Introduction
Hello, and welcome to my little book. Within its pages I will attempt to show you as best I can what may lead a man in the modern world to think the way he does, and why some might choose misogyny and others transition. To give you hopefully an idea of what it means to be a man, what men are truly up against from the moment of birth, who created the modern world as it is in the West, why men might feel dejected and gravitate toward Romanian based self-confessed sex traffickers, but more than that I hope to end it with some hope and positivity.
I've been told that the best way to start is to introduce myself, and maybe a bit about what has led me to a place where I feel this kind of book is something I would be qualified to write. My name is Sascha Bailey, but I figure you probably gathered that from the cover or blog heading. I was born in a small town in Devon, England to a famous photographer David Bailey. I hate opening with this but nevertheless I guess it is necessary. Growing up in this kind of dynamic has made it extremely hard for me to trust people, never knowing if what I might say to someone would lead to an article or hit piece being published. Which is actually what led me to this place where I was thrust into the media about my near-transition. But let's back up a tad. Ten years ago or so, at 19, I got married to someone far older than me in details I will cover later in the book. This ten year marriage was a living hell. In late 2022, after living in Japan for three years, I would escape my marriage and a near-death situation (in more ways than one). While leaving, after nearly taking my own life due to the stresses of the situation I found myself in, I had decided that I would transition - something I would later change my mind about. But not before being diagnosed and prescribed HRT (hormone replacement therapy) in the form of patches in Japan.
A year after I returned to the UK I would speak to the wrong person about my situation. I can never really know for sure who went to the press about this, although I have a pretty good idea that it might have been related to a fight over a WIFI bill payment. Pushed into the media to speak about this, I had already done extensive research about the subject for my magazine at the time FOMA, writing an issue called “How To Be a Man” where I covered an online group known as Transmaxxers a long time before any mainstream media had caught onto their existence. I was also planning on creating a documentary about my experiences, for which I attended a Let Women Speak protest in Hyde Park, all before the chance to discuss it was thrust upon me through a rather strange chain of events.
I have all my life suffered in some way from what people would describe as gender dysphoria, or a want not to be myself, as I would now categorise it. This is a very brief description and one we will expand on in the book a lot. After my story went public, I would go on to be featured on the cover of The Times insert, The Daily Mail and a few podcasts. But to me, none of this was new. I say this not to self aggrandise, but to provide context that this was in no way exciting for me. I've been on the cover of The Times insert before. I've been on news channels, radio and print before both in Japan and in the UK, talking not about anything to do with transition or my family, but finance and art. In Tokyo I was known as Sascha Bailey, an Art person, a Tech inventor. In the UK I am demoted to just the son of someone, this is not a goal for me, it is a low.
The whole process of talking about my trans situation was actually incredibly unpleasant, my plan to create a documentary would have been somewhat understated as was the issue of the magazine I created. The plan, after this book is fully realized, is to sail off into the sunset and go back to my work in tech and finance. Yet it serves as a mental roadblock to me getting there, so the only thing to do is to release it. I may also start doing a psychology night course as I find all of this to be extremely interesting on that level, but that is neither here nor there.
You might be asking why I subject myself to all this attention and cancellation, having many if not all doors shut in my face since speaking out? For the same reason I am writing this book now, to me this issue is deeply personal. I hope what I talk about within these pages will help someone find understanding or solace that they are not alone. And through a chance of fate, and more than likely an unpaid WIFI bill, I was handed the opportunity to speak on it.
This book covers a lot of ground, as such when reading it in parts it is important to bare in mind that one chapter will flow into the next, context being provided as we go. The goal is to try to cover all bases so the start is very zoomed out, we will get increasingly focused as we go. There is no one issue that men are facing, no one thing that answers any question. People who provide catch-all answers are looking for simple fixes and that is where cults form. In each part while also putting my own views forward, I link the assertions I’ve made to at least one other person who seems to have reached a similar conclusion to me - i.e. in Part 1 it is Fay Weldon.
My personal story will be covered in this book to some extent but I want to primarily talk about cause and effect as, while certainly harrowing, my story should not be the focus as what I experienced is merely a microcosm of what men experience by society at large.
Two things I want you to remember when going in; I want you to think about how men feel in this world. What I present is meant to do just that. I am presenting ideas here not trying to say I am correct. I believe I am, but this is not a hard book of “this is true and nothing else is”. The second is that whoever you are, whatever you’ve chosen to be in your adult life, as long as you are not hurting others - know that I love you.
PART 1: SCUM
SCUM or the Society for Cutting Up Men manifesto (as it is known, but was never said to be what it stood for by the author) by Valerie Solanas, I think, has a lot to do with the modern view of the world from Feminists. Some interesting side notes about the women; Her mother, Italian-American, and her father is from Quebec. She grew up being abused by the men in her life - first she claims sexually by her biological father, then later by her grandfather in a physical way. She disliked her stepfather and was in trouble…a lot. Later in life, she became a prostitute in New York. More than likely, she saw a lot of men’s more darker fantasies before they had been publicly known. She is most famous for shooting Andy Warhol because she believed that he was stealing her work. In reality, Andy thought that, her work was fun and interesting, but her writing simply wasn’t his main concern and too obscene in any event. The shooting wasn't deadly, thankfully, but it left Andy with scars both mental and physical that would impact the rest of his life, which eventually contributed to his death. So in that sense, it is fair to say she did kill him, albeit slowly.
The manifesto itself is what is considered a radical feminist piece of writing, with some people describing it as anarcho-feminism in thought which is, as silly as it sounds, a form of anarchy with feminism mixed in. Throughout its 40-50 pages, depending on which edition you are looking at, it talks about such things as men being psychologically and physically inferior to women. One quote reading;
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
These quotes ring with a certain familiarity to people who see the statements of modern feminists, a view of men as walking sex obsessed beasts is very common in today's world. Recently an online conversation started about whether women would rather be trapped alone in the woods with a man or a bear. Many of the comments echoed thoughts by Valerie of the inherent violence and uselessness of men in general.
Valerie would sell her then pamphlet on the streets of New York in 1967 charging men 2 USD and women 1 USD. Even in her act of capitalism pursuing a kind of misandry. While many feminists argue that the manifesto is a work of satire, Valerie herself stated that it is not. The violent nature of the call to action of SCUM can be summed up in the following quotation;
“SCUM will kill all men who are not in the men’s auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the men’s auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves.”
But how and why does this connect to the modern trans movement and third wave feminism? Thus far, I have let the text speak for itself. But before I get into the dissection of how it connects to modern feminist thinking, I can leave you with one last quote. Food for thought, if you will;
“The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage.”
This quote speaks volumes and is overwhelmingly revealing in how many of these women think and feel about the male sex. Even if we are to take this as satire, they are the words of a murderous woman who I remind you insisted that it was indeed not satire, stating in an interview in 1968 with The Village Voice; “It’s not a joke. I mean every word of it”.
Many female thinkers excuse Valerie’s actions and thoughts, arguing they must be understood within the broader context of her time. They claim her words and deeds were misunderstood and, in a way, part of her fight against “the man”. They also claim that, even if it is serious, we should read it as satire.
To this I put forward that while we could look at the wider context and read it as satire, would we not be able to make the same excuses for Ted Kaczynski, more regularly known as the Unabomber? Ted would also create a manifesto where he would advocate for the overthrow of a system. His quotes mirror that of Valerie, hers about men, and his about technology and government. In fact if I was to present you with a bunch of their quotes, with a few words switched, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
“The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it can permanently wreck the human race.” - Ted
“The male has a negative Midas touch—everything he touches turns to shit.” - Valerie
We can see that Valerie viewed men in the same way Ted viewed the government.
They both have the following themes in their manifesto:
Both view modern systems as oppressive and unnatural
Both advocate for revolutionary action rather than reform
Both dehumanize their perceived oppressors
Both see violence or extreme measures as a necessary tool for societal change
While Ted did end up killing people (more than just one anyway), was he too not just fighting “the man” and what he saw as oppression? We freely acknowledge that his manifesto, when read by the wrong person, could be dangerous. But for some reason when we speak of Valerie we don't see it the same, even though it is quite literally advocating for the eradication of men. If this was stated by a man, it would be viewed as inherently violent, and not some kind of men's rights book or satire within the right context.
But the SCUM manifesto is more than just a nasty piece of revolutionary writing. It is, in a sense, something much more insidious.
In my view Valerie has done more damage to male and female relations, feminist thinking, and the male identity than any other individual to have lived. A fact I think she would be quite happy with. I mean this in the same sense that Karl Marx is indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people through the horrors of communism. The ideas are what matters, and they run deep into the second and third waves of feminism.
Before you read this section and think the connection I'm making is loose, I want you to hold in your mind the way people talk about how Andrew Tate’s or Jordan Peterson's ideas spread through men and boys, and take that same thinking and apply it to what follows. I am in short simply holding female thinkers to the same standard we hold male thinkers to - and that is what real equality is about.
Valerie’s manifesto can be linked to modern feminist thinking though the following Feminists and dates:
1968
Ti-Grace Atkinson: Describes Valerie Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights" and a "heroine" of the feminist movement. Atkinson also smuggled Solanas's SCUM Manifesto out of the mental hospital where Solanas was confined.
1970
Robin Morgan: Includes excerpts from the SCUM Manifesto in her anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful, recognizing its relevance and influence in feminist thought.
1989
Alice Echols: Highlights the SCUM Manifesto in her historical analysis of radical feminism, noting its prominence after the 1968 Warhol shooting and its role in radical feminist discourse.
We can then take these early writers and look at who they have influenced in thought and we start to see how deep Valerie’s influence has spread: Carol Anne Douglas, Mary Daly and Judith Butler being standouts. While I could go on to list all the modern feminists linked to the above thinkers, it would end up being a rather long list. The point being made here is that these ideas are prevalent in feminist thinking and have been allowed to grow and infect that whole sphere.
These violent thoughts infect modern discourse, confusing young minds. Men know not that they are under attack just for merely existing, while women don't even know where these ideas of fighting patriarchy came from.
Or, as I like to phrase it, a system of oppression inherently created by systems of power. You know, the way Ted viewed the government.
Can you imagine any male thinker saying that the Unabomber’s ideas fighting against “the man” are justified when looked at in the right context? No, it wouldn't be taken very seriously at all.
Yet with feminists in the fight against the “patriarchy” or “the man”, these ideas are let slide. Why? Because they are female. As such, these ideas have been free to access young women's minds. We can see through these examples that at least, in some way, violent ideas planted in the heads of young women have led us to the place we find ourselves in now. The endless idea that “the price of equality is eternal vigilance”, or some other feminist axiom that fits the same bill, is rattled around in young women's heads without most men even being aware of what women have been conditioned to believe.
Even if women haven't studied these texts directly, they will have been influenced by them. Be it through a friend, teacher or mother.
But what is this place we find ourselves in? And why does it matter that the SCUM manifesto is linked to these feminist thinkers? It is simple; the modern social framework is a Society for Cutting Up Men. Both spiritually and, in some cases, physically.
Another writer from a similar time period who was incredibly important is one Fay Weldon - a self-declared feminist. Her books are celebrated, like The Life and Loves of a She Devil. By some, Fay is viewed as feminist writer; by others she is seen as satirising the movement as a whole, in this sense she had always been very divisive. But I think it just shows she had a brain and nuance. One of her books however, which is seldom spoken of, is to me the most important book on the modern male condition maybe ever conceived: “The Death of a She Devil”. In fact, this book is completely absent from even her Wikipedia page. Written in 2017 to no doubt an audience of women expecting another mostly pro feminist novel, they would instead get a book of inversion. And one that does an incredible job of explaining to feminists how exactly they are destroying the young men around them. This book is most likely overlooked in most counter movements because Fay herself did not market it to them. The book also puts forward a very similar view to mine and I'm honoured to be in the company of such a legendary writer.
In the book, we follow Tyler Finch-Pachet, the grandson of the she-devil. The she-devil heads the IGP or the “Institute of Gender Parody”, a kind of stand-in for the feminist movement. Tyler is a kind and warm young man who is surrounded by frankly awful women. Two sisters and mother who, later in the book, turns out to be a lesbian. All three of them refer to him by the name “Cyclops”, a reference to the lazy eye he had as a kid. Everywhere Tyler goes, he is confronted by the fact that he is simply a man, and a straight one at that. At the job centre he is told “its a shame you’re not gay” because “the gays look after their own”. And his own mother even wanted to abort him, but didn’t, because “she thought he would be born a girl”.
Throughout the book it is made clear that his life, like so many young men today (especially in the UK where the book is based), would be easier if he were born a girl. Foreshadowing of what is to come is constant, from simple little thoughts of Tyler’s, like how he quite likes the swishing sound of a dress, to the ever-present and obtuse fact that he would have had it easier and life just be easier if he was a girl.
I am now going to ruin the story of this book. But even knowing what happens, like I did going in, you should read it. The nuance is not something I will get across in this short description:
Towards the middle of the book, Tyler falls in love with a lesbian named Valerie Valeria, who works for the she-devil, Tyler’s grandmother at the IGP. They are both very much into one another and fall madly in love. Tyler is eventually brought into the IGP, sneaking in dressed as a girl as men are not allowed in. Tyler’s inner monologue throughout the book often reflects on how much more functional things are for women. Clothes are easier to get on and off and the like. For the more astute reader, this offers a clear view of how men think, it’s all about functionality. Men tend to focus more on why things work better, rather than why they might look better.
After Tyler's grandfather dies in a rather bewildering scene that I will not ruin, he finally meets with the she-devil, who at first wasn't even aware he existed. Even so, when she finds out, she thinks “why couldn't it be a granddaughter?”. When the two are reunited in the last few chapters of the book, Tyler is given an ultimatum: Transition to “Taylor”, and the she-devil will make him/her the heir to her fortune. But Tyler is not trans, nor does the book make any reference to what people call AGP (autogynephilia, a subject we will cover later in this book, but in short is the concept of a man being aroused by the idea of himself as a woman).
Tyler is simply a young man placed in a world that hates men, our world. And, pushed by his lesbian girlfriend, he does in fact end up transitioning. Manipulated into doing so by the reality of the society he lives in, and the simple reason that his life would be easier, as it would be for so many men born in the West today. The book ends with an interesting thought from the she-devil; that she has in fact, by pushing him to transition and making him the heir to everything she has, made it so that men are once again in charge of women. Once again, the hated “patriarchy” has risen and it is the fault of feminism itself. It is her doing.
“Death of a She-Devil” is, in my opinion, the most important book written on this subject. The reason a lot of men transition is purely functional. Trans people have many reasons, but the question of “do you think you would be happier as a girl?” isn't an internal one for men. Men are focused on things, not themselves as much. Function is a huge factor in men’s thinking. If you were to ask a young man or boy “do you think you would be happier as a girl?”, well, what does that mean?
Do you mean by this statement of “would you be happier as a girl” that you would have an easier time? Do you feel like a girl? What does it mean to feel like a girl? I feel that I should have equal access to STEM programs, DEI initiatives, equal opportunities in the workplace for a promotion, or climbing the corporate ladder. Does this mean that I would in fact be happier as a girl? That I feel like one? With these things being true as they are in the stats?
If I feel I am equal, then maybe I feel as if I should be a girl.
Many of the people reading this, or criticizing it, will be homosexual men or women. They’ve never lived as straight men, yet for some reason, they often speak for them. In many cases, these individuals (homosexual men and women) argue that it is right for straight men to have it harder now because of historical issues.
As the job centre worker says to Tyler in Death of a She Devil: “The gays stick together, they help their own.” This is a fact of life. We know this is true because there's even a phrase called the “pink mafia,” which refers to the idea that gay men support one another, mostly in reference to media but I think it can be more universally applied. Straight men don’t have a similar support group. Feminists often claim that “the whole world is a straight man's club," but I don't see this. Straight men are less likely to help each other and more likely to help women or diversity hires as society expects them to. If straight men did stick together, they’d be labelled as racists, sexists or bigots faster than you could say “double standard”.
So, why is the pink mafia allowed to exist? Why is there a group identity among women? When we hear about women-only companies, people cheer, but if straight men created a "straight men-only" company, they'd be cancelled immediately. To this, the feminists scream and screech, “the whole world is your straight man’s club!”. Well I, as a corporeal and non-omnipresent being, cannot be everywhere at the same time. And where I live, the UK, it’s a women’s club working alongside the pink mafia.
Sure, you can work in blue-collar jobs, which are becoming more appealing with the state of the world, but for many opportunities the door is simply shut for a straight man. The idea that a straight man might be interested in certain fields is often laughed at. Why can't there be straight fashion designers? Is it like the "Black Lives Matter" axiom “if you can't see it, you can't be it”?
But why can't we see it?
Being a man, and a straight one at that, means being at the bottom of society. You’re blamed for all the world’s problems, and you don’t have the same extra access to STEM initiatives in schools that women get. Women receive extra support to bring them into fields like the sciences, the arts and more. Being a white man is even worse, at least a bit of colour will get you into DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs.
So, the question “Would you rather be a girl?” Is it really asking; would you prefer a life of struggle, where you're blamed for the world’s evils, or would you rather have access to all the extra benefits girls get, and more? If you transition, you're not just a woman; you're a transgender woman. Now, you’re a minority, and that comes with even more opportunities. You've not only cast off your privilege, but you’ve also gained real access to the world, with the chance to blaze a trail. And there’s nothing men want more than the chance to do something new and unique.
Like Tyler with the she-devil, every young man growing up today is offered this deal with the devil. All men have this choice now. If you’re more on the autistic spectrum or neurodiverse, as some young people now call it, you tend to operate with a very functional idea set. And as such, for some on the spectrum, the obvious choice is to transition. But don’t just take my word for it, some time ago, I had the chance to interview members of an online community called Transmaxxers.
Transmaxxers are an online group of transgender people that are centred around the idea of transitioning for personal gain. For many men, it’s simply easier to transition in order to access benefits. During my time amongst them I interviewed three of the more prominent community members. One in particular stood out to me, and I’ll refer to her as Taylor. Taylor shared how, when she was a man, she was disappointed that she couldn’t access women’s STEM initiatives at her school. Something she was very interested in. Yet as a man, he wasn’t welcomed into those groups. But when she told them she was now trans, she suddenly gained the function of access to those opportunities where previously there had been none.
Taylor also expressed how much she hated her male sex drive, identifying as an Incel (involuntary celibate) which was another factor that led her to transition. Inceldom is one of the major issues young men face, and we’ll discuss that in more detail later in this book.
The Transmaxxers also have a manifesto; one that is full of data sets explaining why someone might choose to transition in order to live a better life. Alongside phrases like “Don’t cut off your penis, as men will find it kinkier anyway,” you can find details on whether you should transition based on your height and other factors. One side of this manifesto could be viewed as a kink fantasy, while the other is more grounded in the realities of how you will be perceived by the world and what logical decisions for transitioning could be made.
Channel 4, long after I published my research into the group, would air a documentary investigating them. As the mainstream media so often does, they completely missed the point, focusing not on the struggles of manhood but on the idea that these individuals, particularly the subject of the documentary, are somehow gaming the system. What system? The one that was set up to treat men as second-class citizens? To demonize them for the way they were born? To tell women that they are in a struggle for supremacy from the moment they are born and tell men that they simply need to step aside and let women rule because of the sins of their fathers?
On the other side of this, men are drawn into the manosphere. Rather than adopting the attitude of "if you can’t beat them, join them," the manosphere offers men a place where they essentially become as bad as the feminists who created this society. Men are drawn towards “hyper-masculine” figures like Andrew Tate, and with these sets of ideas they find themselves able to express dominance. In doing so, they have become no different from the archetypal red-haired, screaming feminist. But instead of preaching ideas that women need to dominate, they argue that men need to dominate women at any cost, which is essentially no different from the ideas of Valerie Solanas.
To be a soft man, a kind man, means you will be at the mercy of the man-hating masses of women. To be a hard man means you will be hated, but at least you can express some level of freedom. In the manosphere women are seen as evil, manipulative, and only interested in taking from men, just as feminists portray men as evil beings who only want to possess, dominate, and control women. These two groups; the "radfems" (a shorthand for radical feminists) and the manosphere are two sides of the same coin. Neither is actually helping anyone. The difference is that, for some reason, radical feminists have been allowed to grow and fester for many decades, infecting and destroying generations of women with ideas that are, at best, outdated and, at worst, designed specifically to hurt relationships between men and women.
I want to end this chapter with some stats that you may or may not be aware of, some of which provide better insight into how warped we have become as a culture in the West. Women are taught that they are oppressed, growing up reading Jane Austen novels as well as believing that the struggles of women in the 1960s-80s are now their own. They believe that because men have had it easier in some way in the past, it is now justified to punish the current generation accordingly. These women are living in the past, completely unaware that they are now the ones occupying the seats of power. They are the “WOMAN.” The “MAN” was cut down and cast out years ago, and women have risen to a state of grace so high above men, that some men, as the She-Devil says to Tyler, might wonder: why try to beat them when you can join them?
For the feminists, the goal will never be met; the march will never be done. Equity doesn’t mean equality. It means, in this context, domination- an unrelenting pursuit of total and complete victory. After all, the price of equality is eternal vigilance.
The following stats are often cited by men’s rights activists, and to some, they don’t really prove much. However I think it’s important to end this chapter with them, as they at least provide some context to the thought processes of the subjects of the next chapter: Incels.
Workplace deaths: Over 90% of workplace fatalities are men.
Suicide rates: Men’s suicide rates are 2–4 times higher than women’s globally.
Homelessness: Around 70% of the homeless population are men.
Domestic violence: Studies suggest men make up approximately 30–40% of domestic violence victims but are less likely to report it.
College enrolment: Women now account for about 60% of college students, leaving men at 40%.
Art School Graduates: Interestingly, women often outnumber men in art schools. For example, in the U.S., women comprise 60-65% of fine arts graduates.
The final stat here interests me the most, as feminists love to point out that there is not enough representation of women in the arts. Yet, based on these figures, the future of art is overwhelmingly female. The information comes from a 2014 report by the National Centre for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S., which showed that about 65% of fine arts degrees were awarded to women. While the data on actual artists working in the art world is always historical, feminists live permanently in the past. Most activists do, as they have no real ability to see trends or the quite obvious outcome that, with the increasing number of female art graduates, there will be more professional female artists in the future. This isn’t about balancing, as we are not time-travelling; we are working toward the future. The issue they are trying to fix simply doesn’t exist anymore.
In the UK one need only attend an end-of-year art graduate show to see the growing gender disparity to the benefit of women. It’s very clear, to anyone who takes the time to look and think, that we are moving towards a world where men are considered lesser than women. Women are seen as smart, strong, in charge - boss bitches, as they say. While men are viewed as goofy and feckless no matter how much they achieve. To be a man, and a strong one at that, is to be bad. You have to give way to what women think, or you are considered mansplaining, toxic, or at worst a misogynist.
I hope that in this opening chapter, you’ve had some time to think about how skewed everything has become, from the fact that feminist writers are able to call for violence, albeit somewhat indirectly, and still be taken seriously - to the way the world looks down on men, almost daring them to cast off their manhood. It’s true that we live in a society for cutting up men. The SCUM Manifesto and its writer were correct. Satire or not, it’s where we find ourselves.
Now, if you will follow me, I want to show you the real experience of being a young man in today’s world. This will hopefully give you a real understanding of what it means to be a “privileged male”, as they say.
Let’s see where that takes us, and how “privileged” men really are.