The Global Campaign for Men and Boys

Google searches reveal 10 ways the world is sexist against men and boys….

UN-Women-Ad-4_495x700 jpg

The United Nations has once again shown how sexist against men and boys it is with an advertising campaign that claims to promote gender equality.

UN Women, the body responsible for promoting gender equality worldwide, commissioned the advertising agency Mema Ogilvy & Mather Dubai to develop a campaign highlighting the “widespread prevalence of sexism and discrimination against women”.

Setting aside the fact that making a body called “UN Women” responsible for promoting gender equality is like creating a group called “UN White Folks Only” to promote racial harmony, we took a closer look at the logic of the campaign to see if it’s got a point.

The premise is that by using genuine Google searches, the adverts reveal just how sexist and bigoted and discriminatory the world is towards women and girls.

So if you type “women cannot” into Google, for example, the search engine suggests “women cannot drive”—and this, according to UN Women, confirms the “urgent need to continue making the case for women’s rights, empowerment and equality” around the world.

As with so much work in the gender equality field, there is a complete absence of concern for the many areas of life where men and boys have fewer rights, where men and boys aren’t empowered and where men and boys don’t have equality.

And when you only ever look at a problem like gender equality from one angle you always get a one-sided view—for example if you spend time on Google only looking for negative sentiments about women, you will come to the conclusion that women are the only “victims”.

If you then spend money on a global advertising campaign to tell the world about your findings, you strengthen the sexist belief that only women have problems in life (and that men and boys are the problem).

At equality4men we don’t have the weight of the United Nations or the expertise of Mema Ogilvy & Mather Dubai behind us, but we do have internet access—and what we discovered very quickly is that if you take the radical step of looking at gender from two sides you’ll find that the world is a bit sexist against women and it’s also a bit sexist against men.  Here’s what we found……..

10 Ways The World is  Sexist Against Men and Boys (according to Google)

1. BOYS ARE PIGS…..yes if you type in “boys are” you discover that “boys are pigs”. Girls on the other have are, well, “girls are like apples” obviously!!!

2. ALL MEN….this is quite unpleasant because according to Google the world thinks “all men are rapists”, “all men cheat” and “all men must die”. Sounds like a pretty disgusting “sexist against men” world we live in.

3. ALL MEN SHOULD…..this is interesting, because while the UN Women campaign highlights  Google searches that suggest women should “stay at home”, “be in the kitchen” and “not speak in church” it fails to highlight the google searches that state “all men should be castrated”, “all men should be killed” and “all men should die”. So much for championing gender equality world wide!

4. MY BOYFRIEND……according to Google, boyfriends are “boring”, “selfish” and “ugly”…….by comparison when you search on “my girlfriend” you get “my girlfiend is president”…….so who’s more in need of empowerment there UN Women??

5. WHY DO MEN/WOMEN………this is one of the searches where you get some gender equality from Google with the responses “why do men cheat” and “why do women cheat”……and you also get “why do women wear high heels, thongs and bras” and “why do men rape”, “why do men lie” and “why do men have affairs”.  Which is more negative do you think…. “why do men rape” or “why do women wear bras”?

6. MEN/WOMEN ARE TO BLAME FOR……this is fascinating because both men are women are “to blame for everything” according to Google, but then women are also to blame for earthquakes and divorce, whereas men are to blame for the menopause (typical men!) and global warming (stop oppressing the planet dude!).

7. MEN/WOMEN ARE BETTER……Google hedges its bets with this one giving us both “women are better than men” and “men are better than women”. Men are also “better drivers”, but then women are “better drivers” too and in addition to that women are “better at multi-tasking” and “better parents”.

8. MEN/WOMEN DESERVE…….throws up some nastiness in both directions and demonstrates that the world in an unpleasant and sexist place for both women AND men to live in at times—and that bodies like UN Women are simply being sexist when they only highlight one side of the problem. According to  Google  “women deserve rape” and “women deserve to be abused” and at the same time “men deserve to be cheated on” and “men deserve to die”.

9. KEEPING MEN SAFE…..this is one of the most revealing searches. Keeping Men and Boys Safe is the global theme of this year’s International Men’s Day (19th November) and what happens when you type the words “keeping men safe” into Google is that that the word “men” disappears and is replaced by the word “women”. Just like the United Nations, it seems, Google thinks only women are worthy of safety and protection.

10. ONLY MEN CAN………guess what, according to Google, “only men can be sexist”. Well we beg to differ, it seems to us that UN Women is doing a very good of showing the world just how sexist against men and boys UN Women is.

The very idea of making UN Women the lead global voice on gender equality is a deeply sexist, discriminatory, unequal and ineffective way to tackle the issue. Gender inequality happens to people of all genders—men, women and people of different gender identities too and cannot be effectively addressed by a body committed to only looking at the issue from one narrow, unequal, sexist (against men and boys) angle.

If you want to learn more about the different ways that men and experience gender inequality then you’ll love reading our eBook Equality For Men by Glen Poole which you can download now for £10 via the following link:

Add to Cart

To find out about our emerging plans to campaign to Stop Sexism Against Men see: #SexismAgainstMen

If you’d like to join our mailing list and receive occasional updates from us about equality4men then submit your details below:

Related articles


9 comments on “Google searches reveal 10 ways the world is sexist against men and boys….

  1. Steve Conner
    November 5, 2013

    “UN Women confirms the urgent need to continue making the case for women’s rights, empowerment and equality”

    There you have it straight from the horse’s mouth…the quote from the organization itself states its Motives clearly (Women’s rights and empowerment of Women).

    And if you look closely, a little more closely, you can see it in their name, their logo, their website etc…so why does a campaign that aims to increase awareness on women’s rights – surprise you…?

    It seems to be doing exactly what it’s intending. AND if secondarily, it sparks a conversation on how men are perceived alternatively, which I have never heard of a Male Suffragette Movement to date, or even how men or transvestites are treated in certain parts of the world, then it has achieved something far greater that it expected. Women’s rights is a huge debate and topical matter especially this year with the Malalas etc etc it’s using momentum to make women’s lives better – and in no place in the ads are men jabbed at or belittled.

    • equality4menuk
      November 5, 2013

      Thanks for taking time to comment Steve

      We have no issue with women’s organizations focusing on women’s issues

      However when the world’s governments set up structures to tackle “Gender Equality” that only focus on women’s equality, then we have an issue

      UN Women is the UN entity concerned with gender equality AND women’s empowerment—-and it does NOTHING to tackle and address the gender inequalities that men and boys face

      It doesn’t work

      Anymore than having a group that advocates for black communities being given the international remit to promote racial equality when it’s only concerned with black communities and does nothing for Asian communities etc—–that wouldn’t work

      And it doesn’t work to give women’s groups and feminists a monopoly on tackling gender issues—-that’s not equal and it’s not diverse

      That’s all—-we stand the simple but surprisingly radical notion that gender equality work should address the inequalities that experience by folk of all genders (however you want to define them) and that we should work to encourage a diversity of approaches to tackling gender equality issues (not just pro-feminist approaches)

      If that was the context we were operating within then there’d be no issue with pro-feminist women’s initiatives like UN Women running pro-feminist women’s programmes—-as they’d be doing this work alongside a whole host of other feminist and non-feminist initiatives focussed on addressing a range of gender equality issues (not just women’s issues) — we’d have diversity and as a result would be better equipped to tackle gender inequality

      That’s what we stand for—-more effective approaches to tackling gender equality issues (and specifically or us, tackling equality issues that impact men and boys)

  2. karen straughan
    November 6, 2013

    This is an interesting article on the google autocomplete thing:


    One hypothesis I’ve seen is that the reason there was a spike in searches for things like “women cannot drive” and “women should stay in the kitchen” in March/April, sometimes after zero or virtually zero interest in such searches, is that March/April would be the time of year when women’s studies students are doing their end-of-year major projects, and are researching. Though I wonder, since most courses are semestered, and there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent spike corresponding with the end of first semester.

    I would be interested to know when, exactly, the UN contracted the ad agency. It doesn’t take much to manipulate google’s autocomplete, especially where there are few searches to offset. On case being when someone gamed “why won’t” to autocomplete (top response, no less) as “why won’t my parakeet eat my diarrhea?” He then went and shared his feat of google-fu and it became self-fulfilling.

    I wonder what would have come up prior to the spike in interest for some of these searches. For instance, before the spike, would the autocomplete for “women should” have been “stay in the kitchen”? Or would it have been “be able to wear what they want”? Or maybe “have access to education”? Would “women shouldn’t” have turned up as “have rights”? Or would it have been “be assaulted”?

    I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but given how easy it was for one person to get google to suggest “my parakeet eat my diarrhea” when people type in “why won’t”, and given the spike in interest in the particular searches involved, well, I really would like to know exactly when the work on this ad campaign was started. If it was mid-March, well…

    I also wonder, how many hits in the first several pages are actually advocating that, say, women shouldn’t have rights, and how many of them are feminist websites describing what they perceive are pervasive attitudes, essentially capturing “women shouldn’t have rights” as a quote mine from a piece decrying that attitude rather than agreeing with it. If you looked at the hits, you might find evidence of the opposite of sexism against women.

  3. hanytimeh
    November 6, 2013

    Good counter-examples, but still missing the point. The problem isn’t feminist beliefs per se; there will always be crazy bitches, and the more we grant specific budget items to special interest groups like “UN Women”, the more we’ll get nonsense like that. The real problem is the underlying female character traits that have been given precedence in modern society.

    Why would someone make a campaign like this? Because

    a) It’s easy to put together. It requires no real effort other than a little typing and some work in Photoshop. So it allows the activists to “feel” they are doing their part without actually investing meaningful effort.

    b) It keeps liberal-minded (but otherwise not rad-fem) women on the reservation by making sure they stay afraid of all the big bad patriarchs out there.

    c) It creates a “feeling” of group identification – the classic “us vs. them” that liberals are always complaining about.

    Why am I nitpicking an article by someone I essentially agree with? Because I think that playing the discrimination poker game with women is a losing proposition. It doesn’t matter whether there is objectively more, less, or the same discrimination against men and women; the type of women who do things like this will always find a way to paint themselves as victims.

    Which gets at my overall point: the problem isn’t feminist beliefs, because those come at the end of a long chain of thought that starts with one fundamental principle: my feelings are the most important thing in the world. It’s that principle which needs to be exposed, attacked, and held up as the untenable fantasy that it is. Until we return, culturally and morally, to a balance between the feminine essence (feelings and relationships) and the masculine essence (reason and action), we can cite all the counterexamples we want and it won’t make the least bit of difference.

  4. equality4menuk
    November 6, 2013

    Thanks for that considered comment hanytimeh —- I don’t get this bit “the problem isn’t feminist beliefs” as this is not something that I argue —– I do think Sexism Against Men (you could say misandry), is an issue to be addressed—- and feminists don’t have a monopoly on being Sexist Against Men (and not all feminist beliefs are sexist)

    I also believe—in fact I know— that spreading awareness of Sexism Against Men and the inequalities that men and boys face does make a difference, not least to individual men who are better able to make sense of the sexist soup the swim when they have that sexism distinguished for them

    I also find the idea of a “return” to balance problematic, like there is a golden age of masculine/feminine balance to which humanity must return—if you study how human societies grow and evolve they don’t tend to “return” the tend to “progress”, usually as a response to the prevailing life conditions

    I do agree that a balance between masculine and feminine qualities is essential—for individuals and communities—and some evidence suggests that men and women in the future will be more skilled and capable at integrating both masculine and feminine qualities in the future

    I touched upon this just a little in my recent talk in Australia which you see here:


    Thanks for taking time to comment



    • hanytimeh
      November 7, 2013

      When I said “the problem isn’t feminist beliefs”, I was making a general statement, not attributing that argument to you. When I say that, what I mean is that the surface-level beliefs are just the product of flawed thought processes. Any system of “logic” that has as an axiom “my feelings count as much as your rights” is going to produce invalid conclusions.

      For example, one feminist “conclusion” that serves as a justification for the above campaign is “we live in a sexist society”. This conclusion is supposedly proved and exemplified by the fact that some men search for things on the Internet that, when presented out of context, hurt women’s feelings. Your post (and others like it) seem to me to be taking some variation on one of these approaches:

      1) Discrediting the campaign by pointing out its hypocrisy
      2) Offering court-of-law type evidence that points in the opposite direction from its premises

      However, this assumes that the people who made the campaign, and its target audience, are operating essentially in good faith and with open minds, like a jury should be. The problem with that assumption is that we’re living in an environment that is the equivalent of the Old South, where men in general are blacks, and women and their mangina allies are whites. Outside of books and Hollywood movies, no amount of empirical evidence is going to convince an all-white jury that a black man is innocent of a crime. You have to go after the racism – or in this case, misandry – itself.

      To me that means attacking the philosophical roots of second- and third-wave feminism, the emotion-based “reasoning” processes used by feminists and leftists in general, and the made-up “facts” they use to support their case. Appealing to a nonexistent sense of fairness will amount to little more than tilting at windmills.

      • equality4menuk
        November 7, 2013

        Thanks hanytimeh, it’s fascinating to observe your reasoning in action

        What you’re pointing to is two distinct realms that are often at the heart of disagreements between the left and right, men and women, feminists and anti-feminists. We could say those realms are:

        1. The subjective (internal, feeling-based emotional realm)
        2. The objective (external, logical, rational world)

        And what happens when you have two sides standing in those distinct realms is you have two sets of people convinced that their view of the world is completely right and that the other view is completely wrong—when in reality they probably both represent a partial truth

        So you’re essentially saying the the feelings-based view that invalidates rational logical argument is wrong—-and the the rational, objective approach that invalidates the subjective viewpoint is right

        And the irony is there’s a whole load of subjectivity and feelings and emotions in your argument that creeps out with words like “bitches” and “manginas” —- and then through that sea of subjectivity you arrive at the conclusion that the solution is to attack “emotion based reasoning processes” a conclusion that has no basis in rational objectivity but is actually based in your own emotion-based reasoning

        And that’s the delicious irony of these two realms—it’s delightful to observe how often they mirror each other and yet can’t see the reflection

        It’s not possible to effectively oppose bigotry, prejudice, discrimination etc unless we deal with our own bigotry and prejudice—of course in our own subjective realm we’re never prejudiced is always everyone else who’s the problem

        I think you make some really interesting points and you make them well—and I think you are unaware of your own subjective, emotional bias which limits your ability to take a truly objective view—-and I think you have not yet understand my approach which is an integral approach that seeks to integrate personal, practical and political perspectives through a theoretical framework (integral gender theory)

        The article above is simply a small bit of politicking not a practical solution

        Thanks for your comments I’ve enjoyed them


  5. jojo
    November 7, 2013

    I wrote the following article which no mainstream media would publish because it criticises feminism. http://antigones.fr/2013/07/radical-feminism-is-about-favouring-elite-women-not-equality/

Leave a Reply to karen straughan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: