A significant portion of women and society are hostile against masculinity. As a man, I can either shamelessly accept this hostility, shamefully respond with his own hostility against society and femininity, OR I can take the third option: and wash my hands of the newly bastardized concept of "masculinity."

Society and women used to appreciate more "the man" for his roles and responsibilities; the criminal justice system and system of divorce did not seek to disproportionately hurt men for the benefit of woman; an arguably fairer system of gender roles existed in which the primary roles of the woman was that of obedience, home-care, and child-rearing, and the primary roles of the man was that of assuming responsibility for the safety, protection, future, best interest of the family, and ultimately all the befalls the family, while working to fully financing the wife, children, and home.

If we still had that society, and those women, then I likely wouldn't desire to diverge from the expectations of masculinity. But this society no longer exists. Perhaps this older society was actually patriarchal, as modern society suggests, and it unfairly burdened women. I don't believe this to be true, but I will grant it. Still, granted that this old society was unfair for women, our modern society is now unfair for men. It isn't because some metaphorical pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction; we haven't improved the lot of women so much (too much) that now their lot in life exceeds that of men. No. Something else has happened. In an effort to improve the lot of women, we have confounded improving the lot of women with critically diminishing the lot of men. We have so disastrously shamed (and ruined the image of) masculinity and men in our society, so unfairly obliterated the (perhaps unfair) benefits they once received from being men, and so disproportionately intensified the burdens and expectations of being a man, that men are now seemingly stuck between the self-defeat of accepting his new lot in life, or the futile effort of trying to revert society back to the old ways.

We, as men, have accepted, as part of the initial feminist message of gender equality, that our male privilege must be stripped, but we assumed that, along with this loss of the benefits of manhood, so too would be stripped the benefits and privileges of womanhood. The movement for gender equality has not, in the slightest, attempted to remove these benefits of female privilege; instead, they have enhanced them and intensified them, again, in the name of gender equality. More recently (during the rise of third wave feminism) society seeks to enhance and intensify the burdens and limitations of masculinity*. Some men accepted these new burdens, as part of the coercion of social pressure. Other men fought these new burdens, by fighting to bring back the old ways of society, which were arguably patriarchal. A third type of man fought against these new burdens differently and in an innovative way; He claimed that men ought not to have the burdens of manhood intensified, if no such intensification will ever happen for the burdens of womanhood. He argues that, indeed, the burdens of being a female are diminished every single day, such as the burden of hearing men make comments of a sexual nature towards her, when she does not desire such comments. These third type of men, who began to realize that the movement for "gender equality" was only that in name, decided that there MUST be an alternative to both feminism and the older ways of our arguably patriarchal society.

These men are Men's Rights Activists.

Our world is one that has turned, and continues to turn, toward decreasing the benefits of "manhood," increasing the burdens of "manhood," all while keeping in tact or greatly expanding the benefits of womanhood, and practically eliminating all of the burdens of "womanhood" as part of a movement to eliminate gender roles (read: only eliminate the burdensome gender roles for women).

Here it is more symbolically: Burdens of being a man = greatly increased Benefits of being a man = greatly decreased Burdens of being a woman = greatly decreased Benefits of being a woman = greatly increased

If gender equality was the goal, and patriarchal gender norms and expectations were seen as the enemy, then the means to gender quality ought to be the elimination of gender norms and expectations, NOT the transition of a patriarchal system to a matriarchal and gynocentric system. Transitioning from male-masters/female-slaves to female-masters/male-slaves is not the means by which we achieve gender equality.

Regardless of whether or not our old society was truly one of male-masters/female slaves, we need to shift the argument away from the past, and towards the problems we face today.

Today, men seemingly have two viable options, and one unlikely (and arguably immoral) option, on which man they can be. They can either be:

Man #1) this man is unlikely to ever come back, and he may perhaps be the benefactor of an immoral system which he promotes. This is the man of decades ago, who dutifully accepted the taxing responsibilities of manhood, a true follower of a code of chivalry, protector of women, assuming all the responsibilities of a leader, as well as of the sole financier of his family and home; in return he enjoyed the benefits of the role of a leader, as well the respect and subservience of the woman of his life, as well as the respect he deserves from society. For this man to exist, there must exist a society which permits it. Thus this man cannot currently exist. If a man today wishes to truly pursue being this type of man, he must engage in a futile fight to change society back to the old (and, again, arguably immoral/patriarchal) society of the pre-third-wave feminism era. Or otherwise move to a country that still has that society (Mexico?).

Man #2) A self-apologizing feminism-approved tame bumbling subdued docile subservient idiot who kowtows to women, accepts all the excessive and incessant shaming he receives, bends over backward to never offend, trigger, or otherwise get a woman upset, all while accepting heavier burdens and restrictions on his agency and capacities for the benefit of women, who in turn enjoy less and less burdens and expectations on them

Men, however, do not merely have these two options. There is a third option, which I have already alluded to. A third option that is gaining traction, and may, in fact, be successful in changing the direction of society, by the means of individual men merely making the conscious choice to no longer abide by the new system set in place. This man ...

Man #3)... is NOT dominated by excessive burdens on his gender; he helps to fulfill the most basic theoretical, conceptual, and spiritual intent behind the original fundamental goals of feminism: to eliminate, as much as possible, all the unnecessary benefits enjoyed by one gender and not the other, and all the unnecessary burdens suffered by one gender and not the other. This man, certainly, in the eyes of a significant part of society, is, by definition, a ruthless, selfish, evil, rapist-supporting, sexist, patriarchal, fascist, scumbag, who deserves to be punished, or preached at. He will be seen to utterly FAIL as a father, or husband, or college student, or frat member, or voter, or boyfriend, or date, or co-worker, or fill-in-the-blank, by refusing to accept the roles, expectations, values, limitations, and burdens, of being man #2. He may suffer for choosing not to be man #2. However, he embraces, expands, and enhances the very threads that compose the fabric of life: his agency. He advances his will and his agency as a HUMAN BEING over the new (and old) expectations of what a "man" is. He will continue to be a man, as he defines it, and will accept only the burdens he entirely embraces and accepts, without ever bending the knee (in the slightest) to the coercion of social pressure.

This man is an MGTOW.