Indeed. When someone begins from a place of equality and fairness, even at my expense, I'm listening. When they speak down to me I'm done. I stopped taking seriously pieces with terms like, "mankeeping" in the title, or pieces addressing me by my skin color.
They may be insightful, but the only way I'll know is if they hit critical mass for satirizing. Otherwise there are a million other pieces to read that threaten insight without dunking on me.
I would have thought that, as a straight white man, with all the patriarchal power that implies, starting a war with me would be a bad move.
But that’s just it, isn’t it? Somehow, the fact that I’m so powerful is simultaneously a reason to dethrone me but not a reason to exercise caution in the attempt.
But who cares about inconsistency when they’re writing a blog post somewhere? It’s not like they’re actually trying to change anything.
This not an aberration. Virtually all the terminology of 21st Century feminism is specifically designed to dehumanize men.
Here are a few examples.
Patriarch / Patriarchy-enforcer – sometimes used to reduce men to mere agents of oppression, ignoring individuality.
• Toxic masculinity – originally meant to critique harmful gender norms, but often misused as a blanket indictment of men or masculinity itself.
• Mansplaining – shorthand for a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman, but sometimes applied indiscriminately to men expressing opinions.
• Manterrupting – describing men who interrupt women, though it can imply men interrupt by nature.
• Male tears – used to mock men who complain about feminist arguments, often dismissing male emotional expression as unworthy.
• Fragile male ego – suggests that men are inherently insecure and cannot handle criticism.
• Deadbeat dad – used in critiques of irresponsible fathers, but sometimes applied broadly to men in family contexts.
• Oppressor / Rapist-in-waiting – extreme rhetoric portraying men collectively as potential abusers.
• All men are trash – a slogan in some feminist spaces, usually meant rhetorically, but still degrading when applied universally.
• Bros / Bro culture / Broflake – diminutive or mocking terms for men associated with stereotypical male behavior.
• Privilege-blind – a critique of men for allegedly being unable to perceive women’s oppression, often phrased as if universally true.
• Incel / Neckbeard – although not strictly feminist-coined, these terms are often used in feminist commentary to deride socially awkward or unmarried men.
• Manbaby / Manchild – implies men are emotionally stunted or immature by default.
I follow you because of the work you did on calling out the narcissism and totalitarianism in the feminist movement. But then I see you writing things like this and I wonder if you even understood what it was you were criticizing:
"Think of the term “Husbandry”. Originally meaning ‘homeowner’, the term ‘husband’ evolved to refer both to the care and management of livestock and being the male partner in the committed heterosexual union of two humans. How did this come to pass? I think it is clear that it was caused by a patriarchal society creating cultural narratives that did not see women as fully autonomous people like men, but rather as beings men had the burden of caring for and managing."
You still fail to grasp the basic false attribution error in the one-size-fits-all use of the word "patriarchy". All you've done here is point out the left-wing hierarchy inversion typical of dogmatic Marxians. And if you were simply pointing out that these feminists were flipping a strawman to assert a narcissistic approach to meeting the needs of lonely men, then you would be accurate. But instead, you continue to push the myth that women's agency wasn't valued despite the fact that they had primary influence over children's education and social development. That's not a system of oppression. That's a system where women are incredibly powerful. Calling that "patriarchy", which means a system of oppression is ludicrous and bigoted towards men. I think you sincerely want to treat men fairly, and not harmfully. But you utterly fail to grasp how the myth of patriarchy is harmful, and by perpetuating it, you are contributing to it continuing.
Sadly, it seems sometimes that you learned nothing from exposing the corruption in the academies due to feminism because you keep regurgitating the mind virus that led to that corruption in the first place.
I disagree with you. People can do so quite legitimately. The “fallacy of equal knowledge” where you believe that people who disagree with you must be ignorant and need to “educate themselves” is the mark of an ideologue.
It’s time we name the emotional labor women are forced to inherit—not as “natural caretakers,” but as the universal fixers of patriarchy’s mess. Every time society expects us to coddle grown men, we lose another ounce of ourselves. In my latest letter on the hidden costs of “happily ever after,” I break down why choosing your own sanity is the ultimate rebellion.👉 Read: https://vostrength.substack.com/p/swiping-right-on-misery
Thank you Helen as ever for your « overflowing » depth and breadth of clear thinking. Another benefit of that struck me this time: how you are able to take a cool historical viewpoint that frames these battles of reasoning as done and dusted rather than requiring extra troops to fight an issue that’s been resolved. 😊
I am not a woman, or beautiful, or a feminist, so the content didn’t resonate with me, but here’s a relevant quote:
“…Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Johnny Keats
This might be an interesting theme to explore in respect of, say, Pamela Anderson. Is beauty transient, or has Pamela’s beauty changed but not been diminished by the passage of time? That would allow you to address issues of the rate of depreciation of female beauty. You could compare Pamela Anderson’s trajectory with, say, Rachel Ziegler.
Does “society” consider Ziegler beautiful? If not, what does that say about the dimensions of beauty?
Despite not being the target audience, love your perspective. The quote encapsulating beauty is so calmingly sufficient in many ways. Thank you very much!
This may be the first time I will agree 100% with you without adding a "yes, but also..."
Moreover, I am now reconsidering a response you made time ago to one of my comments saying maybe I was more a liberal than a leftist.
I'm still not sure, but over time I'm becoming more pissed about the attitude of radical feminists like JCJ which to me seems to discount too much real science as if it was ideology (i.e. evolutionary psychology) and also fails to be thoroughly self critical.
If you are honest it seems inescapable that once you have seen identity politics disrupt the left (i.e. trans activism) you should apply the same reasoning/critique also to certain strains of radical feminism, without the fear of giving ammunitions "to the opponents" (especially when you already recognized that this attitude is what gave fuel to the right in the US re: trans topics).
It's a shame, because "mankeeping" could have been an ironically understated way to refer to the set of relationship skills and practices generally* applicable to keeping a male partner healthy and happy, especially when he faces life challenges associated with being a man.
And maybe we could have "womankeeping" and "twinkkeeping" and "butchkeeping..." In fact I'm pretty sure that's where this will go eventually.
For all the snark, it's probably a good thing that we're back to talking about how what your partner needs* at different times, and how they communicate, may be to do with aspects of their sex, sexual identity and socialisation, which you at least need to recognise and negotiate with.
*Disclaimer: in general, on average, often applicable but not always, not exhaustive, but maybe a good place to start, people should still consider the specific human etc etc.
> it holds the interests of all people to be equally important in principle, while recognising that some groups may need more attention than others in specific social structures
I have a little bit different take on this. "Social structures" tend to benefit certain privileged groups. If certain other groups need more attention, maybe it's not the amount of attention that's wrong, but the social structure itself.
Social structures should represent the hard fought compromise of *all* demographics. Not the victory of a particular class, and "generous" "assistance" for a disadvantaged group to achieve "true equality", as carefully defined by a particular demographic.
Are you trying to play a game of oneupmanship with fallacies? With respect, bringing up the fallacy of equal knowledge is an obvious Red Herring if you're accusing me of making it.
I read the article you've linked to a few months ago, and I genuinely enjoy your writing style. I agree that the feminist concept of patriarchy should be dispensed with (your words), but entirely. Using patriarchy the way you did in this current article is a strawman that denies women's very real agency. And it perpetuates the guilt and shame laid on males which is driving countless social problems today, including the friendship crisis.
When you love someone, does that not give them power over you? Yet we evolved love because it leads to more offspring and intergenerational support for child rearing. It is necessary and exists despite narcissistic assumptions about gender and motive.
Consider how your use of patriarchy in the quoted paragraph obviously implies that men didn't love their wives. Female narcissists (not meaning you, i don't think you're a narcisst, but the crafters of feminist ideology are notoriously narcisstic) project that onto history. I can't belief I need to point out that men do love their families and did rely heavily upon their wives to survive for almost all of history. Your use of "patriarchy" is in denial of the power women had at that time based on the luxury beliefs of recent times.
You'll need to explain how the fallacy of equal knowledge is even vaguely relevant, and show that you understand my point (or ask for clarification) to make a compelling argument.
Andrew, you have become extremely aerated because I said that a patriarchal society was patriarchal and leapt to all kinds of conclusions about this meaning women had no power and influence. I don’t know why you’d jump to that assumption when you’ve already read my piece on what a patriarchy is which addresses that.
The fallacy of equal knowledge is when, rather than assuming someone else might have read widely and thought much about a subject and come to a different conclusion than you, you just accuse them of not having grasped, understood or got something. You assume that their different stance must be because they don’t “get it” like you do.
And you’re just highly and unnecessarily antagonistic and personally insulting about it and I just don’t have the time and patience for it when I have people capable of having a civil conversation. I’m going away from here again for a few more days again now and when I come back, I’ll only be spending an hour a day on all forms of social media. This means I will be seeing people out if they can’t accept difference of opinions to exist and engage in a respectful and productive way. I will see you out now, because otherwise I will forget your name and try to have a conversation with you again .
P.S. I’m not “making an argument” against your “point” refuting something that was not said or even implied and which I have already written at length saying the opposite of and which you claim to have read. Don’t be silly.
Gonna have to reread. It's rare I'm not pretty well aligned with both Helen and Jesse at the same time but here goes.
One of my earliest literary influences was 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.'. My take away was how the author used his maintenance routine for his motorcycle as an analogy for how he needed to take care of his own mental health. It seemed he thus reduced his own mental health to a form of 'mankeeping.'. This seemed brilliant to me. To this day, I use it. For example, if I don't play soccer regularly, my mental health slips.
So I see no harm in the term 'mankeeping' to the degree to which I have explained it. It's helpful.
Okay so does the problem comes later, in relationship with a woman?
Is there not a certain amount man-keeping and woman keeping that goes on and should go on in a healthy relationship?
The usual calm, rational, humane reasoning we always expect from Helen Pluckrose.
Indeed. When someone begins from a place of equality and fairness, even at my expense, I'm listening. When they speak down to me I'm done. I stopped taking seriously pieces with terms like, "mankeeping" in the title, or pieces addressing me by my skin color.
They may be insightful, but the only way I'll know is if they hit critical mass for satirizing. Otherwise there are a million other pieces to read that threaten insight without dunking on me.
Thank you, Helen. Always clear, always balanced, always nuanced.
Brilliant essay.
I would have thought that, as a straight white man, with all the patriarchal power that implies, starting a war with me would be a bad move.
But that’s just it, isn’t it? Somehow, the fact that I’m so powerful is simultaneously a reason to dethrone me but not a reason to exercise caution in the attempt.
But who cares about inconsistency when they’re writing a blog post somewhere? It’s not like they’re actually trying to change anything.
This not an aberration. Virtually all the terminology of 21st Century feminism is specifically designed to dehumanize men.
Here are a few examples.
Patriarch / Patriarchy-enforcer – sometimes used to reduce men to mere agents of oppression, ignoring individuality.
• Toxic masculinity – originally meant to critique harmful gender norms, but often misused as a blanket indictment of men or masculinity itself.
• Mansplaining – shorthand for a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman, but sometimes applied indiscriminately to men expressing opinions.
• Manterrupting – describing men who interrupt women, though it can imply men interrupt by nature.
• Male tears – used to mock men who complain about feminist arguments, often dismissing male emotional expression as unworthy.
• Fragile male ego – suggests that men are inherently insecure and cannot handle criticism.
• Deadbeat dad – used in critiques of irresponsible fathers, but sometimes applied broadly to men in family contexts.
• Oppressor / Rapist-in-waiting – extreme rhetoric portraying men collectively as potential abusers.
• All men are trash – a slogan in some feminist spaces, usually meant rhetorically, but still degrading when applied universally.
• Bros / Bro culture / Broflake – diminutive or mocking terms for men associated with stereotypical male behavior.
• Privilege-blind – a critique of men for allegedly being unable to perceive women’s oppression, often phrased as if universally true.
• Incel / Neckbeard – although not strictly feminist-coined, these terms are often used in feminist commentary to deride socially awkward or unmarried men.
• Manbaby / Manchild – implies men are emotionally stunted or immature by default.
There remains a similar discussion to be had about the term ‘toxic masculinity’, something which I contributed to here a while ago: https://menscenter.org/a-linguist-asks-is-time-finally-up-for-the-phrase-toxic-masculinity/
I follow you because of the work you did on calling out the narcissism and totalitarianism in the feminist movement. But then I see you writing things like this and I wonder if you even understood what it was you were criticizing:
"Think of the term “Husbandry”. Originally meaning ‘homeowner’, the term ‘husband’ evolved to refer both to the care and management of livestock and being the male partner in the committed heterosexual union of two humans. How did this come to pass? I think it is clear that it was caused by a patriarchal society creating cultural narratives that did not see women as fully autonomous people like men, but rather as beings men had the burden of caring for and managing."
You still fail to grasp the basic false attribution error in the one-size-fits-all use of the word "patriarchy". All you've done here is point out the left-wing hierarchy inversion typical of dogmatic Marxians. And if you were simply pointing out that these feminists were flipping a strawman to assert a narcissistic approach to meeting the needs of lonely men, then you would be accurate. But instead, you continue to push the myth that women's agency wasn't valued despite the fact that they had primary influence over children's education and social development. That's not a system of oppression. That's a system where women are incredibly powerful. Calling that "patriarchy", which means a system of oppression is ludicrous and bigoted towards men. I think you sincerely want to treat men fairly, and not harmfully. But you utterly fail to grasp how the myth of patriarchy is harmful, and by perpetuating it, you are contributing to it continuing.
Sadly, it seems sometimes that you learned nothing from exposing the corruption in the academies due to feminism because you keep regurgitating the mind virus that led to that corruption in the first place.
I disagree with you. People can do so quite legitimately. The “fallacy of equal knowledge” where you believe that people who disagree with you must be ignorant and need to “educate themselves” is the mark of an ideologue.
https://quillette.com/2025/03/27/how-to-tell-if-youre-living-in-a-patriarchy-feminism-medieval-history/
It’s time we name the emotional labor women are forced to inherit—not as “natural caretakers,” but as the universal fixers of patriarchy’s mess. Every time society expects us to coddle grown men, we lose another ounce of ourselves. In my latest letter on the hidden costs of “happily ever after,” I break down why choosing your own sanity is the ultimate rebellion.👉 Read: https://vostrength.substack.com/p/swiping-right-on-misery
Thank you Helen as ever for your « overflowing » depth and breadth of clear thinking. Another benefit of that struck me this time: how you are able to take a cool historical viewpoint that frames these battles of reasoning as done and dusted rather than requiring extra troops to fight an issue that’s been resolved. 😊
Hey, I just wrote my first piece today about feminine economics and beauty as capital- would love any and all kinds of feedback. Thank you xx
https://open.substack.com/pub/esha22/p/the-feminine-economics-of-beauty?r=gp86x&utm_medium=ios
I am not a woman, or beautiful, or a feminist, so the content didn’t resonate with me, but here’s a relevant quote:
“…Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Johnny Keats
This might be an interesting theme to explore in respect of, say, Pamela Anderson. Is beauty transient, or has Pamela’s beauty changed but not been diminished by the passage of time? That would allow you to address issues of the rate of depreciation of female beauty. You could compare Pamela Anderson’s trajectory with, say, Rachel Ziegler.
Does “society” consider Ziegler beautiful? If not, what does that say about the dimensions of beauty?
In peace.
Despite not being the target audience, love your perspective. The quote encapsulating beauty is so calmingly sufficient in many ways. Thank you very much!
Hey Esha! What did you think of Helen’s piece!!? Thanks.
Ver fascinating read! I’m particularly mind blown by the origins of the term ‘husbandry’ and it’s implications to modern day upkeep
Indeed. I thought that very thing!! Thanks!!
Thank you.
This may be the first time I will agree 100% with you without adding a "yes, but also..."
Moreover, I am now reconsidering a response you made time ago to one of my comments saying maybe I was more a liberal than a leftist.
I'm still not sure, but over time I'm becoming more pissed about the attitude of radical feminists like JCJ which to me seems to discount too much real science as if it was ideology (i.e. evolutionary psychology) and also fails to be thoroughly self critical.
If you are honest it seems inescapable that once you have seen identity politics disrupt the left (i.e. trans activism) you should apply the same reasoning/critique also to certain strains of radical feminism, without the fear of giving ammunitions "to the opponents" (especially when you already recognized that this attitude is what gave fuel to the right in the US re: trans topics).
It's a shame, because "mankeeping" could have been an ironically understated way to refer to the set of relationship skills and practices generally* applicable to keeping a male partner healthy and happy, especially when he faces life challenges associated with being a man.
And maybe we could have "womankeeping" and "twinkkeeping" and "butchkeeping..." In fact I'm pretty sure that's where this will go eventually.
For all the snark, it's probably a good thing that we're back to talking about how what your partner needs* at different times, and how they communicate, may be to do with aspects of their sex, sexual identity and socialisation, which you at least need to recognise and negotiate with.
*Disclaimer: in general, on average, often applicable but not always, not exhaustive, but maybe a good place to start, people should still consider the specific human etc etc.
> it holds the interests of all people to be equally important in principle, while recognising that some groups may need more attention than others in specific social structures
I have a little bit different take on this. "Social structures" tend to benefit certain privileged groups. If certain other groups need more attention, maybe it's not the amount of attention that's wrong, but the social structure itself.
Social structures should represent the hard fought compromise of *all* demographics. Not the victory of a particular class, and "generous" "assistance" for a disadvantaged group to achieve "true equality", as carefully defined by a particular demographic.
"if this is found to be a commonly experienced problem" lmao thank you
Are you trying to play a game of oneupmanship with fallacies? With respect, bringing up the fallacy of equal knowledge is an obvious Red Herring if you're accusing me of making it.
I read the article you've linked to a few months ago, and I genuinely enjoy your writing style. I agree that the feminist concept of patriarchy should be dispensed with (your words), but entirely. Using patriarchy the way you did in this current article is a strawman that denies women's very real agency. And it perpetuates the guilt and shame laid on males which is driving countless social problems today, including the friendship crisis.
When you love someone, does that not give them power over you? Yet we evolved love because it leads to more offspring and intergenerational support for child rearing. It is necessary and exists despite narcissistic assumptions about gender and motive.
Consider how your use of patriarchy in the quoted paragraph obviously implies that men didn't love their wives. Female narcissists (not meaning you, i don't think you're a narcisst, but the crafters of feminist ideology are notoriously narcisstic) project that onto history. I can't belief I need to point out that men do love their families and did rely heavily upon their wives to survive for almost all of history. Your use of "patriarchy" is in denial of the power women had at that time based on the luxury beliefs of recent times.
You'll need to explain how the fallacy of equal knowledge is even vaguely relevant, and show that you understand my point (or ask for clarification) to make a compelling argument.
Andrew, you have become extremely aerated because I said that a patriarchal society was patriarchal and leapt to all kinds of conclusions about this meaning women had no power and influence. I don’t know why you’d jump to that assumption when you’ve already read my piece on what a patriarchy is which addresses that.
The fallacy of equal knowledge is when, rather than assuming someone else might have read widely and thought much about a subject and come to a different conclusion than you, you just accuse them of not having grasped, understood or got something. You assume that their different stance must be because they don’t “get it” like you do.
And you’re just highly and unnecessarily antagonistic and personally insulting about it and I just don’t have the time and patience for it when I have people capable of having a civil conversation. I’m going away from here again for a few more days again now and when I come back, I’ll only be spending an hour a day on all forms of social media. This means I will be seeing people out if they can’t accept difference of opinions to exist and engage in a respectful and productive way. I will see you out now, because otherwise I will forget your name and try to have a conversation with you again .
P.S. I’m not “making an argument” against your “point” refuting something that was not said or even implied and which I have already written at length saying the opposite of and which you claim to have read. Don’t be silly.
I read his post again and still could not find the insult. People will disagree with you. He did that with metered prose and early praise.
Fragility in debate or dialog limits introspective responsiveness, a quality most of us need most.
Thick skin can be acquired but not by retreat.
You obviously think with depth and caring. I wish you well.
Gonna have to reread. It's rare I'm not pretty well aligned with both Helen and Jesse at the same time but here goes.
One of my earliest literary influences was 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.'. My take away was how the author used his maintenance routine for his motorcycle as an analogy for how he needed to take care of his own mental health. It seemed he thus reduced his own mental health to a form of 'mankeeping.'. This seemed brilliant to me. To this day, I use it. For example, if I don't play soccer regularly, my mental health slips.
So I see no harm in the term 'mankeeping' to the degree to which I have explained it. It's helpful.
Okay so does the problem comes later, in relationship with a woman?
Is there not a certain amount man-keeping and woman keeping that goes on and should go on in a healthy relationship?