By Chris Spencer

From Tinder to Reddit, Men Are Logging Off Love and Logging Into the Underground Club No Wife or Girlfriend Will Ever Enter - Masculinism 101

Industrial Feminism is the new orthodoxy, where empowerment is streamlined and ideology is mass-produced. In this age of Factory-Line Feminism, identity is managed like inventory, and dissent is flagged by The Sisterhood of the Algorithm. Beneath it all hums a Mechanized Matriarchy, polished by PR and enforced through HR-Hegemonic Femininity—a soft bureaucracy with hard consequences.

Modern feminism is no longer a movement of liberation but an institutional catechism—codified, commodified, and draped in the language of moral absolutism. In the Brussels boardrooms and Kamala Harris campaign stops, it is presented as the self-evident moral compass of progress. But below the slick glass click-bait of gender equity seminars and DEI dashboards, a quiet rebellion simmers. Its fighters do not riot, nor do they write manifestos. They ghost. They log off. They disappear.

This is the era of the Closet Masculinist: a worldwide male subject exhausted by the punitive enthusiasm of state-sponsored feminism and increasingly the reluctant exile from institutions that once promised fraternity but now hold out only suspicion and exclusion. They are not misogynists; they are fugitives.

Their protest is quiet but earth-shaking: they stay out of dating, skip marriage, and stay off the performative platform of civic activism. They leave without speeches. They cast ballots with their absences.

1. The Kamala Harris Paradox: Feminist Power vs. Male Alienation

Kamala Harris, glass-ceiling-shattering VP, is the epitome of state feminism's high point—a juridical Valkyrie who ruled as Attorney General of California and brought bellicose prosecution of crime, entrapment-disproportionately targeting Black and Latino men while setting up herself as liberationist patron saint. Her feminism is more symbol of ally-ship to penal state machinery rather than the banner of parity. Her liberation and empowerment are the size of her 401K and how many male life sentences she has doled out. Mostly she is orthodox dogma and blind rhetoric.

Throughout her Vice Presidency, Harris espouses a rhetoric which situates masculinity as inherently problematic, barely broaching the specter of the silent pandemic of male despair. Consider the following: seven of every ten suicides in America are carried out by white male seniors, not victims of war, but of existential obsolescence. Their pain is not intersectional enough to be noticed.

This is the Kamala Paradox: power masked as justice; silence presented as compassion. Similar to Huxley's World Controllers, she speaks in doublespeak, hiding social triage under equality.

The CIA-Feminism Connection

The origins of institutional feminism were never state-free. During the Cold War, the CIA famously underwrote Ms. Magazine and other feminist fronts—not in order to free women, but to undermine Soviet-aligned gender traditionalism. In its present incarnation, feminism is again employed not to free, but to pacify.

Surveillance masquerades as security; men are ordered to conform or confess. The state is promoting "empowerment" while imprisoning those who resist its scripts. What began as freedom has turned foul into orthodoxy—one that can't be disputed without risking social excommunication.

2. Balkan Parallels: How Eastern Europe's Gender Wars Foreshadowed the West

History doesn't just rhyme—it echoes. Nowhere is this more true than in the old Yugoslavia, where the facade of gender equality under Tito concealed an undertone of male disenfranchisement. The state promoted "progress," but the people resisted. Resentment brewed until it boiled over.

Now, Hungary under Viktor Orbán surfs the wave of this historical hangover, performing itself as a line of defense against Western gender ideology. His populism resonates with dismayed men all over the continent, sympathetic to their revulsion at the EU's sacralization of quotas and ideological conformism.

Western men are taking notice. Balkan history has become a benchmark in cyber ghettos of men. Forums at Reddit's /r/MensRights invoke Yugoslav precursors to warn against feminist overreach. A new breed of "passport bros"—American and Western European men who opt out of their own civilization—stream to Serbia, Hungary, and other countries that maintain traditional gender structures in hopes of relief from feminist juridocracy.

3. The Silent Strike: How Men Are Voting With Their Lives

The revolution now under way requires no signs. It requires only retreat. In Canada, nearly 70% of young men are not married, not by default, but by preference. In Australia, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) websites have proliferated threefold since 2020 and are virtual monasteries for the digitally celibate. In Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, birth rates plummet as men forego fatherhood, considering paternity an encumbrance in a judge-based system posing as a family system.

"Why marry," the 4chan anonymous user asks, "when divorce court is a guillotine rigged against me? Why go out, when my desire is criminalized?"

The modern man doesn't desire conquest or mastery anymore. He desires refuge—from the state, from guilt, from the soul-squashing equality that tastes less like liberty and more like an accountant.

The Workplace Exodus

It doesn't end at the altar. U.S. male labor force participation has hit all-time lows, and not just because of economic changes. Many are departing because the contemporary workplace—saturated with HR performativity and DEI theatrics—is no longer habitable.

In Silicon Valley, men applaud loudly the inclusion programs and whisper support behind startups that defy feminist orthodoxy. The "Tech Bro" stereotype is transformed: no longer swaggering coder, but digital Benedictine, silently supporting his monastery.

4. The Media Blackout: Why No One Speaks About Closet Masculinism

The mainstream media, ever eager for moral sagas, ignores the closet masculinist because he is inconvenient—not because he is insignificant. He cannot be utilized. He does not incinerate things or run for office. He abstains.

Other media, of course, fill the gap. The People's Voice prints exposés of the CIA's manipulation of feminism. UnHerd coins terms like "the Balkanization of masculinity." Even Russia Today, true to form, stirs the pot with "Kamala Harris and the Crisis of American Men." The Kremlin, it seems, is privy to something that Washington is not: disenchanted men are a geopolitical vulnerability.

Even feminist voices are beginning to acknowledge the unraveling. Camille Paglia, a Cassandra of post-structuralist dissent, stated in a 2024 interview, "Men aren't toxic—they're tired. We pushed too hard. We left them nothing to stand for but retreat."

5. What Comes Next? A Global Masculinist Awakening

We are in Phase Two of a three-act play.

Phase One was retreat—the 2010s were a quiet flight into digital and spiritual exile.
Phase Two is fermentation—the rise of underground groups, password-protected camaraderie on Reddit and Telegram, where men take comfort not in dominance, but in refuge.
Phase Three will be reckoning—not with violence, but with alignment. We saw glimmers of it in Trump's emergent male base. The next several years may witness closet masculinists rewriting the political map—not with ideology, but with absence. They will not vote. They will not marry. They will not build your future. They will ghost it.

If Kamala Harris becomes President, the symbolic apotheosis of state feminism will likely propel the movement round in a vicious circle. The disaffected men's silent majority will riot not—but they won't return.

The West, having officially declared war on its own fathers for so long, may yet discover what a world without them is like. And perhaps it won't like the picture.

The Unyielding Sturdiness of Masculinity in the Face of Feminist Orthodoxy

In the din-filled theatre of gender discussion in the modern era, the act of deconstructing masculinity is a too-well-known practice. "Toxic masculinity," that much-abused term, has served both as a scapegoat and as a sigil for something greater, an easy catch-all concept for feminist critics to use with all the nuance of a beginning stage magician pulling rabbits from their top hat. The concept itself, so subtlety masquerading as a critique of intellect, is nothing more than an ideological hegemonic weapon, a blunt instrument in the hands of moral entrepreneurs who care not to examine the complexities of masculinity, but to reduce them to a caricature of aggression, dominance, and repression.

The very word "toxic masculinity" carries an assumption—an assumption—that masculinity in and of itself is damaged, that the very traits that come with being male are somehow polluting forces in society. But what, exactly, is "toxic" about masculinity? Is it men’s natural assertiveness, their need to protect and provide for their families, the willingness to engage with danger for the defense of others, or the hope to make an impact in a world that is typically averse to such endeavors? Regardless of all the angry polemics and abundant think pieces, the feminist critiques of masculinity never come up with an acceptable solution. Instead, they rely on broad, vague generalities—like "hegemonic masculinity" or "patriarchal oppression"—labels which have the result of doing little more than obscure the problem, reducing the multifaceted social phenomenon to a reductionist and monolithic condemnation of men.

Not merely intellectually sloppy, this reductionism is dangerous. By pathologizing men as fundamentally defective, the feminist critique of masculinity denies the very diversity and richness of male identity. Men, like women, are human beings with their own personalities, histories, and motivations. To boil them down to a catalog of "toxic" behaviors is to dehumanize them, to strip them of the complexity that makes them what they are. And yet this is the fate that modern feminist rhetoric seems determined to impose upon them—by declaring masculinity itself to be toxic, they effectively deny men the autonomy to make their own choices.

Let us stop and reflect on the irony of this moment in society. Feminists, who vocally and loudly proclaim to be against the objectification of women, are themselves objectifying men. They take the vast and complex scope of male behavior and reduce it to a list of crude stereotypes—aggressive, controlling, emotionally repressed. But it is not a criticism of masculinity; it is a criticism of men as a class. It is not condemnation of a group of behaviors, but condemnation of individual men tinted by the broad brush of suspicion and reproach. Just as women may be reduced to objects by being gazed upon by men, then men similarly can be reduced to symbols for everything that feminists despise—symbols for privilege, power, and oppression.

And finally, the feminist critique will not accept its own contradictions. Why, if "toxic masculinity" is so evil, do feminists rarely, if ever, turn inward to investigate the likelihood of "toxic femininity"? Where are the exposés that bemoan the manipulative, passive-aggressive attributes so often leveled against women? Where are the calls to dismantle the repressive beauty standards that women police one another for, or where women, too, are guilty of policing gender roles? The deafening silence on these fronts is not merely a glaring double standard but also an indication of the intellectual bankruptcy of much contemporary gender theory. It seems that the feminist critique, in its zeal to condemn men, has selectively forgotten the less pleasant aspects of female conduct that prefer to remain unspoken.

This double standard is not so much a shortcoming of feminist thinking—it is the very reason why the phenomenon of so-called "men's rights" discourse emerged, a movement that combats the demonization of masculinity and seeks to reclaim the dignity and worth of men. The men's rights movement is imperfect, no doubt, but that it exists establishes one valuable fact: the gender conversation has to be a dialogue. If a sincere conversation on gender is to occur, then we need to admit women and men have failures and vulnerabilities in addition to accomplishments and strengths. We have to be careful not to reduce any group to a single, monolithic identity, as this does disservice not just to people but to society in general.

In the very center of the feminist critique of masculinity lies a deep misunderstanding of human nature. Of course, gendered social construction exists, but then so does the biological distinction between men and women that affects our behavior in ways that cannot be denied. The desire to protect, to give, and to build—to make and create—is not necessarily selfish; it is part of what makes men, men. Indeed, the very foundation of our modern world—the airplanes we board, the automobiles we drive, the technological breakthroughs we enjoy—is the work of masculine ingenuity and creativity. To attribute these accomplishments to a toxic desire for power and control is to be disloyal to the complexity of human ambition as well as to the many forms of masculinity that have constructed our modern world as we know it today.

But above all, perhaps the most profound failing of feminist criticism of masculinity is its narrow vision of the future. In their enthusiasm to seek gender equality, the majority of feminists are blind to the impending global crises that will strike us all—men and women alike. The world is facing an environmental meltdown, an energy crisis, and a geopolitical reshuffling that will test the very limits of human civilization. In such a world, gender ideologies, as useful as they are, risk distracting us from the more pressing issues of survival and adaptation. With resources dwindling and conflict increasing, it is the qualities traditionally stereotypically masculinized—resilience, courage, and leadership—that may ultimately be most in demand.

Amidst all these challenges, we can clearly see that the so-called "toxic masculinity" is nothing more than a distraction from the real task at hand. Rather than going back and forth arguing over the supposed ills of masculinity, we should be embracing the complexity of human identity and the fact that men and women both have certain roles to play in shaping the future. Men are not the enemy; they are the creators, protectors, and builders of the world. To proceed further along the path of demonizing masculinity is to ignore the contributions men have made—and will continue to make—to our collective progress.

The greatest danger of the feminist critique of masculinity is that it is unable to respect the inherent dignity and worth of men as individuals. By reducing men to a poisonous set of traits, feminists not only dehumanize men but also undercut the very foundations of equality and justice that they purport to uphold. In order to go on as a society, we need to avoid the oversimplified, reductionist scripts of gender in favor of a more nuanced understanding of human experience. It is only when we can bring into being a world where both men and women are valued, not as adversaries or opposites, but as complementary energies, both contributing together to make sense of the issues of contemporary life.

The Silent Strike – Stepping Out of Tinder and Bumble
In today's evolving cultural landscape, men of all ages, from high school through college to broader online culture, increasingly are turning to the support of their male friendships, consciously steering clear of dating relationships. It's not a sexual orientation shift—these men aren't choosing homosexuality. Rather, they are adopting a condition of intellectual asexuality, wherein intellectual, emotional, and social needs are fulfilled by the bond of friendship and not by the commodification of modern dating.
This is not limited to any particular age group or population. Men in general are stepping away from dating, frustrated with what seems to them a material and emotional transaction—a dating environment of unrealistic expectation, material expense, and undue emphasis on bodily desire rather than mental or emotional connection. Tinder and Bumble have become metaphors for that desolate landscape for some. These sites have come to be inhabited by men who are identified as "Type B's"—the skinny pickings remaining after the Type A's, ambitious and money-independent men, decide to opt out of dating completely.
Numbers regarding the gender divide provide insight into the international phenomenon: Women currently outnumber men in every demographic over 25 years old, according to the latest U.S. census reports, with significant discrepancies evident among older citizens. The world-wide statistics are similar, with men's life expectancy typically behind that of women, so there is a large gender gap among the elderly. As these men age and are less likely to be in the dating pool, the men who remain are, in most cases, well and truly off the market—either because they have opted to be so or because the dating scene is no longer attractive to their shifting priorities.
In a world where the internet has turned romance into a commodity, these men are taking solace in intellectual pursuits, their friendships with other men a richer alternative to the empty pursuit of fleeting romantic relationships. By boycotting the dating scene, they signal a deeper alienation from the manner in which relationships have been commodified and emotionally depleted. When dating becomes a cash transaction, the men who remain in the market are less interested in participating in what they see as a transactional pack-mule economy—no longer wanting to be the pursuer or the pursued, but instead, opting for a life of connection and intellectual stimulation outside the constraints of traditional romance.
It says a lot about how dissatisfied men are with dating culture today, and the slow formation of a movement in which intellectual fulfillment and camaraderie among men become increasingly more valuable than romantic engagement.

The High Horse and the Golden Saddle: On the Hypocrisy of Romantic Entitlement
There's a peculiar form of hypocrisy galloping over the gilded stables of modern romance, dressed in the vestments of "empowerment" and "independence" and firmly astride the backs of one or two well-compensated packmules—men burdened not just with mortgages and muscle, but with the impossible weight of measuring up to every page torn from a half-dozen dog-eared romance novels. These so-called free riders ride triumphantly over dinner parties and dating websites, shouting freedom with one hand and a man's wallet in the other.
When the old stallion croaks—or preferably, asks for a divorce—the saddle is not removed. No, it's simply heaved onto the next animal of convenience with newer joints and deeper wallets. This ain't companionship—it's conquest. The facade of empowerment in this case is as phony as the eyelashes and as transactional as a hedge fund: less about love, more about lifestyle.
The litany is sung as a psalm in church sewing groups and Wednesday evening book clubs: "Where have all the good men gone?" Answer: crushed beneath the weight of expectations no flesh-and-blood human being can fulfill. He has to be a six-figure saint, a gym-strong Adonis, a saver of shelter dogs, a tough guy, and—naturally—emotionally literate with just the right degree of trauma.
It's not a man they're searching for—it's a fantasy specially designed, complete with a happily-ever-after guarantee and a return policy in case he fails.
Whereas, simultaneously, the contemporary "queen's" self-portrait is too often one of a salon of surface virtues: selfish but "self-loving," greedy but "goal-oriented," revengeful but "not to be messed with," clingy but in need of her own space, mercenary in love but demanding devotion absolute. And yet, like an unpaid shrink, the question remains: "Why am I so lonely?"
Perhaps it's because no man—no human—is Prince Charming to a harem of one, where love is conditional, and appreciation has since perished. The golden cow is holy only as long as it's still giving. When he resists the weight, he's termed "toxic," "emotionally unavailable," or—worst of all—"not man enough."
This is not feminism. This is feudalism in a feather boa, where the galloping hypocrisy of privilege masquerades as empowerment, and the landscape of love is littered with the bodies of men who had the audacity to be human instead of heroic. The saddle, by all means, accommodates whoever has the gold.
It is fully understood by the male silent moral majority that this article is to be criticized as “monolithic” and “unfair.” The 7 of 10 daily male white suicides are even more unfair. To the many females stuck, bear-trapped in estrogen echo chambers of greed, orthodoxy and dogma – look at all the 20,000 square foot luxury homes with a BMW, a Bentley and a Maserati SUV in the driveway and three dead husbands – driven to their graves from someone subsumed with dog-eared romance novels. All the good men are dead, killed by their former wives. Only Beta-servitude males exist in Tinder and Bumble. Sorry, the Alpha’s Underground Man’s Club is closed to females, it is an All-Male Enterprise. We are all good men; we just don’t exist within the worn pages of some chocolate-stained fantasy paperback.

Russian Men and the Rejection of Global Feminist Orthodoxy

In the twilight of Western liberal hegemony, a curious countercurrent flows from the East: a growing number of Russian men are openly rejecting the global feminist orthodoxy that dominates transatlantic discourse. Rooted in a culture steeped in traditional roles and post-Soviet pragmatism, these men are not swayed by the imported dogmas of gender fluidity, toxic masculinity, or performative allyship. Instead, they often view such movements as alien ideological constructs — imposed frameworks designed less for liberation and more for social engineering.

This rejection is not necessarily rooted in misogyny, but in a profound skepticism toward what they perceive as Western moral imperialism. For many, feminism has become synonymous with institutional overreach, bureaucratic double standards, and cultural decay. Russian men, especially in the provinces, tend to value stoicism, duty, and the preservation of national identity — virtues they see increasingly ridiculed in global feminist narratives.

While the West debates microaggressions and safe spaces, the Russian archetype of manhood leans on older pillars: protection, resilience, and providence. In rejecting the orthodoxy, they are not merely rebelling — they are asserting an alternative model of gender relations, one forged not in activist seminars, but in the harsh crucibles of history and survival.

Not Misogyny—Mourning and Refusal

To call this article "misogynistic drivel" is to be completely off the mark—not by inches, but by galaxies. This is not misogyny; it's men's grief at being betrayed by the systems they helped build, shut out by the ideologies they are not permitted to question, and dumped by a society that preaches inclusivity but practices exclusion when it comes to their pain.

It takes seductive simplism to assert "men aren't oppressed, they're just losing privilege." It disallows the increasing rates of male suicide, workforce dropout, decline in mental functioning, and male educational implosion. When hopelessness appears as statistics, to call it lost privilege is not only heartless—it is beneath intelligence.

This isn't about taking society back. This is about inquiring where forward goes when half the population is informed they have no contribution left to make but guilt. It's not regressive to propose that masculinity—along with femininity—is deserving of preservation, respect, and nuance. It's not reactionary to claim that freedom shouldn't be bought at another's expense of erasure.

And criticizing Kamala Harris—or any government official wielding immense institutional authority—is not an act of racial or gender prejudice. It is democratic critique. When the policies are disproportionately harming men—especially poor, Black, and Latino men—it is not sexist to say so. It is necessary.

Let's get even more specific: this isn't just a man's lament. Intelligent, honest, disillusioned women too are alienated by the algorithmic enforcement of feminism that is out of touch with their lives. They get what it's like to be policed by sisterhoods, not emancipated by them. They are also suffocating under slogans without a heart.

What we observe here—above gender, above race, and above class—is the quiet migration of the human soul away from a society that gets slogans instead of solutions, and ideology in place of compassion.

This is not alpha or beta. This is not gender war polemics. This is saying: we are finished. Men and women. We are exhausted with manufactured morality, institutional gaslighting, and social scripts shaming us into existing as broken, incomplete things.

This is not misogyny.

This is grief.
This is refusal.
This is the sound of human beings—men and women—ghosting an institution that has forgotten how to care.

Not because they hate.
Because they're tired.
And because they still believe in something better.

References

Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A Book About Men. Addison-Wesley.

The Estrogen Echo Chamber and the Toxic Masculinity Myth: A Rebuttal with a Wink and a Nod

https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2025/03/04/the-estrogen-echo-chamber-and 

GQ. (2024, August 16). The Strange History of “Toxic” Masculinity. Retrieved from https://www.gq.com/story/the-strange-history-of-toxic-masculinity

Feminism and the Bio-Security State

https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2023/04/16/feminism-the-biosecurity-state-letter 

Feminism: Mockingbird Press, CIA PsyOps, and Misandry Are Erasing Male Innovation and Destroying the Foundations of Society

https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2025/01/19/feminism-mockingbird-press-cia-psyops 

Societal Violence Against White Males in America: Anger, Identity, and Ideological Tussles

https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2024/10/09/societal-violence-against-white-males 

Masculine Exodus: Global Male Retreat From State-Funded Feminist Orthodoxy

###

© 2025 Chris Spencer www.olivebiodiesel.com