The following is a piece of longform journalism which I spent a month working on that was originally intended to be published in my college newspaper. They ultimately didn’t accept the piece, but I felt the campus should still have access to the story, since it was of collective interest.

It was 3 a.m. and Wesleyan University freshman Michael Haybron couldn’t sleep. Stray thoughts were keeping him awake. So, he walked to the WestCo lounge and wrote “The Misandry Problem.”  He read it over a few times, didn’t show it to anyone else, and submitted the piece to The Wesleyan Argus as a Letter to the Editor at around 6 a.m.

This poorly-thought-out decision changed Michael’s life. Around campus, the letter went viral. While disagreement with his views was certainly part of the response, this strange letter also sparked questions about what exactly this guy’s deal is. This piece is an attempt to address the questions that anyone would have about Michael after reading that letter. What’s he like? What was he actually trying to say? What was the response like for him? Also, what happens when he’s put in a room with someone who wrote a critical response piece?

The first thing one notices meeting Michael is that he looks and acts like a completely ordinary guy. A little short, with light blue painted nails and curly brown hair, his energy is that of a confused freshman, not an edgy provocateur. Michael hails from a public high school in Olivette, a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. Although the environment was generally liberal, it was nothing like the all-encompassing progressive space of Wesleyan.

Originally, Michael had committed to Denison University, but Wesleyan pulled him off the waitlist. To make his decision, he watched the 1994 film PCU, a thinly veiled satire of Wes written by graduates Adam Leff and Zak Penn ‘90. Conceived as a sendup of the school’s far-left atmosphere and political correctness, the take on “Animal House” also emphasized the sheer craziness of Wesleyan’s environment. Seeing it made Michael want to come here. 

“I watched PCU and obviously it was an exaggeration, but it showed a campus of crazy people that do crazy things and can still, like, at the end of the day, get along and enjoy being around each other,” he said. There’s a fascinating irony to this situation: a movie about political correctness made him want to attend the school, but writing about politically incorrect beliefs led to the community shunning him. Although one would assume the article hates political correctness, Michael, in fact, does not.

“Most critiques of political correctness are very dumb and stupid and not correct,” he said. “A lot of the time they're not even talking about political correctness. They're just talking about, like, not being racist.”

In fact, Michael holds relatively mainstream liberal values. He’s not a crusader for men’s rights, and his takes on what he calls “misandry,” based on my conversations with him, seem to be his only position that doesn’t quite line up with mainstream Wesleyan thinking. 

Michael doesn’t exactly know who he is. He’s completely undecided on what to study, but he’s pretty sure he doesn’t want it to be STEM. At Wesleyan, he joined Throw Culture Ultimate Frisbee for a few weeks, but stopped going to meetings. He confesses to being a terrible student, forgetting to do necessary readings, making him unable to write essays. When asked what takes up most of his time, he mused, “dealing with depression, probably.”

Michael is a mess of contradictions. Although he doesn’t think misandry is terribly important, he chose to put his name on a piece written about it. Inspired by reading Argus archives, he wanted to write a piece that was a little unhinged. However, he firmly believes the points he’s making are entirely reasonable. His letter seems to have been conceived in a delirious state of late night passion, accompanied by the conflicting desire to get writing the thing over with.

“I hate writing,” he said. “I want to get my ideas out in as few words as possible.”

The Letter

Talking to Michael, it’s clear that decisions around writing the piece were often poorly considered. Initially, he didn’t want to use any personal examples, but he ended up doing so. At times, he’s told me that he chose smaller personal examples to make misandry seem less important, but at other times he’s told me he just couldn’t think of better ones. It seems his rhetorical decisions were driven by a disjointed 3 a.m. logic that he can’t quite explain. The result of that, in the eyes of many, was a confusing argument full of bizarre examples that didn’t support his point.

The letter’s most controversial paragraph touched on the Israel-Palestine conflict, making a muddled point about the phrase “women and children.” This part of Michael’s argument was inspired by a single Twitter thread–which he is unable to find–and he claims to have seen this line of argument multiple times. In an interview, he clarified the point he was attempting to make.

“Israel bombs Gaza and kills people,” he explained. “And there's outrage from the left because, you know, killing innocent civilians isn't cool. And then Israel's response, or someone who's trying to defend Israel says, well, they were terrorists…The issue is not all of them were terrorists...And if you say, well, what about the women and children? Because, obviously, women and children aren't going to be terrorists. Well, yeah, sure, that's mostly true. But you're kind of leaving out all the men that are also not terrorists. And so, you're kind of implicitly ceding the point that Palestinian men...are all terrorists.”

An in-person explanation is clearer than Michael’s writing, but it’s easy to dismiss this example, since people make all sorts of different arguments on Twitter and it hardly negates the criticism of his example as tone-deaf. Michael regrets the way he expressed this point in the piece. Depending on when he was asked, he said he would have liked to either cut that part or would have just liked to clarify it. Since all of his other examples were minor events that had happened at Wesleyan, this jump overseas weakened and confused his argument. 

Another odd example he used involved a Halloween costume. A friend wanted to dress up as the couple from 500 Days of Summer.

“I haven't seen the movie.” Michael said, “I just know that he listens to The Smiths or something. And like that automatically made me go like, ‘I don't want to be this guy.’” Since he didn’t have any other ideas, he decided to do the costume. 

He said, “It was lovely. I looked great.” If, ultimately, the costume was a positive experience, his reasons for including it as a key example of misandry are puzzling.

A slightly clearer example was being asked to carry things. He was asked to carry people’s laundry three times, move a record player once, and carry a bottle of liquid another time. With this example, however, it’s difficult to see how any kind of injustice is being perpetrated by being asked to carry someone’s laundry three times. 

Given that Michael’s examples become even weaker as he’s asked to explain them, it’s tempting to laugh away his argument. Although he struggles to come up with clear and specific examples, Michael was pointing towards a real phenomenon. 

At Wesleyan and in other progressive spaces, it’s common to hear jokes or other derisive comments about men in a way one wouldn’t hear someone talk about another group. For example, it’s socially acceptable and almost commonplace for someone to declare that they hate men, in a way that it wouldn’t be for someone to declare they hate women.

Most people I’ve talked to agree that these jokes and comments happen, but they don’t think it’s much of a problem. Generally, Michael isn’t bothered by them, but in this group of friends, it felt excessive. He estimated that there would be about one anti-man joke every hour. Michael reports that a friend reached out to him to ask if the jokes bothered him, although the friend remembers Michael bringing up anti-men jokes.

Michael felt that in this specific group, there was an atmosphere of negativity towards men. This atmosphere bothered Michael, since it made him suspect that some of his friends actually held negative attitudes toward men.

“I don't really mind the joke itself. It's not particularly funny. But like, if you're just like, teasing me or whatever, I don't give a shit. But, when it's said, very often...is it really a joke? Or do you kind of believe this stuff a little bit?” Michael told me. “It bothers me that the people that I'm surrounded by view me as lesser.”

In my eyes, the idea that some people on campus and in other progressive spaces might actually hate men a little is the core of Michael’s argument. While his original letter is easy to dismiss, the idea of people holding anti-men views is much thornier and difficult to conceptualize. When someone says “I hate men,” does that mean that they actually hate men? 

While Michael is bothered by these sentiments, most men on campus don’t seem to agree with his critique.

“I have never experienced any kind of misandry,” Evan Wacks ‘25 said. 

One post on the anonymous social media app Fizz reads “upvote if you think misandry is a BIG problem at Wes.” As of writing this, that has negative one hundred twenty six upvotes, meaning most Wesleyan students didn’t agree that misandry was a big problem.

The Argus

One unfamiliar with The Argus Letter to the Editor policy might be confused as to why they allowed such a weak and controversial argument into their pages. Wouldn’t they at least have made some edits?

For the most part, The Argus does not edit letters to the editor. Although they are allowed to cut down long pieces, they do not allow themselves to edit the content. The only changes that the Argus made to the piece were minor copy edits. Between Michael sending the letter and it being published, no communication was exchanged between him and Argus staff.

The Argus policy reads, “The Argus also reserves the right to withhold Letters to the Editor that are excessively vulgar or nonsensical, or that constitute personal attacks, defamation, or hate speech.”

Essentially, as long as a letter to the editor isn’t bullying, defamation or hate speech, the Argus will run it. Unless it’s too long, they’ll run all of it. Presumably, since “The Misandry Problem” did not meet those criteria, the Argus chose to publish it. 

“[I]t would have been nice to like, workshop it with somebody else, probably, or at least like, workshop it more by myself.” Michael said. He doesn’t, however, fault the Argus for sticking to their policy, since he understood that the letter would be published without significant edits.

The Reaction

Almost immediately after being published on Friday, November 3, the letter spread like wildfire, through word of mouth and in group chats. Cayla Joftus ‘25 reported reading it out loud in a circle with her housemates. That weekend, traffic on the Argus website more than tripled. “You couldn’t really go anywhere without sitting down and hearing someone talking about it,” said Wacks.

Almost nobody on campus seemed to agree with Michael. On Fizz, posts with hundreds of upvotes attacked the letter. “Why would you, as a man, write such a fucking stupid letter to the editor?” One said.

“Let's be real,” Michael said in an interview on the Argus podcast. “There were some pretty sexist posts towards men.”

One Fizz post reads: “My takeaway? We need misandry on campus.”

The backlash reached beyond Fizz. His roommate was in a class where the professor suggested that Michael would be in favor of mass rape. Michael expected people to disagree with him, but he expected people to interpret his argument closer to how he had intended it.

“I just expected people to like, come at it and go, after reading it, ‘I don't think this guy hates women.’” Michael said.

The interpretation of his views, however, was much more radical.

“A lot of people would probably assume that he’s this alt-right person and surrounding himself with alt-right ideology,” said Joftus.

While some on campus were sincerely outraged, others thought the response was excessive.

“I thought it was kind of stupid. Both the article and the response.” said Amari Stuppard ‘25. “It just very much so became apparent that this person was a first-year who was...dealing with the culture shock of being at a liberal arts institution.”

While Michael expected some online backlash, he didn’t expect social isolation. For the most part, he doesn’t leave his room now. Although he still speaks to some friends of one of his roommates, his main group of friends, which had inspired some of the examples Michael used, no longer speaks to him. At first, two of his friends reached out, explaining their issues with the piece. 

Michael sent them a voice memo apologizing for airing the friend group’s dirty laundry in The Argus.

“I apologized because some of the stuff that I talked about in that was personal stuff between us that we hadn’t discussed at length,” He said. “I mean, like 30 minutes after publishing it, I was like, ‘I should not have used those examples.’...That’s not a cool thing to do to your friends.”

His friends responded by telling him that airing their drama in the pages of the Argus wasn’t the issue. They objected to the views expressed in the piece, which Michael isn’t planning to apologize for.

“I don’t think the arguments I made are something that need [an apology.]” He said. “I believe in them.”

As Michael talked about his former friends, tears welled up in the corner of his eyes. Even after they’ve abandoned him, he clearly retains some affection for these people. Although his first two months of college class stressed him out, he talks about his pre-letter first year social life fondly.

Listening to him explain how a 6 a.m. decision has upended his social life, it’s hard not to feel a little bad for Michael. He’s clearly not doing well. On the other hand, in so many ways, he did this to himself.

The Conversation

Sadie Gray ‘26, who wrote a piece responding to “The Misandry Problem,” agreed to have an in-person conversation with Michael. While other response pieces focused on Michael’s specific arguments and poorly chosen examples, Sadie took issue with the whole conceit of the piece.

“There's been so much activism like on Wesleyan campus...in issues like that, it's you're watching like the people around you try to place their empathy or determine their perspective on something,” she said. “And for him, it was just like, ‘well, here's the thing that affects me.’”

Unlike Michael, Sadie revised her piece and had multiple people look at it, including friends, her sister, and her father.

“I had my dad read it, which was interesting because he was one of few men to give me feedback on it,” she said. “He said that he thought it was a little too mean.”

Michael agreed that the piece was a little too mean, saying he didn’t finish reading it and calling the piece “insanely passive aggressive.”

When the two of them met, the room was tense. Almost immediately, goodwill was lost when Michael admitted that he hadn’t read all of Sadie’s piece.

“I think that sums it up,” Sadie said. “If you ever wanted to read that, you’ll get the gist.”

Much of the conversation revolved around semantics. Sadie objected to his use of the word “misandry,” given that the word is mostly used by misogynists. Michael admitted that the word can have the connotation of misogyny, but said he doesn’t regret using the word, since he had clarified that misandry was much less important than misogyny.

The first time anyone smiled was when the Barbie movie was brought up. (Michael said the people who called that movie anti-men were insane, and Sadie finds its takes on feminism to be a little surface level.)

It took an hour of talking before they were able to discuss what’s ultimately Michael’s main point: that some people on Wesleyan campus seem to hate, or at least hold some negative sentiments toward men. After all, most of us have probably heard someone say the phrase “I hate men,” and, sometimes, we’re not entirely sure of how sincere the person is.

“I would say it's more so how...men's actions are informed by their gender and if they’re a cis man,” Sadie said, adding an important nuance. “If I were going to say ‘I hate men’ because of an interaction I had with a man that I went on a date with or something, I imagine that would be because the way he acts specifically, we think that he perceived that as okay because he's a man. Because he is aware of his power and not afraid to exploit it. That, I think, is more my issue. I would never hate a man because he's a man.”

It’s important to draw a distinction between hating the way the patriarchy informs men’s actions and simply hating men. Some people are certainly able to draw that distinction, but Michael suspects that others don’t.

“They probably do have an issue with how men are socialized and enabled to act badly,” Michael said, referring to people who make anti-men comments. “But it seems like it's probably also leeched over into a little bit of dislike for men in general.”

Expecting people to distinguish between hating the patriarchy and hating men might, however, be too high of a bar. Given the overwhelming nature of the patriarchy, should we be stopping to make sure our views on men are perfectly consistent? 

“I would like people to not hate men, but I understand how it happens and why it happens,” Michael said. “But I do expect people to try to work on not hating men.” Ultimately, the conversation didn’t quite go anywhere. 

“You responded to my critique, and I still feel like my critique is right,” Michael told Sadie, toward the end of their conversation.

“I think he seems like a nice person,” Sadie said afterward. “But...I don't think that he sees there being implications to his actions because his issue begins and ends with himself.”

Withdrawing

Recently, Michael has been stressed with schoolwork. He doesn’t keep up with classwork and is having trouble writing and rewriting essays and depression only makes that more difficult. He made a decision, however, to lighten the burden on himself: to withdraw from the University.

“Partially I just don't really like school, I like learning, but I don't like being a student.” He explained. The letter, however, was also a significant factor. “There's a hostile atmosphere towards me that I'm not convinced will ever fully go away and I just don't really see a future for me here.”

Michael has stopped attending classes, but he plans to stay on campus until the end of the semester. He spoke to his academic advisor, who encouraged him to find a way to catch up on his schoolwork and stay at the University, but Michael decided that withdrawing was the best option. Although he will have received no college credits from the University, Michael believes he’ll have some of his tuition reimbursed. 

Michael isn’t entirely sure what to do next. Taking a gap year and returning to school, either at Wesleyan or somewhere else, is an option. He might also find a job and is considering working for Democratic politicians in Missouri. 

While academics were a strong factor in his decision to withdraw, the backlash to “The Misandry Problem” was the nail in the coffin.

“If I hadn’t written the article,” he said. “I think I would still be here.”