honk-honk, motherfuckers. Now – pass me some of that brown acid. Otherwise, I would not be able to comprehend anything happening. Get me an eight-bag while your at it, please?

I may be a simple man with fairly simple pleasures. Thank God—living within the rules of this absurdity would be an impossible task. Which, one would assume, is the entire point of the thing. After all – no-one is without sin. Not within Christianity, nor within the ziggurat of woke. Meeting life on fairly simple terms makes for a better life. Less complicated. But for people who, purportedly, believe in nothing except the things that they believe then and there which are not things but nothing, simplicity is akin to stupidity. And when the only identity they have is that of woke pundit, or something built upon meaningless pronouns… well, I fear that looking into the mirror would be akin to staring into the abyss for people who are so devoured by the ways and the world of woke. They would not like what stares back. The self first, the rest after. Clean your bloody room, bucko.

Women can do everything men can do. But men can not do anything women can do. Even men identifying as women. This despite us supposedly being completely equal and similar. In writing the first, a very simple thing springs to my mind: the empress aims to remove anything that is distinctly masculine from men themselves, and deliver the masculine into the hands of women.

This then leads to a lack of a genuine and singular masculine identity for our boys and for our young men. In short – the man in the mirror may well be there, but the man in the mirror has no face. The only solely masculine identity left is that of a father, which women can not replace. The hordes of feminism and the hordes of woke then seek to rip apart fatherhood itself.

 Stop me if you’ve heard this before: Fathers are not as important as mothers, fathers are not nurturing or caring and are, really, not important in the lives of children.

Fret not – the state will provide, and the father shall be tarred and feathered and branded as a dead-beat loser. Should he seek through the courts to see his children, in the event of a divorce, this will be branded as him seeking only to abuse the woman further, using the courts.

An astute observer might notice that there is a certain pattern of projection in the mind of your typical garden-variety feminist. Anything a feminist says must necessarily be considered and pondered with this question in mind: “might this be a classic case of psychological projection?” Chances are the answer is yes. For a woman scorned may well use the children – by way of the courts – to further abuse a man. One notices, of course, that there is little care, little emphasis, on the well-being of the children. It is merely the mother that matters. Which, were all right with the world, should rightly be seen as utterly contemptible behaviour.

When our son was born, we got these papers to fill out. Our names, birthdate, things like that. The word “Father” was nowhere to be seen. There was “Mother”, “Together-mother” and “Partner”. Interesting, don’t you think, that the gender-neutral “Partner” did not apply to a female partner, who instead got the interesting term “Together-mother”? A female partner needed a specific feminine term. A male partner got the gender-neutral term. “Gender-neutral” has always meant that men shall not be named.

Admittedly, I am very happy that it did say “Mother” instead of the nonsensical made-up term “Birthing-parent”. Doesn’t change the fact that the word “Father” was nowhere to be seen, of course. Yet – women can be mothers, and that is a uniquely feminine identity. As it bloody well should be. Just as father ought to be a uniquely masculine identity. Yet – father as a masculine identity is being eroded. Just as any other positive masculine identity.

We are nothing no more, nothing but double negatives. Testosterone-poisoning and toxic masculinity, fragile masculinity and dead-beat dads. Single mothers should be celebrated on father’s day, which is a day that should really anyhow be replaced with “special person’s day”. For men can not have anything for men and for men only. Women may feel slighted and left out, and nothing is more important than a woman’s fleeting and momentary feelings. The notion that a man might feel somewhat perturbed and annoyed when he, as a father, is reduced to “Partner” whereas a female partner is elevated to “Together-mother” is either an alien notion or of little-to-no concern for the powers that be.

Fretting about this god-damned paper and this god-damned word might seem like a lot for relatively little. Yet, I don’t think that it is – I consider this to be yet another nail in the coffin for anything uniquely masculine. Might be a small nail, but that doesn’t mean that all the other nails are small, nor that small nails are incapable of closing the lid. It is worrisome. Genuinely so. On a personal note, I worry for the future of our young son. On a less personal, yet still important note, I worry for the future of all our young sons who may grow up never knowing themselves due to never being gifted a positive identity that is theirs and theirs alone; due to never finding anything that they must not immediately share with girls and with women.

Still, fret not and be not yet black-pilled, brothers: the man in the mirror may have no face, but it is getting easier for all to see that the empress has no clothes.

Moiret Allegiere
 

Moiret Allegiere

Moiret Allegiere (Born 1986) hails from Norway. A self-described scribbler of lines, juggler of words and weird pseudo-hermit, he became so concerned with the state of the world that he left his long and deliberate hibernation to wreak bloody havoc on the world of fine art and literature. his blog here. and one of his books here

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
15 hours ago
The Decline of Feminism and the Manspreading Chair - Regarding Men 27

Recorded 2020 - This conversation was recorded several years ago, but it’s just as relevant today. Janice, Tom, and Paul take a sharp look at the absurdities of modern feminism—including the infamous, award-winning “Manspreading Chair.” They also discuss the growing signs that feminism may be in decline. Take a listen and see what you think.

00:29:04
May 22, 2025
Feminism: Untrue and Unhealthy

Join Tom and David Shackleton for a unique discussion of Feminism: Untrue and Unhealthy. David challenges conventional narratives and offers insights that many others shy away from. The conversation touches on his groundbreaking books, The Hand That Rocks the World and Daughters of Feminism, offering a glimpse into the thought-provoking theories that make Shackleton an important figure in our understanding of men and women. Stay tuned for a look at his ideas that continue to shape our understanding of gender.

The Hand that Rocks the World https://www.amazon.com/Hand-That-Rocks-World-Inquiry-ebook/dp/B00WRBW7X

Daughters of Feminism https://www.amazon.com/Daughters-Feminism-Women-Supporting-Equality-ebook/dp/B07CK19VJK/

00:43:50
April 23, 2025
The Anti-Male Propaganda in Netflix's Adolescence

In this discussion, Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Tom Golden take a critical look at the anti-male messaging embedded in the Netflix series Adolescence. Together, they unpack the show’s characters, storylines, and the implausibility of the events depicted, highlighting how such narratives reinforce harmful cultural stereotypes about boys and men. The conversation shines a light on how entertainment media can quietly shape public perceptions, often portraying male characters as either predatory, weak, or disposable, while sidelining the real experiences and complexities of young men.

00:59:27
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play

Dr Orion Teraban from PsycHacks addressing male disposability.

This is an amazing video and he really lays out the case for men to value there lives. It’s amazing to a tualy see such a Video.

May 09, 2025
The Margins of Mercy

This is an excellent essay on moral exclusion and its impact on men. It explores how men are often pushed outside the boundaries of moral concern and highlights feminism as a likely driving force behind this dynamic.

https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/the-margins-of-mercy

April 26, 2025
MHD - The Princess Treatment Exposed

I follow MHD on Patreon and enjoy many of his vids. Here’s one of his videos that was also on youtube. See what you think.

May 29, 2025
post photo preview
Men in Feminism: The Wrong Conversation
a look at a recent journal article

Context Matters: Why This Article's Tone Is Especially Misplaced

It’s important to note that this article (Men in feminism: A self-determination perspective and goals for the future.) was published in a special issue of Psychology of Men & Masculinities, themed “Uncharted Territory” and intended to explore the possible future of research on men and boys. That context makes the tone and framing of this particular piece all the more jarring. The article isn’t a research study but an opinion-based essay focused on promoting strategies to increase male support for feminism. What? While such a topic might make sense in a feminist journal, its placement in a journal dedicated to understanding men and boys—and especially one tasked with envisioning their future—seems oddly out of place.

Rather than offering new insights into how men might thrive, heal, or participate meaningfully in future gender discussions, the article reverts to a familiar script: men are framed as the problem, their psychological needs treated as secondary, and their involvement tolerated only when it's filtered through feminist ideology.

The piece positions feminism not as a framework for mutual transformation, but as a moral litmus test — one that men must pass by internalizing guilt, accepting blame, and proving themselves worthy through re-education. Instead of exploring what it means to be a man in today’s world or considering the genuine challenges boys and men face, the article doubles down on one-sided concern. Feminism, it declares, is a “nuanced and multifaceted movement that aims to improve the lives of women.” Really?

If this is what the future of men’s studies is supposed to look like — a repackaging of guilt and exclusion — then it offers little to the men it claims to engage.

Coercion in Disguise: The SDT Contradictions

What’s especially troubling is how the article invokes Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a framework — while blatantly disregarding its foundational principles. SDT emphasizes intrinsic motivation, rooted in three key psychological needs: autonomy (freedom of choice), competence (a sense of effectiveness), and relatedness (a feeling of connection and belonging).

Yet the article undercuts autonomy from the start by quoting ​Bell ​Hooks approvingly:

“Sexism and sexist oppression... can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility.”

Compelled? That directly contradicts the heart of SDT. Autonomy means choosing to engage out of personal conviction — not guilt, coercion, or external pressure. Framing men’s involvement in feminism as something they must do or be blamed for failing to do strips the motivation of all autonomy.

Worse still, the article insists repeatedly that even when men do participate, they should not expect empathy or appreciation. Instead, they are reminded:

“Satisfying men’s psychological needs does not mean absolving them from responsibility for ways they contribute to gender inequality and sexist oppression.”

Even when men try to help, they are portrayed as morally compromised — always in debt, never fully trustworthy. That guilt-laden framing suffocates genuine engagement.

The article also centers on women's needs exclusively, showing no reciprocal curiosity or concern about men’s experiences, values, or pain. It also relieves feminist women from any responsibility to be patient, non-judgmental or even make the men feel welcome. The goal is not dialogue — it’s correction. This is captured clearly in lines such as:

“It is not feminist women’s responsibility to make men feel welcome or to agree with men, adding emotional labor on top of gendered oppression.”

And:

“We do not mean to imply, however, that it is women’s responsibility to provide patient and non-judgmental spaces for men as this places an additional burden on women.”

So if feminist women are not responsible who is? The article recommends that rather than feminist women helping men understand feminism they should farm out that task to male feminists. This outsourcing of the task to feminist men — rather than encouraging feminist women to engage directly — creates a dynamic where emotional safety is offered only if men are already ideologically compliant:

“Women have good reasons for not trusting men immediately.”

There is no vision of mutual growth or shared humanity. Men are to be “retrained” by others — not included as equals. This fails to model dialogue or mutuality and instead sets up a hierarchy: feminist women as gatekeepers of virtue, men as potential liabilities who must prove themselves.

The result is a message that frames men as morally obligated to support women because of their supposed complicity in oppression, offers no space for their own stories or struggles, and then bars them from expecting even the basic empathy that would allow for meaningful exchange.

This isn’t just intellectually inconsistent — it’s emotionally cold and strategically self-defeating. It asks men to invest in a movement that clearly does not care whether they feel welcomed, understood, or respected. In doing so, the article violates not only the principles of SDT, but any realistic pathway toward lasting engagement or authentic partnership.**


A Better Way Forward: Respect, Not Re-education

For more than 50 years, our public institutions, media, and educational systems have focused intensely on the needs and struggles of women and girls. Perhaps it’s time we reverse the lens — to spend the next 50 years focusing just as deeply on boys and men.

Imagine this: billions of dollars dedicated to researching male development, crafting education and healthcare systems tailored to boys’ needs, launching public campaigns about male well-being, creating commissions and councils that advocate solely for men’s voices. And while all this unfolds, women and girls are politely asked to wait on the sidelines — to watch without participating, without complaint, as the cultural spotlight shifts away from them.

Would that feel fair?

For many women, such a proposal would feel outrageous — as if their lives, their needs, their experiences were being brushed aside. And that reaction is exactly the point.

Because for the past half-century, that is precisely how many men have felt: ignored, blamed, and left out of the conversation. While women were told “you matter,” men were told to man up. While girls’ self-esteem, safety, and education were prioritized, boys quietly fell behind — in school, in mental health, in family life. And yet, few women stopped to ask: What about the boys?

If the idea of sidelining women now feels wrong, then perhaps it’s time to acknowledge how wrong it was to sideline men for so long. The belief that men were powerful oppressors who deserved no empathy was a cultural myth — one that too many accepted without question. And the damage of that myth is now all around us.

We don’t need to swap one form of exclusion for another. What we need is balance. We need to understand that men have struggles, too — and they deserve just as much care, compassion, and attention. Real progress doesn’t come from focusing on just one sex. It comes from listening to both.

Let’s stop pretending that empathy is a limited resource. There’s enough to go around. But first, we have to be willing to offer some to the half of the population who has gone without it for far too long.

Journal
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/future-boys-men-masculinities

Article
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fmen0000480

Read full Article
May 27, 2025
post photo preview
Using AI with Men's Issues


I’ve created several custom GPTs focused on men’s issues. A custom GPT is essentially a private AI tool built on uploaded material. For example, one of the links below connects to Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody. When you click the link, you'll be taken to a page where you can ask the AI questions about the book. It will search the content and provide a summarized answer.

In my testing so far, the responses have been clear and insightful. Occasionally, the AI rephrases ideas in its own words—but in most cases, these interpretations are accurate. Still, keep in mind that AI isn’t perfect. While it’s a powerful tool, its answers shouldn't be treated as final authority.

Currently, there are four custom GPTs available:

I plan to expand this library and would love to hear your suggestions—what other material would you like to see added?

Note: You’ll need a free account with chatgpt account to access any of these resources.


GPT Icon
 

Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws

By Tom Golden

This GPT is designed to offer clear, professional, and well-sourced insights into the often overlooked experiences of male victims of domestic violence. It explores societal blind spots, institutional biases, and the unique challenges men face in being seen, believed, and supported.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68178dd19bfc8191a3475bcd8051917e-sex-bias-in-domestic-violence-policies-and-laws

____________________________________

 

Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of three books, this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the lives and healing processes of men and boys.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-680ed336677c8191a3527bdf1d4bf17f-understanding-men-and-boys-healing-insights

________________________________________

GPT Icon
 

Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of Stephen Baskerville's classic book Taken Into Custody. this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the difficulties surrounding divorce.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68239e442d0c81918469f94d38850af5-taken-into-custody-stephen-baskerville
_________________________________________


GPT Icon
 

Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance

By Tom Golden

Research studies by James Nuzzo, PhD, and others provide insights into boys' muscle strength and physical performance.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6824833d14d48191be9491084dd4cc8b-boys-muscle-strength-and-performance

Read full Article
May 25, 2025
post photo preview
Memorial Day: Honoring the Invisible Sacrifices


As we honor the men and women who have given their lives in military service this Memorial Day, we often focus on the visible sacrifices: the battles fought, the bravery displayed in combat, and the ultimate price paid with death. However, there are sacrifices that often go unnoticed, those that are felt long after the uniforms are put away, those that exist in the quiet aftermath of war: the mental and emotional toll on soldiers.

For many soldiers, the impact of their service does not end when they return home. While some are physically wounded, others carry psychological scars that may never fully heal. These wounds are not visible to the eye, but they are felt deeply—affecting every aspect of life, from relationships to career choices, to the personal sense of self.

The emotional and mental struggles faced by veterans often go unspoken. Issues like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and survivor's guilt can haunt them for years after the war has ended. While physical injuries can often be treated or managed, the invisible wounds are far harder to address. The pain of loss, trauma, and the moral injuries sustained in combat don’t always show up on medical charts but are carried within.

Many soldiers come home, not only grieving the comrades they lost on the battlefield but also burdened with the weight of the actions they were forced to take in the name of war. The emotional turmoil of witnessing violence, the confusion of being asked to do things that conflict with their moral compass, and the isolation that can come from feeling misunderstood by those who have not shared their experiences, can lead to an overwhelming sense of alienation.

For families of fallen soldiers, the grief is layered. While they mourn the loss of a loved one, they also often wrestle with the emotional aftermath of their service. The long-term impacts on mental health are felt across generations, as the families of soldiers who return physically and mentally scarred deal with the ripple effects of trauma. The strain on marriages, parent-child relationships, and community ties can be immense, yet the support and understanding for these issues are frequently lacking.

Memorial Day is not just a time to remember the men who died in combat—it is also an opportunity to acknowledge the immense emotional and mental cost of war that continues to impact those who survive. It is a reminder that the invisible wounds of battle—those that affect the mind and spirit—deserve as much attention and compassion as the visible ones.

This Memorial Day, as we honor those who have fallen, let us also remember those who carry the unseen scars of war. Let us stand with those who have borne the emotional and psychological burdens of military service, offering our support, empathy, and a commitment to their long-term healing. After all, the sacrifice of our soldiers is not only paid on the battlefield—it is carried on long after the guns fall silent.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals