I used to be a pick me. Then I was a feminist. Now I am a misandrist. I did not get here on my own. The men brought me here. It wasn't only them that led me to my final form. It was also the strong independent women that I've met along the way that showed me that this life can be done without men. I do have to give credit where it is due though because I wouldn’t ever have gone here without the abuse and the hate and the disappointment and the indifference of men. It took me a very long time to really thoroughly understand that men hated women.  I know you want to immediately say “NOT ALL MEN” and I'll agree with you. I'd like to take trans men out of this equation and some queer men as well.  The rest of them hate women and there's nothing you can say to me to make me believe differently.  I never wanted it to be true. I never wanted to get to where I was and I am now. I remember hoping and manifesting that I would not end up here. but now that I'm here I'm not sad about it at all. If anything, I wish I would have gotten here sooner. But, let's not just take my feelings on the subject as fact. I think there is plenty of evidence over history that we can look at that validates my points. Men have proved themselves time and time again that they really just don't like women.

 

A couple of months ago I was throwing some theories around with a couple of my femme friends and I was telling them how I thought that we were never supposed to actually be with men. I said that I thought all men were really supposed to be gay and that we were only supposed to have relations with them to procreate. aside from that they should be kept away from women and children and they can take out their hate and violence and disgusting behavior on each other. I have evidence that backs this up. Before I present the first piece of evidence  I want to show you a quick little statistic. According to the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Among mammals, only 5 to 10 percent of species have significant paternal care. This may be due to females having to nurse the young (mammals have mammary glands, after all), so occasions of male assistance mean biparental care. Committed paternal care is more prevalent among carnivores and primates.

 

And now on to The Tragedy of Heterosexuality by Jane Ward. 

 

From this book, chapter 2 amused me the most because it almost argues that men, pre 19th

century, were mostly gay. Although I know I have to admit that this is not 100% true, I like to

think that my theory was correct. The Tragedy of Heterosexuality explores what Jane Ward

the “misogyny paradox,” the strange contradiction at the center of modern heterosexuality

about how men are culturally expected to love women, yet societies have historically taught

men to disrespect, dominate, or even dislike them.

 

Ward shows, through historical analyses like Afsaneh Najmabadi’s, that in certain times and

cultures, men’s primary emotional bonds were often formed with other men. Ward doesn’t say

all men exclusively had romantic relationships with men. Instead, she emphasizes that in

certain historical contexts, emotional intimacy, mentorship, and camaraderie between men

were priority. Marriage to women, in these situations, was often treated as a duty primarily

for procreation, family alliances, or social stability.

 

The chapter explains that before modern heterosexual ideals, the emotional focus wasn’t

always on male/female companionship. However, Ward emphasizes that this wasn’t universal

and didn’t mean men uniformly had romantic relationships with other men. Instead, it illustrates

how heterosexuality wasn’t always framed around love. The shift came when modern

heterosexual culture began demanding emotional connection, affection, and partnership

between men and women which created problems with patriarchal and misogynistic constructs.

 

Forced straightness, as Ward critiques it, is about how societal structures, norms, and expectations, especially over the last couple of centuries, have tightly defined heterosexuality as the only “natural” and acceptable path. Over time, heterosexual marriage became an almost compulsory institution, tied to economic survival, moral respectability, and legal status. So even when people didn’t feel deep affection or attraction, they were still expected to fulfill the heterosexual ideals of marriage, children, household roles. This expectation made alternative sexualities invisible or deviant. Ward shows how this “compulsion” was systemic. Straightness was enforced through laws, religion, media, and social pressure, leaving little room for deviation.

 

Although deviation still happened.  Men will fuck anybody from babies to old ladies and from a turkey carcass to a human carcass, I’ll leave those google searches for you to tackle on your own. But I promise you, you won’t like what you find. And those Epstein Files, proceed at your own risk.

 

I really wish they would have just let things be.

 

Now I don’t think the following should be considered deviant. I would more so call it hypocrisy. In an article from the website “Unherd” Grindr’s CEO, George Arison, confirmed there was a “significant spike in usage” of the app during the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. The spike attracted attention partly because of the contrast between the Republican Party’s public politics and the perception that many convention attendees were using a gay dating app. Although social media speculation focused on that contradiction, Arison emphasized that Grindr’s user base is politically diverse, noting that gay people exist across the political spectrum. The article also notes that this kind of surge has happened before. During the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Grindr reportedly experienced about a 120% increase in traffic before the convention’s first night. However, the 2024 event is the first time a Grindr executive has publicly confirmed such a spike.

​

Now we have spent some time talking about how men like other men so let’s get to how men hate women.

​

The article “Work, Gender and Witchcraft in Early Modern England” looks at why most people accused of witchcraft were women and argues that it had a lot to do with how everyday life and work were organized along gender lines. Historians have noticed for a long time that the gender imbalance was huge. Only about 10–30% of accused witches were men. The majority were women, and the author argues this was not random or just the result of superstition. Instead, it was tied to the roles women played in their communities. Many women worked in caregiving jobs like midwifery, nursing, food preparation, and animal care. These roles meant they were constantly interacting with neighbors and their households. When something went wrong, like a child getting sick, milk spoiling, or livestock dying, women were often the first people blamed. In communities that believed in magic or curses, everyday conflicts or bad luck could quickly turn into accusations of witchcraft.

​

At the same time, many women’s jobs were informal and poorly paid, which left them economically vulnerable and socially dependent on others. That made them easier targets when tensions arose in small communities where gossip and disputes between neighbors could spiral into formal accusations.

​

These ideas were reinforced by texts like the Malleus maleficarum, which claimed women were naturally more prone to witchcraft because they were supposedly weaker, more emotional, and easier for the devil to manipulate. These beliefs reflected a deeply patriarchal culture that already viewed women as inferior. The Salem witch trials in 1692 followed the same pattern. Fear, religious anxiety, and social stress led to accusations that mostly targeted women. Looking at the bigger picture, witch hunts were not just about superstition. They were also a way societies blamed and controlled women.

Modern day misogyny and hatred of women may seem a little different but the end results are often the same.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​