Michael Huemer delivers a jarring provocation: the most dangerous form of sexism isn't the loud, internet-fueled hatred of women, but the quiet, elite-sanctioned hatred of men that permeates our universities and publishing houses. While the public fixates on figures like Andrew Tate, Huemer argues we are ignoring a mirror image of misogyny that is not only tolerated but celebrated in high-status cultural circles, fundamentally distorting our understanding of gender conflict.
The Symmetry of Resentment
Huemer begins by dismantling the assumption that gender resentment is a one-way street. He posits that both men and women harbor deep, systemic grievances against the opposite sex, rooted in a failure to understand each other's pain. He writes, "Many people harbor resentment or disdain towards the opposite sex," noting that while women often view men as "exploitative oppressors," men frequently view women as "untrustworthy, gold-diggers, incompetent, mentally unstable." The author suggests this mutual blindness is fueled by selfishness; we fail to grasp how devastating our actions are to others because we are too focused on our own needs.
This framing is effective in highlighting the universality of human callousness, yet it risks flattening the historical power dynamics that make these resentments asymmetrical in their real-world consequences. Huemer acknowledges that the callousness manifests differently: women complain about men lying to secure sex, while men complain about infidelity. He argues that "the callousness that the two sexes complain about tends to take different forms," but that both stem from a lack of empathy rather than inherent gender traits. By attributing these behaviors to general human selfishness rather than specific gendered pathology, he attempts to depoliticize the issue, though this move may alienate readers who see the structural nature of the harm.
"The central problem is human callousness. People are very selfish; neither sex is obviously much worse than the other."
The Two Faces of Sexism
The piece pivots to a stark comparison between two archetypes: Andrew Tate, representing modern misogyny, and Andrea Dworkin, representing elite misandry. Huemer does not shy away from the brutality of Tate's rhetoric, quoting his assertion that "women shouldn't vote because they don't care about issues outside of how THEY feel" and his chilling claim that "if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility." These quotes serve as undeniable evidence of the toxicity found in low-status online forums.
However, Huemer's more controversial move is to juxtapose Tate with Dworkin and other feminist theorists, arguing that their views are equally hateful but enjoy institutional protection. He cites Dworkin's claim that "male pleasure is inextricably tied to victimizing, hurting, exploiting," and the radical feminist Sally Miller Gearhart's proposal that "the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." Huemer writes, "Dworkin-style misandry is found more in high-status, elite forums, such as university courses and books and magazines from big publishers," contrasting this with Tate's presence in "low-status forums."
This is the article's most provocative claim: that the academic world is saturated with a form of sexism that goes unchallenged because it targets the dominant gender. He notes that "three of Andrea Dworkin's books have recently been re-issued as Penguin Classics," suggesting a level of cultural legitimacy that Tate could never achieve. The author argues that this double standard blinds elites to their own biases, stating, "If you live in the academic world... you probably hear a lot more winging about misogyny, while you see more instances of misandry, which almost no one ever calls out." Critics might argue that equating the social impact of a fringe internet influencer with a philosopher whose work is studied in universities ignores the vast difference in institutional power and the capacity to enact policy.
The Motte-and-Bailey of Feminism
Huemer then tackles the definition of feminism itself, accusing the movement of employing a "motte-and-bailey" strategy. He describes how the term is initially defined as the anodyne belief that "men and women have equal rights," a position everyone accepts. But once the label is secured, the conversation shifts to more controversial claims that attack men or elevate women's specific ways of knowing. He asks, "If feminism is just the view that men and women are equals, then how is there a 'feminist epistemology'—how do you get a theory of knowledge out of that anodyne starting point?"
The author contends that the movement's core is not equality but "reverse sexism." He writes, "Just as wokism is reverse bigotry... feminism is reverse sexism." This argument hinges on the idea that advocating for the interests of women against men is inherently sexist, regardless of the historical context of male dominance. He points out the hypocrisy he perceives in academia, where it is "perfectly commonplace to say that we should try to hire a woman for such-and-such position," a practice that would be "shocking, and illegal" if the genders were swapped. He suggests that high-status groups reveal their power by openly advertising their group membership, noting, "If high-status people in your group are frequently, openly going on about their membership in group X... then X is not an oppressed group. X is a favored group."
This section is where the argument feels most strained to some, as it dismisses the historical and structural reasons for affirmative action as mere "reverse sexism." Huemer's insistence that "sexism is the core of feminism" ignores the vast spectrum of feminist thought that does not seek to harm men but to dismantle patriarchal structures. By focusing exclusively on the most extreme quotes from Dworkin and Solanas, he constructs a straw man that allows him to dismiss the entire movement as a form of man-hating.
"Sexism is not an occasional excess of the more extreme feminists. Sexism is the core of feminism."
The Root Cause: Human Nature
In his conclusion, Huemer returns to a psychological explanation for the phenomenon. He argues that the bitterness of modern sexists is not unique to gender but is a symptom of a broader human condition: selfishness. He writes, "Most people are almost entirely amoral. They only look at other people." The lack of strong social norms governing romantic and sexual interactions, combined with the evolutionary intensity of reproductive drives, creates a perfect storm for resentment. He suggests that people blame the opposite sex for their pain because they cannot see their own role in it. "When you realize that people of both sexes are assholes, you should also start to suspect that you, too, are an asshole," he advises.
This philosophical pivot is the piece's most humane moment, urging readers to look inward rather than outward for the source of their grievances. It challenges the reader to abandon the comfort of victimhood and accept personal responsibility. However, by reducing complex social conflicts to individual moral failings, Huemer risks ignoring the systemic barriers that make certain groups more vulnerable to harm than others. The argument that "neither sex is obviously much worse than the other" is a powerful rhetorical device for promoting empathy, but it may be a weak tool for solving actual policy problems.
Bottom Line
Michael Huemer's essay is a bold, if polarizing, attempt to expose the hypocrisy of elite circles that condemn misogyny while embracing misandry. Its greatest strength lies in its uncomfortable comparison of Andrew Tate and Andrea Dworkin, forcing readers to confront the double standards in how we judge hate speech based on the speaker's status. However, its biggest vulnerability is the tendency to equate historical power dynamics with current social friction, potentially obscuring the very real structural inequalities that continue to disadvantage women. The reader should watch for how this argument is received in academic circles, where the "reverse sexism" framing is likely to be met with fierce resistance.