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
October 02, 2025
Father Custody: The Solution to Injustices Against Men?

In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face? Both men are leading experts in this area, and together they examine some fascinating angles. One insight is that the legal contract of marriage doesn’t just unite two people — it’s also the mechanism that legally creates fathers. Yet when that contract is dissolved through divorce, the law often strips fathers of their rights, reducing them to mere “visitors” in their children’s lives. This and much more is unpacked in our discussion.

We also point to Rick’s and Stephen’s books (linked below) and to AI tools that allow you to interact with their work directly. (also linked below)

If you’ve ever wondered why custody is such a defining issue — not just for fathers but for the future of men’s rights and well-being — this dialogue offers insights you won’t want to miss.

Men are good, as are you.

Books...

01:18:10
September 25, 2025
Dr. James Nuzzo Cancelled for Challenging Feminism and DEI

Join me as I talk with Janice Fiamengo and researcher Dr. James Nuzzo about the shocking story of his academic cancellation. What begins as one man’s ordeal soon reveals how woke ideology and radical feminism are undermining science, silencing dissent, and eroding academic freedom. Thoughtful, eye-opening, and at times heartbreaking, this video exposes what really happens when universities put politics before truth.

Dr. Nuzzo's GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ChildStrengthResearch

Dr. Nuzzo's Donorbox
https://donorbox.org/the-nuzzo-letter

https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/

Previous Interviews with Dr. Nuzzo on MenAreGood
grip strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/childhood-sex-differences-in-grip

sex differences in strength https://menaregood.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-strength-and-exercise

bias against women in exercise research? https://menaregood.substack.com/p/bias-against-women-in-exercise-research

childhood sex differences in strength ...

01:01:31
September 10, 2025
Diary of a CEO's Debate on Feminism: Our Response

This video will be presented in two parts and is a joint venture between MenAreGood and Hannah Spier’s Psychobabble. Hannah’s standard approach is to make the first half free for everyone, with the second half reserved for paid subscribers. To align with her process, I’m setting aside my usual practice of making all new posts free and following the same format for this release.


Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, and Tom Golden respond to a YouTube video on The Diary of a CEO channel, which features three feminists debating the question: “Has modern feminism betrayed the very women it promised to empower?”In their response, Hannah, Janice, and Tom have a lively discussion, highlighting inconsistencies, omissions, and a variety of other notable observations.

Men Are Good

00:36:02
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
October 30, 2025
post photo preview
The Animus of "Should Studies"

This is a brief note on Women’s Studies that came to me while recording the recent discussion with Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Spier, Jim Nuzzo, and me. It was a great conversation, and I’m hoping it will be published on Friday—though we’ll see.

The Animus of “Should Studies”

Something struck me recently about Women’s Studies — or at least the version of it that dominates modern academia. It doesn’t just study women. It tells the rest of us how the world should be arranged around women. It’s less a discipline and more a moral instruction manual.

Carl Jung had a name for the part of the psyche that does this in women: the animus — the inner masculine in women. At its best, the animus offers clarity, strength, and the courage to speak truth. But when it becomes unconscious or inflated, it shifts into something harsher: judgmental, rigid, and convinced of its own righteousness.

Most men are familiar with this but have likely never had a label for the experience. It is when the woman you love goes into a state of mind where the word “should“ is featured and a marked incapacity to hear any feedback is present. in fact, if feedback is offered it is seen as proof that you are a moron. Most men learn to extricate themselves, but the experience is not forgotten. I think it was Jung who said that no man could stand in this for over a couple of minutes.

In Jung’s language, what we are describing is called animus possession — the moment when ideology replaces relationship, and the voice inside says:

“I’m right. You’re wrong.
Here’s what you must fix.”

Sound familiar? It struck me that this is exactly the posture taken by many feminists and by Women’s Studies as a field. They are right—no discussion needed. You should do this, you should do that, and I shouldn’t be treated so badly. Should, should, should.

I’m currently writing the final part of the gynocentrism series, which explores—among other things—best practices for addressing the kind of out-of-control relational aggression that often emerges from this mindset.

Modern Women’s Studies frequently embodies this shadow animus: it begins not with curiosity, but with commandments; not with questions, but with shoulds.

  • Men should act differently

  • Institutions should reorganize

  • Culture should obey

It’s freedom for one group, followed by compliance from another. Or, as I keep coming back to:

Rules for thee,
but empowerment for me.


Liberation for me,
obedience for you.

This is not dialogue. It’s dominance disguised as justice.

And here’s the psychological tragedy:
a worldview built on hostility leads to hostile ways of living.

When you’re taught the world is against you…

  • you become hypervigilant

  • disagreement feels like danger

  • control feels like self-protection

  • anger feels like moral duty

It stops being scholarship and becomes self-defense theater.

But that defense comes at a cost:

Fighting for empowerment every minute
leaves no time to feel empowered.

If the world is always out to get you, you don’t get to relax into love, trust, partnership — or peace. Contentment becomes unreachable, because vigilance never sleeps.

And so I find myself asking a question I didn’t expect:

Are we witnessing empowerment —
or animus possession?

Is this actually helping women flourish?
Or has fear replaced freedom?

If progress means constantly scanning the world for threats, enemies, and micro-offenses… then the victory is hollow. Because the person you must defend yourself from most aggressively… becomes everyone.

A worldview rooted in fear can demand power —
but it cannot deliver peace.

Read full Article
October 27, 2025
post photo preview
Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why


Never Date a Feminist: Here’s Why

Something precious has been lost between men and women. You can feel it in the awkwardness of modern dating, the cold negotiations of marriage, and the way so many couples approach each other with suspicion instead of trust. What used to be a natural partnership—rooted in complementarity and mutual respect—has been reframed through a political lens that sees power, not love, as the central dynamic.

That shift didn’t happen by chance. Feminist ideology, as it evolved from the 1960s onward, carried a moral story about men and women: that men were the oppressors and women their victims. What began as a call for fairness hardened into a worldview that mistrusts men, glorifies grievance, and turns intimacy into an ideological battlefield.

So when you date a feminist, you’re not just meeting a person—you’re often meeting a worldview that sees you as suspect before you’ve even opened your mouth.


1. The Collapse of Trust

No relationship can thrive without trust, yet feminism has steadily eroded it. When men are portrayed as potential abusers and women as perpetual victims, how can either side relax into genuine affection?

Young women today are taught to approach men as hazards—to “believe all women” and “trust no man.” The presumption of male guilt seeps into dating itself. A man’s simple gestures—holding a door, offering a compliment, expressing interest—are filtered through suspicion. Men, in turn, retreat into silence and self-protection. Many simply stop trying.

Intimacy dies when both sides are afraid of each other.


2. The Pathologizing of Masculinity

For decades, men have been told that something essential about them is wrong. Assertiveness, stoicism, competitiveness, and strength—the very traits that once formed the foundation of male contribution—are now branded “toxic.”

The tragedy is that these traits, rightly directed, make men reliable partners and protectors. A man who masters his aggression and channels his drive is the kind of man a woman can count on. Yet feminism teaches women to distrust those qualities and teaches men to suppress them.

Date a feminist, and you’ll often find yourself apologizing for being masculine at all. She’s been told to want a “strong man,” but only if he never acts like one.


3. From Partnership to Power Struggle

Love used to mean two people combining strengths to face the world together. Feminism recast that partnership as oppression. Marriage became a “patriarchal trap,” commitment a limitation, and dependence a weakness.

In the feminist frame, dating is a negotiation over power. Who pays? Who leads? Who compromises? Every act becomes a political calculation instead of a moment of grace.

But love cannot flourish in an atmosphere of scorekeeping. The best relationships aren’t 50/50 trades but 100/100 offerings—each giving their best without fear of exploitation. Feminism trains women to guard their independence and men to apologize for their strength. No wonder so many couples today feel like opponents instead of allies.


4. The Loss of Gratitude

Healthy love thrives on gratitude—the simple act of appreciating what the other brings. But when one gender is cast as the historical oppressor, gratitude becomes taboo.

Feminist teaching encourages women to expect rather than appreciate. Men are told that whatever they give—income, loyalty, protection—is merely payment on a debt. When giving becomes obligation, affection turns transactional.

That loss of gratitude leaves both sexes empty. Women feel perpetually unsatisfied, and men feel invisible. The dance of masculine offering and feminine appreciation has been replaced by mutual resentment.


5. The Devaluation of Marriage and Family

Feminism’s contempt for traditional roles has devastated family life. Marriage was recast as control, motherhood as limitation, and fatherhood as irrelevant.

A generation of women were told happiness lies in career success and sexual freedom, not in building a life with another person. Many believed it—only to find themselves lonely, overworked, and wondering where all the “good men” went.

Meanwhile, men were told they weren’t needed. Popular culture mocked fathers as fools, and courts treated them as visitors to their own children. The result: rising fatherlessness, falling marriage rates, and a generation of children growing up without stability.

Feminism calls dependence weakness. But love—real love—depends on mutual reliance. It’s not submission; it’s unity.


6. Shame and Fear in Intimacy

Dating used to carry a spark—flirtation, pursuit, playfulness. Feminism replaced it with fear. Men now hesitate to show desire lest it be called predatory; women second-guess their femininity lest it be called weakness.

Sex itself has been politicized. Every gesture is scrutinized through the lens of consent workshops and power analysis. Feminism promised liberation but delivered anxiety. Both sexes now overthink what used to come naturally.

If you date a feminist, don’t be surprised if attraction turns to debate. Ideology kills chemistry faster than rejection ever could.


7. The Weaponization of Blame

In today’s relationship culture, when something goes wrong, the narrative already knows who’s to blame—the man.

Whether the problem is emotional distance, poor communication, or conflict, men are told they must “do the work.” The female perspective is validated automatically; the male one is pathologized. Even therapy has absorbed this bias, treating men as problems to fix rather than people to understand.

Feminism’s “emotional labor” myth—claiming women bear all the relational burden—adds insult to injury. The quiet, reliable men who serve, provide, and protect are invisible to a worldview that only sees female effort.


Final Thought

Dating a feminist often means dating someone who has been taught to see you not as a partner but as an opponent. You can love her, but you’ll be fighting ghosts—the patriarchy, “toxic masculinity,” and every man who ever hurt her.

If you want a relationship built on trust, respect, and admiration, find a woman who believes in men, who sees differences as gifts, not threats.

Never date a feminist—not because you fear her strength, but because you value love too much to let ideology poison it.

Men Are Good.

Read full Article
October 23, 2025
post photo preview
W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

W​omen’s Studies was Never About Study

For decades, Women’s Studies has held a privileged place in academia. From its earliest days, it was never a neutral or exploratory field—it was born out of activism, not inquiry. The goal was not to ask open questions about gender, but to advance a political framework that saw women as oppressed and men as privileged. It promised to give women a collective voice and to expose the “hidden structures” of patriarchy, but from the beginning, its conclusions were already written into its premises.

From Activism to Orthodoxy

Women’s Studies emerged in the late 1960s as an explicitly ideological project, shaped by the political currents of second-wave feminism. Its founders were activists first and academics second. The programs they built were not designed to test ideas but to institutionalize a belief system—that society was organized around male domination and that liberation required dismantling it. Rather than studying whether patriarchy existed, Women’s Studies set out to document how it did, embedding the theory of oppression into every syllabus. What began as political conviction soon became academic dogma.

A Closed Loop of Certainty

Once the framework of oppression was installed as unquestionable truth, the field began to police its own boundaries. Dissent was not debated—it was pathologized. To question the narrative of systemic male power was to “uphold patriarchy.” To suggest that men face distinct forms of hardship was to be told you were shifting attention away from women — that you were “making it about men.”​ Even sympathetic scholars who urged more balance found themselves marginalized. In time, Women’s Studies became a self-reinforcing system—its theories generating its evidence, its evidence confirming its theories. The goal was no longer discovery but preservation of the ideology itself.

Theory Without Tether

Much of the writing in Women’s Studies rests on sweeping abstractions: “patriarchy,” “privilege,” “internalized oppression,” “toxic masculinity.” These terms are often treated not as hypotheses to be tested but as truths to be applied. Shulamith Firestone declared that “the goal of the feminist revolution must be… the elimination of the sex distinction itself.” bell hooks wrote that “patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit.” Such claims are not evidence-based conclusions; they are moral declarations — proclamations of belief.

When theory replaces evidence, conversation dies. Instead of exploring how men and women differ in complex, sometimes complementary ways, Women’s Studies tends to flatten the picture into one story: oppressors and oppressed.

The Disappearing Male

Ironically, as the field expanded into “Gender Studies,” men nearly vanished from the picture except as symbols of privilege or threat. Rarely do these programs explore male pain, fatherhood, or the male experience of relational loss, shame, or sacrifice. When male suffering is acknowledged, it’s often reframed as a symptom of “toxic masculinity” — as though men’s pain merely confirms the theory rather than complicates it.

If academia truly cared about gender, it would study men as carefully and compassionately as it studies women. But in the current climate, even suggesting that balance is considered suspect.

Power, Not Understanding

Modern Women’s and Gender Studies have largely shifted from studying what is to prescribing what should be. The core pursuit is no longer knowledge but power — the power to define social norms, influence policy, and shape language. As a result, universities now graduate students steeped in theory but poorly equipped to engage with those who don’t share their ideological framework. The field’s inward focus breeds division rather than understanding.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just an academic squabble. The ideas born in Women’s Studies now drive policies in media, law, education, and corporate culture. They shape how we talk about men and women, how we define fairness, and how we teach our children about themselves. When a discipline insists that one sex’s narrative of oppression defines the truth, it narrows empathy for the other half of humanity.

A truly balanced study of gender would ask harder questions — not how to dismantle men, but how men and women can understand each other more deeply. Until that shift happens, Women’s Studies will remain less a study of truth than a sermon about power.

Men Are Good


Note:
Next week, Janice Fiamengo, Jim Nuzzo, Hannah Spier, and I will be releasing a video discussion titled “The Evolution of Women’s Studies and Its Terms.” We’ll take a deeper look at how Women’s Studies developed, examine course materials and degree trends, and unpack the language it has generated—terms like microfeminism, antinatal feminism, compulsory heterosexuality, internalized misogyny, and kin-keeping. It should be a lively and revealing conversation.​

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