I've gone from being quite wealthy, when I was defending women, to being quite poor defending men.

If women had to promise to provide for a man for a lifetime before he removed his veil and showed her his smile, would we think of this as a system of female privilege?

And we reduce almost all male-female problems by working on both the female and the male. And that usually means having both sexes take responsibility.

The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness.

I started to get very well recognized in the early seventies as the only man in the United States who had been elected three times to the board of NOW in New York City.

I am a men's liberationist (or "masculist") when men's liberation is defined as equal opportunity and equal responsibility for both sexes. I am a feminist when feminism favors equal opportunities and responsibilities for both sexes. I oppose both movements when either says our sex is THE oppressed sex, therefore, "we deserve rights." That's not gender liberation but gender entitlement. Ultimately, I am in favor of neither a women's movement nor a men's movement but a gender transition movement.

Men are often a lot less vindictive than women are, because we are rejected constantly every day.