I’ll start with mine: Christina Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell, and Cassie Jaye.

Of course, I know there are other notable figures besides them, like Janice Fiamengo, Paul Elam, Karen Straughan, and the Honey Badgers, and I do appreciate their work and content. But for me, the difference in approach is what really makes the first three stand out.

The main reason I prefer Jaye, Sommers, and Farrell is that they explain things and critique feminism in a way that makes it clear they aren’t blaming women in general. They also acknowledge that some good has come from feminism—particularly first-wave feminism—and that women still face misogyny. They recognize that there are differences between men and women, and that socialization and culture can exaggerate those differences, but they don’t lean too far into gender essentialism.

Fiamengo, Elam, and Straughan, on the other hand, tend to take an approach that leans more toward gender essentialism, and traditional gender roles and values which I’m less interested in. That said, I do appreciate that they speak very directly, don’t get swayed by emotional sentiments, and aren’t afraid of controversy. They’re very blunt and explain things eloquently. Janice in particular, have sort of a mysterious vibe to her.

Even though these three don’t hate women and say they oppose feminism, their tone and language can sometimes come across as if they’re blaming women in general for the current state of society. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I sometimes get.

Overall, they share some common ground: criticizing feminism, challenging popular feminist beliefs, addressing issues that disproportionately affect men and boys, and arguing that men are disadvantaged compared to women.