Prag-Genderism

“Women can pursue everything they want in life, though rarely all at the same time.”

Men often work not for the love of work itself, but out of devotion to their families. This raises a deeper question: do we work to live, or live to work?

Instead of framing the choice as either a career or a family — as was common in the 1950s — the message might have been to prioritise family first, then build a career around it.

The 1950s man devoted his life to his family, and this devotion is what continues to give work meaning even today. Once children reach school age and become less dependent, parents — mothers especially — have more room to re-enter the workforce or pursue further study. Even Betty Friedan observed that as children grew more independent, many women shaped by the 1950s mindset lost a sense of purpose and realised they had never truly been given the option to return to the workforce. Feeling a loss of identity, and without the option to return to work, some had additional children simply to maintain that sense of purpose.

There are certainly differences between men and women — differences that make each better suited to specific roles, especially within family life. The era of feminism has long passed. While gender equality has played a valuable role in shaping society for the better, any correction carries the risk of overcorrection. The ideals of early feminism can still exist, but what is needed now is something I like to call “Gender Pragmatism” or “Prag-genderism” for short. Human history shows men and women succeeding as complements, not competitors—hunter-gatherer pairs, family units, innovation teams. The “gender war” framing is recent, media-amplified, and counterproductive. The silent majority already lives the alternative: mutual respect, trade-offs, and joint problem-solving. Amplifying that voice—through norms, policy, and culture—beats endless score-settling.

How Enemies Can Become Friends

In the 1950s, psychologist Muzafer Sherif conducted one of the most famous studies on group conflict and prejudice: the Robbers Cave Experiment. Designed to test realistic conflict theory, the study examined how competition over limited resources creates hostility between groups — and whether that hostility can be overcome.

The experiment was conducted over three weeks, with each week dedicated to a distinct phase. The first week focused on group bonding. The second introduced competition to spark conflict. The third aimed to reduce hostility through cooperation.

To eliminate pre-existing biases, researchers carefully selected 22 boys who were as similar as possible: all white, middle-class, 11–12 years old, from the same region, and of the same religious background. None had met before the study. They were randomly divided into two groups.

During the first phase, the groups were kept completely separate and unaware of each other’s existence. Each believed they were the only group at the camp. Within days, strong bonds formed. One group called themselves the Rattlers and made a flag with a snake emblem. The other named themselves the Eagles and created their own banner.

In the second week, the groups were introduced — and competition began. They competed in games such as tug-of-war, baseball, and touch football. Winners received rewards like extra desserts, points, medals, trophies, and pocket knives. Losers received nothing. Tensions escalated rapidly. What started as name-calling quickly turned into raids on each other’s cabins and physical fights. Researchers sometimes had to intervene to prevent serious violence. When asked to describe the other group, the boys used overwhelmingly negative terms, while praising their own group.

Each group quickly developed its own culture — shared norms, behaviours, and expectations.

Culture, at its core, demands conformity: “people like us do things this way.” To belong, individuals often set aside parts of their personal identity. That trade-off can elevate a person — or pull them down. People can drag you lower far more easily than you can lift them against their will.

In the final phase, the researchers tested whether the hostility could be resolved. They discovered that simply allowing the groups to interact freely was not enough. The animosity lingered, and fights continued.

Instead, the researchers introduced superordinate goals — shared challenges that neither group could solve alone. One memorable task involved a truck supposedly carrying the camp’s food supply that had “broken down.” In reality, the driver kept his foot on the brake until both groups worked together. One team pulled on a rope tied to the front of the truck while the other pushed from behind. Only when they cooperated as one did the truck finally move.

These joint challenges created common goals and common enemies (the broken truck, a blocked water supply, etc.). Gradually, the hostility faded. When asked later to describe the other group, the boys’ tone had changed dramatically. Many now viewed their former rivals as friends, and some even said they preferred certain boys from the other group over members of their own.

This is essentially what needs to happen between men’s and women’s movements.

Prag-Genderism

Feminism started with a noble and worthy goal: achieving genuine equality between men and women. However, over time, it has increasingly devolved into a movement that, in significant parts, has become openly hostile toward men and, at times, indifferent or even damaging to children.

Because the term “feminism” now carries significant negative baggage and feels increasingly outdated, a new label, a fresh banner, and a renewed movement is needed — one that can restore the natural beauty and harmony possible in the relationship between men and women. I believe that movement is “Prag-Genderism” short for pragmatic genderism, or gender pragmatism.

I know it’s a long shot, but to paraphrase Naomi Wolf: “Perhaps if I say it, someone will join me.” That single spark helped ignite the third wave of feminism. Perhaps voicing what must be said today will spark the next wave — this time under Prag-Genderism, deliberately shedding the label of Feminism. In truth, it represents a clear break and a new chapter beyond feminism. Feminist who hold true to the original ideals, but no longer feel the movement as a whole represents them.

While modern feminists often insist that feminism is simply about equality between the sexes, in practice significant parts of the movement have long deliberately excluded men and frequently portrayed them as the enemy. People naturally gravitate toward group identities, and a movement literally named “feminism” — a term that inherently centres women — was never likely to attract men into prominent or equal roles, despite claims that it benefits both sexes.

Although most men broadly support the stated principles of equality, the actions and rhetoric of many prominent feminists have often failed to match their words. This isn’t just a matter of semantics; it’s evident in reality. Men in the last 100 years have rarely held truly leading or equal decision-making positions in the feminist movement. Instead, many feminists have actively pushed men to the sidelines, with some even arguing that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no right to speak on certain issues. As a result, men have largely been relegated to secondary, supportive, or even submissive roles.

Prag-Genderism represents the natural next step — the next evolutionary stage beyond traditional feminism. It seeks to include men as genuine equals and true partners in the pursuit of fairness between the sexes, rather than excluding, alienating, or demonizing them. Prag-Genderism stands for real equality between men and women. It celebrates the unique strengths of individuals while honestly acknowledging the real biological and psychological differences between the sexes.

It rejects the culture of victimhood and instead focuses on practical, constructive solutions. At its core, it demands that both genders actively champion the rights and wellbeing of the other: women standing up for men, and men standing up for women. Above all, regardless of personal views on lifestyle, relationships, or individual happiness — whether single, married, straight, or gay — Prag-Genderists must always place the safety, wellbeing, and healthy development of children first. This is a principle that was too often lost in the later waves of feminism.

I have deep admiration for Betty Friedan. Even she, in her later book The Second Stage (1981), urged the women’s movement to move beyond simply fighting against men and instead work toward building a healthier society rooted in shared responsibility, cooperation, and strong families. Let’s face it: that was never going to happen under the banner of feminism, which always carried a second voice declaring men as the enemy.

When one group begins to victimize another, opposing groups and ideologies often emerge that mirror the same extreme views — but in reverse. This dynamic is evident in some aspects of today’s “Manosphere,” which, to be fair, makes many valid points. For example, there are often few meaningful consequences for false allegations. Let’s not overlook the fact that feminism today would not exist in its current form were it not for the support of men. Yet feminism has its vocal misandrists, just as men’s movements have their vocal misogynists. Prag-Genderism seeks to break this destructive cycle. Its core mission is to foster balance and mutual understanding, because when men and women treat each other as enemies, nobody wins. However, that is not to say we shouldn’t boldly speak the truth — because truth is the foundation of freedom.

Prag-Genderism has always been something on the tip of everyone’s tongue; someone just needs to give it life and form by speaking it aloud.

The basic tenets of Prag-Genderism

Although it was not my original intent, the ideas explored in this book naturally led me to this point, and this book may be considered the first book on the topic of (or at least my interpretation of) Prag-Genderism, a pragmatic approach to gender equality.

Prag-Genderism will inevitably develop its own life, just as second-wave feminism evolved beyond Betty Friedan’s original vision and grew into something which later sidelined her — a movement she helped create. People will interpret and apply it in different ways. To avoid the mistakes of past movements that failed to establish clear ground rules, the following core principles define Prag-Genderism:

It’s a movement for everybody – Anyone can join, just start saying you’re a “gender pragmatist” or “prag-genderist” then adhere to the following principles and you’re part of the movement.
Children First — The wellbeing and best interests of children take priority over adult desires. The ultimate goal is to help them grow into strong, healthy, well balanced and adjusted adults.
Free Speech — Open and honest expression is protected and encouraged. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Seek Truth — Truth is the foundation of progress. Consider all perspectives, but accept only what is supported by evidence.
Accept men and women as they are — The are each one half of humanity. Each are imbued with the same strength and weakness of humanity as a whole. A man has a penis, XX Chromosomes and a woman has a vagina XY chromosomes.
Good-Faith Debate — Rigorous yet respectful debate is welcomed. Engage others with civility.
Prepare for Conflict — Understand common rhetorical and manipulative tactics and defend against bad-faith arguments while maintaining integrity.
No Gender as Enemy — Neither men nor women are regarded as the enemy.
Inclusive Participation — Both men and women are welcomed as Prag-Genderists, regardless of sexual orientation or personal identity.
Individual Merit — Strength, talent, and character are evaluated based on individual merit, not gender.
Celebrate Gender Differences — Natural biological and psychological differences between the sexes are acknowledged and celebrated.
Merit Over Ideology — Decisions and standards are based on evidence, results, and merit — not dogmatic ideology.
Offense Does Not End Debate — Being offended is not a valid reason to shut down discussion or silence others.
Evidence-Based Grievances — All grievances must be grounded in facts and evidence, not subjective feelings of victimhood.
Mutual Accountability — Both men and women are held to the same standards of accountability, e.g. would it pass the gender swap test. Why is it okay for you, but not okay for me? If there are clearly demonstrated different consequences, then it passes.
Practical Solutions — Focus on real, workable, and lasting solutions to challenges faced by both sexes.
Results-Oriented Approach — Adopt what works, discard what does not. Continually refine solutions as new evidence emerges. “Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own.” — Bruce Lee
Wisdom can be found everywhere — Recognize tried and tested, multigenerational, cross cultural ways of thinking. If there’s a problem, someone has probably already found a solution. E.g. how different cultures effectively treat Transgenderism.
Biological Reality — There are two sexes: male and female.
Sexual Orientation and Identity — Homosexuality, bisexuality, and other same-sex attractions are recognized as natural variations of human sexuality among consenting adults. All individuals, regardless of orientation or identity, are treated with equal dignity — neither elevated nor discriminated against.
Precision in Language — Strive for clarity and accuracy in words and definitions. Vague or misleading terms (e.g., “gender pay gap” without occupational controls, or “toxic masculinity”) should be avoided or clearly defined.
Clarify Ambiguous Terms — Do not assume shared meaning. Always define contested terms to prevent misunderstanding and unproductive debate.
Stay grounded — There is often a gap between perception and reality. Always aim to align what is happening in your mind and what is happening outside of it. Be conscious of your own bias.