Dear Doctor Joseph Gelder,

If every person on the planet had to produce what is necessary for his/her survival on it and all you can produce is a controversial article for an electronic publication, it is clear that you wouldn’t last on it too long. Unless somebody else supplied you with the wherewithal.

Unfortunately, I am one of the ‘somebody else’ who cannot stop your demonic force from robbing me.

I find it simply paradox that a great many of the most masculine are batting for the other team.

Joseph,

I enjoyed your article and your site - most interesting!

http://masculinityconspiracy.com/

I'm looking forward to reading and thinking about more of your
ideas.

pynch

Joseph, I did not enjoy your article.
I love the masculinity in the males I know, and I don't want to change anything about that masculinity.

There is no 'conspiracy' Joseph, except in your mind and in the minds of many males ever wronged by a female.

Your article should be a hit on this forum in that case :)

Yes, you stupid males.

For the millionith time, feminists don't hate males.

Got it.

Stupid, stupid males.

A nice bit of innovative thinking, Joseph.
Of course there are a great many conspiracies in play in society: the 'Australian Values Conspiracy', 'the work ethic conspiracy', the 'democratic conspiracy', 'the morality conspiracy', the 'patriotism conspiracy', the 'consumption conspiracy' etc. Indeed, couldn't we just put all these under the banner 'ideology conspiracy'?
Paternalism/patriarchy are of course powerful influences that structure social discourse; indeed its very transgender pervasiveness is what prevents a paradigm shift. It's not so much what nuance of masculinity males identify with--I think we are conscious of out individual deviance from the stereotype--as a culture steeped in centuries of masculine bias that forms nothing less than a pseudo-ontology. Power-structures are defined by masculinised behavioural models. This could very well explain the dearth of women in politics; like sport, politics is dominated by an ambiance of aggression and bravado, and a rhetoric of battle cries and stirring speeches--the female politicians we tend to admire are generally quasi-masculine. These martial instincts are arguably alien to feminine temperaments (at least to femininity as it is structured in patriarchy), which thus subscribe to their own co-option, disqualify themselves based on a want of masculine prerequisites.
This is an issue I've tried to highlight on other threads. Hegemony is arguably based more on patriarchy than anything else, since half the population (un)wittingly subscribes to its own marginalised transfixion!
Women have the numbers to easily change the democratic world, ergo 'they' maintain it as it is! A world of male-dominated conflict, competitiveness and violence. Women are the peacemakers. So why don't they make peace! I would suggest that A, because they are innately conservative and B, because they believe in their own subjection.
Ladies; the world needs you!!