The Four Horsewomen of Modern Feminism
An excerpt from The Relentless War on Masculinity by David Maywald
For much of the past half-century, Western societies (particularly Anglo countries) have employed a combination of four powerful forces that tilt public opinion, change policies, and shift cultural norms heavily in favour of females—often to the detriment of males.
Misandry is open hatred of men. Gamma bias is the double standard that praises women for behaviour that is condemned in men. Gynocentrism is the cultural habit of prioritising women’s needs and perspectives above those of men. Gaslighting is psychological manipulation that makes people doubt their own experiences, such as when male concerns are dismissed as invalid. These four work together to keep men on the defensive and society tilted off balance.
The metaphor of the horsewomen is deliberate—they ride through our institutions, media and relationships. They bring chaos to both social discourse and personal relationships.
These four tactics can operate separately or reinforce each other in sequence, creating a formidable social system that shapes how issues affecting men and boys are perceived and addressed. They aren’t the sole domain of radical feminists or extreme activists. They can be deployed by women and men alike, consciously or unconsciously, whenever there is an incentive to elevate female interests above male ones.
Get your copy of The Relentless War on Masculinity. Available in paperback, e-book and audiobook from Amazon and a wide range of distributors.
Horsewoman #1: Misandry
We start with the simplest of the four tactics. Misandry is the hatred of men, as well as the systemic contempt for men. It’s much more than subtle discrimination or merely disliking males. It involves disdain for males and ingrained prejudice against men. This is manifested in the double standards that have become acceptable during public discourse (for example, “kill all men” being seen as acceptable or satire versus “women belong in the kitchen” or “feminists are cancer” being pilloried).
Misandry is no longer hidden—it is mainstream. Popular culture jokes about “toxic masculinity” while advertisements depict fathers as bumbling fools, and politicians compete to denounce male privilege. The problem isn’t just hurt feelings: this constant denigration affects how boys see themselves, how men are treated in courts, and how resources are allocated. It has real-world consequences for education, health and justice.
Misandry has been common in Anglo countries for several decades. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture was written by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in 2001. This book asserted that misandry was increasingly prevalent a quarter of a century ago—culturally accepted in Western societies, particularly through popular media and entertainment. The authors demonstrate how men were routinely depicted in films, television and advertising as violent, emotionally stunted, irresponsible or obsolete. They framed this as reinforcing four dominant myths: the bad husband, the deadbeat dad, the violent male and the stupid male.
Get your copy of The Relentless War on Masculinity. Available in paperback, e-book and audiobook from Amazon and a wide range of distributors.
Horsewoman #2: Gamma Bias
While misandry is a relatively simple practice, gamma bias is a more complicated concept and can be quite subtle. The key thing to understand is that it engenders a consistent asymmetry, which is favourable to females. Gamma bias is the psychological tendency to interpret male and female behaviour through different lenses. A man who asserts himself is labelled aggressive, while a woman doing the same is praised as confident. A mother who works long hours is celebrated for her ambition, while a father who does so is criticised for neglecting his family.
These double standards appear in research, media coverage and education policy. When boys fall behind in literacy, it’s blamed on their laziness, but when girls underperform in STEM, society launches multi-million-dollar campaigns to help them “catch up to boys”. Gamma bias excuses female shortcomings, while it pathologises innately male behaviours.
Gamma bias occurs when one gender difference is minimised while another is magnified. Typical instances are characterised by a double standard:
When men do something bad, it’s seen as typical (all men are violent).
When women do something bad, it’s seen as an exception (she’s had a tough time lately).
When men do something good, it’s seen as unusual or not a big deal (he does that occasionally but can never be relied on).
When women do something good, it’s seen as typical (women are always more considerate than men).
When a man receives something good, he’s seen as benefiting from privilege (he got promoted by the “boys club” for being one of them).
When a woman receives something good, she earned it (she’s so deserving of recognition and was the obvious choice).
Martin Seager and John Barry write: “The prevailing gender narrative focuses on male privileges and female victimhood, leading to distortions in our perception and value judgments, and it is important to challenge these biases through scientific understanding.”
Get your copy of The Relentless War on Masculinity. Available in paperback, e-book and audiobook from Amazon and a wide range of distributors.
Horsewoman #3: Gynocentrism
Having looked at the details and specifics of gamma bias, we now lift the perspective a lot higher —up to the operation of institutions and systems as a whole. Gynocentrism refers to societies that focus on women, are primarily concerned with female perspectives and interests, and take a feminine point of view. The opposite of gynocentric is androcentric (having a male worldview).
Gynocentrism goes beyond empathy for women—it elevates women’s concerns as inherently more urgent and morally more important than men’s. From health campaigns focused almost exclusively on women’s issues to government funding skewed heavily toward female recipients, the message is clear: women’s needs come first.
Historically, Western societies were androcentric. But by the late 1980s, they reached parity. Instead of stopping at balance, we kept going until we arrived at a state where female voices dominate public discourse. This is unhealthy, just as a highly androcentric society was. Healthy cultures value the perspectives of both sexes.
James Nuzzo observes that the U.S. Office on Violence Against Women has spent US$11 billion of taxpayers’ money since its establishment in 1995. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has also spent about US$4.3 billion on women’s shelters and related services from 1995 to 2024. In contrast, there is an absence of support for male victims of violence, which is stark when:
Men are much more likely to be the victim of homicide.
Males and females are equally likely to be the victim of intimate partner violence.
Male life expectancy is five years lower (in part due to the consequences of violence).
Get your copy of The Relentless War on Masculinity. Available in paperback, e-book and audiobook from Amazon and a wide range of distributors.
Horsewoman #4: Gaslighting
Gaslighting is psychological manipulation that tries to convince someone that their reality is untrue. The victim may be caused to question the validity of their own thoughts, doubt their perception of reality, or dissociate from their own memories. Grossly misleading information is used to confuse and cause uncertainty.
Gaslighting is the most insidious of the four horsewomen. It convinces men that their concerns are imaginary. Speak up about family law bias, and you’re told you must hate women. Question the “gender pay gap” narrative, and you’re accused of being sexist. Meanwhile, extreme activists claim that it’s impossible to be sexist against males (or racist against White people). Gaslighting erodes confidence and silences debate.
This tactic is particularly harmful for young men who are told they are privileged at the same time as they struggle in school, face higher suicide rates, and watch society celebrate girls at their expense. Gaslighting breeds resentment and discourages open conversation—which is precisely why it is so effective.
There is a profound cultural asymmetry in the response to violence, based on the biological sex of the presumed perpetrator. This has been fed via one-sided propaganda campaigns that focus on selective statistics, relentless stereotyping in media and entertainment, as well as emotional stories that resonate with women. Our societies tolerate or even glamorise women who beat up men, but they also harshly punish men who abuse women (whether through physical violence or otherwise). Violent and abusive women are rarely sanctioned. Why do we accept, celebrate, ignore, downplay, and laugh at physical violence perpetrated by women against men? This sends a destructive and corrosive message to children and young people (including the perpetuation of female entitlement alongside male disposability).
Get your copy of The Relentless War on Masculinity. Available in paperback, e-book and audiobook from Amazon and a wide range of distributors.
Breaking the Cycle
It’s time to call out these destructive patterns wherever we see them—in the workplace, schools, politics and the media. This isn’t about waging a counter-war on women. It is about restoring balance, fairness and respect for men and boys, so that everyone can thrive.
Dan Romand is a highly experienced lobbyist and an advocate for men. He has strongly responded to the four horsewomen through his Men Need To Be Heard channel: “From sitcom stereotypes to courtroom biases, Dan explores the long-term consequences of portraying fathers and sons as either fools, villains, or expendable. Drawing on over 30 years of advocacy and firsthand experience, he calls for a united effort to reclaim the narrative and demand that men be heard—truthfully, fairly, and fully.”
The manosphere (a collective term for male online spaces) has been hugely demonised. Men who constructively advocate for other males, along with healthy masculinity and mutual support, have all been denigrated. Completely innocent people are accused of promoting misogyny and prosecuting online harassment. Supporters of men and boys are lumped together with pejorative descriptions of incels and men’s rights activists—all of whom are belittled and attacked along the way. This is reminiscent of decades of activism to hound men out of their safe spaces…
It's interesting to see these all put together like this. It brings a lot of phenomenon together in a nice package for people see and consider for themselves. Although, this piece itself will be consider misogynistic and thus verboten knowledge.
With that said, I feel like the "Men's Movement" or whatever you want to call it, is missing a critical point: willful dishonesty.
It seems very clear to me that the impact of female psychopathy is understated. Women are really not the problem per se. Rather, a very specific subset of women are the problem. And, unfortunately, due to gynocentrism -- which is innate and makes sense -- female psychopaths in positions of power can do significantly more gender-directed harm without losing their positions.
If the men's rights movement really wants to make headway. They'd need to start identifying this women and removing them from positions of power with effective outreach and undeniable evidence. Like, funding lawsuits directly against those women for damages.
The Men's Rights movement is not presently organized in such a way as to disable bad-actors and there seems to be no real interest in doing so.
I'm not talking about a repeat of #MeToo but male. I'm talking about something more nuanced than that and organized.
For example, why has nobody sued N.O.W. yet for continuing to push false narratives and statistics? The women who are doing that understand what they're doing. They do it on purpose.
The social damage of that is significant. In order to win those types of cases though, they have to be well organized, and standing has to be established.
This is useful. I can’t believe I’ve gone this long without knowing the proper terminology for gamma bias.