You beat me to it, Janice. I was intending to write an article critiquing Harrington. Not that I don't welcome her analysis of how feminism has harmed women. All pretty much on the money. (Did she just make up "care feminism"?). But what is horribly evident is that her gynocentrism is still very much in place. As you rightly observer, she had very little to say about how men (and children) have been harmed by feminism - nor that men might have any opinion that needed taking into account. Typically, she simply assumes that men will respond to the new command for the about-turn in women's strategy (if that were to happen en masse). True, she had acknowledged that men and boys need all male spaces (the first feminist I've ever heard admit the bleedin' obvious that it is unfair to oblige cubs and scouts to take girls, whilst brownies and guides must remain all-female). But the way she expressed it was telling: "we should allow them their own space". Allow, is it? "Thank ee, ma'am", I thought, doffing my imaginary cloth cap, wringing it nervously in my hands whilst looking at my shoes.
If you ever listen to the vernacular, especially in my country I am not sure about others, husbands can often be heard saying, "She allowed me to go fishing or play golf."
Robert Treborlang wrote a series of books about Australia, the most stand out one is "How to be Normal in Australia" which didn't go down very well with people I knew, but I thought is was hilarious, with so many home truths.
It is a personal, familial and social tragedy that whole generations of men were dismissed for voicing any concern over rampant, vindictive feminism. Now, with men's voices more or less silenced, how ironic that only the whimpering of female suffering at its hands is bringing about any change.
That these insightful articles seem revolutionary is eye opening. For the Western woman there appears to be no end to the quest for women's rights -- unless those same rights are to be extended to women in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
As a man, watching Trans women use feminist tactics to take on *shocked* feminists has been a valuable lesson in cause and effect.
A wise old Roman poet once wrote: 'Fortune gives too much to many and enough to none.'
Trans ideology also strains to clarify the original LG alliance, as gays and lesbians come to terms with status downgrades -- after all they are merely 'cis'. Gay white men in particular find themselves on the losing end of intersectional politics.
I'm curious where the idea comes from that empathy is a female trait. It seems many women don't give a damn about men damaged by feminism until the precise moment it begins to harm themselves.
Perhaps this is because the class warfare indoctrination has been so effective. The out-group, men, has been demonized so completely that empathy for them is impossible.
I think women do have a special kind of empathy in that some number of women have a heightened awareness of others' emotional states, probably stemming from their need, in earlier times, to be intensely aware of how their children were doing. In the interests of survival, women needed to be able to perceive the meaning of different types of cries by their babies; needed to be able to tell the difference between a child who was just pretending to be sick in order to get out of doing something and one who was seriously ill; that kind of thing.
I think it is still the case that in general (vast generalization, of course), women are more attuned to other people's moods and feelings. (Think of the man who is mystified to learn that his wife has been angry at him for hours while he was just going about his business quite unconcerned.) But being attuned to other people's feelings doesn't mean you necessarily care about them; perhaps you take pleasure in their discomfort or shame.
With the advent of the feminist victim mindset, empathy is heightened for other alleged victims and dramatically attenuated for alleged non-victims. One of the aspects of the victim mindset is the justification of revenge-taking--because of the alleged harm that has been done to victims by perpetrators--and the necessary withdrawal of empathy from alleged perpetrators. When I was a feminist in my 30s, it was standard for feminists to say "Cry me a river" every time a man raised any issue relating to men's experiences or problems. The idea clearly was that it was fine for men to suffer; they deserved it, and, morally, we didn't have to care.
As in your third paragraph, any empathy they have is only for other women. There are types of fake empathy for men ('Patriarchy hurts men too,' programs to heal 'toxic masculinity'), but these are only aimed at achieving feminist goals.
I agree that a lot of women weaponize their empathy. It's simply a tool for more effectively managing the people around them. They can spot emotional vulnerability like an owl can spot a mouse on the ground from 100 feet in the dark.
Having worked all my working life in overwhelmingly female industries I long ago came to the conclusion that what this means is women "project" onto others and make assumptions quickly on the basis of this. The evidence being the constant parade of problems between the women I managed which boiled down to wildly inaccurate assumptions about what this or that "really meant". Needless to say until my intervention no one thought of checking out assumed slights, insults, digs, etc. by asking directly. In a world in which people constantly fish for compliments("did you notice my hair?"do you think this suits me" and so on and on), "its not what she said its the way she said it", "well that's what I'd think" and so on. There are endless, it seems, possibilities to get situations quite wrong or be upset entirely without reason. So generally I'd observe "women's intuition" and "empathy" is on a par with newspaper astrology. What always surprises me is that given all the evidence, endlessly trumpeted by feminists of all hues, that females are vastly more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, low level depression and all sorts of "mental health problems". No one seems to look for the factors that mean boys and men generally don't have these problems in such abundance (being the majority of the much smaller number with acute mental illnesses though). Why is it that with each successive wave of "support" for girls and women the situation gets worse?
It is of course quite useful to simply assume those cloddish males will carry on, not getting in on all the important drama of women's lives. This does seem the be the message of any consideration of men, it will distract from "women".
Nigel, Thanks so much for this post, which stated very clearly things I've never been able to articulate so well about how women interact, especially in terms of the kinds of conflicts that can fester over misunderstandings and misattributions, if not deliberate misrepresentations, accepted as fact. Women so often use the phrase, "I feel that..." before making unsupported claims of fact, and get very salty when facts are produced that don't align with the "feeling." They will even elevate feelings to justify changing laws, for example, restricting free speech because of how some theoretical person might feel harm from hearing or reading some opinion or fact that doesn't align with their feelings (ignoring the fungible and fleeting nature of so many feelings).
That men would be categorized as not concerned with feelings (or even not feeling as deeply as women) is a useful fiction that makes it easier to keep attention off the suffering of men, and for preventing people noticing that women's feelings-based demands can often be irrational.
I think the mental illness issue is getting worse for 2 reasons - more mental health professionals need to have customers, and social medial sites like tumblr and tik tok have been making mental illnesses "cool." I believe a lot of young girls and women are really suffering and unhappy, but the sources of that suffering isn't going to be unearthed by the self-esteem merchants selling "MH" wares, who fully buy into feminist ideology. Having been a teen whose mom pushed me to focus on a career and my own city apartment, I recall the unhappiness of being pushed to ignore my own healthy and normal desire to start marriage and family life. No therapist today is going to tell a 19 year old girl that she'd be happier settling down with her high school boyfriend and having a baby.
While I don't doubt the nasty reality of PTSD, I think the rapid growth in numbers of those suffering from it may be down to increasing acceptance of it and the reduction in the threshold for diagnosis. My father's generation (WW2) acknowledged the reality of what he called, if I recall correctly, Shell Shock but dealt with it by not talking about it, bottling it up and quietly observing Remembrance Day once a year. My grandfather's generation (the horrors of WW1) were even more stoical.
I'm not suggesting that those in distress should suffer in silence, however, there are those who are not really deserving yet will jump on a sympathy bandwagon unless told to get off.
I once worked, briefly, with a very silly woman who could not resist boasting about the £36,000.00 / annum she was getting in state benefits for two sons she'd managed to have diagnosed with various 'disorders' that when I was a child were considered to be bad behaviour. She worked, she said, only because her husband's accountant (her husband ran his own business) had advised her to in order to qualify for tax credits. She seemed shocked when I expressed my disapproval.
Feminists rightly point out that considerable effort was placed in the upper classes to educate their young men to control their emotions. In the Victorian era immense effort was expended on concerns that males would be volatile and wild, sentimental, foolhardy or cowardly. Now of course many of the emotions could be considered negative, but certainly it wasn't thought that males were without a rich emotional life, one that needed considerable molding and control. In a sense modern feminists agree, for they seem obsessed with controlling the youngest male lest they become dangerously subject to any number of emotions that frighten them.
We know women have hormonal driven psychological traits that render them more “open” and more neurotic.
We also know that their general animus is conflict avoidance. From this latter point flows all manner of issues and terrible consequences, explaining your observations above.
It is very clear to me that gender is as important to observe on the biologically driven psychology as physiologjcal differences.
This is the part that feminists fear the most, since it means conceding that in certain roles - especially higher up the hierarchy - men are better suited.
I think it's more accurate to say that women are absolutely conflict averse and will agree to or do almost anything to avoid it. Most men also prefer to avoid conflict, however, we have red lines that result in conflict if crossed, which is why we have more self-control and can exercise restraint, women do not; any compromise or concession is acceptable to them as long as it defuses tension and avoids conflict.
That is an odd belief, isn't it? One would think that a successful army, sports team, group of explorers, etc. would need people who have a basic understanding of other people, empathy and sympathy included. There are plenty of videos about drill sergeants on YouTube, for instance, and though they are loud and tough the good ones also know when to pull back and be supportive.
Konstantin Kisin, one of the interviewers of Harrington, while being interviewed himself a few days later about Jordan Peterson, stated that humans are biologically programmed to sympathise with women and view men as dispensable, and that therefore men's rights movements are doomed to failure. He went on to say that men should just man up, be better, and find good women to marry.
Ironic, since he, a Russian, satirizes Russian men as vodka-swilling, bear-wrestling cave dwellers who think a man must be a weakling if the bear wins.
That's a popular idea in men's rights circles as well, that all cultures prioritize women, so men's advocacy is a losing fight. Very neat. But better minds than mine have also pointed out that many things are "biologically programmed" into human beings. We are biologically programmed to prefer our own family and clan to all others. We are biologically programmed to eat vast amounts of fat and sugar as a survival strategy against famine. We are biologically programmed to steal resources from others, particularly from out-groups. Men are biologically programmed to have sex with everything in sight. And so on. Culture is what channels and circumscribes our biological impulses, directing them to more socially-useful and enlightened, even moral, ends. The same should go for men's suffering.
If pressed, I'm sure Kisin would admit that cultures cannot flourish without men and that thereby valuing men and giving men reasons to contribute makes good biological sense too.
Esther Vilar, points out in her book that a single man is not of much use to society. (not exactly verbatim).
Typhon Blue in her Youtube channel describes the domestication of men to be similar to that of a draught horse that works for the farmer or the mistress.
“don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards," Mondesta Pozzo.
Yes, I was struck by his assertions as well. There may well be deeply embedded evolutionary factors at play, but that is not the same as a biological determinism governing all relationships. He pretty much threw all men under the bus with that one.
Women, in the main, are solipsistic so can have no idea what empathy is; it is a male trait almost exclusively, although there are some laudable exceptions. Like 'freedom' which they do not understand because they do not have to win it for themselves or defend it, since men suffer in their stead and give it to them free of responsibility and accountability, empathy is a word they like the sound of, believing it a superior characteristic that elevates them above mere males.
I think women tend to score higher on average in neuroticism, and I think that neuroticism has a damping effect on empathy. My experience has been that women have a greater capacity to offer comfort but that comfort is often limited to those in their family or close allies. It is also clear that women have forgone their abilities in comforting and instead are taking on the more masculine push for higher status.
Yes Tom, I agree. I have thought for a long time that women confuse empathy with sympathy (the arm round the shoulder and the comforting hug without any sincerity). For me, empathy is not about a heightened perception of others' emotions, which women often misapprehend, but understanding that others have different needs and priorities and their putting them first is not necessarily to disregard or overlook the woman's own.
As an example, 'happy wife happy life' does not describe an empathic woman, and far too many women are like that, so many that the saying is a cheap laugh for a third rate comedian. Another is the way women mistreat their husbands' surnames, which they seem not to realise they have a duty to protect and to which they cling even after they have abandoned the men they obtained them from. An empathic woman would understand that his surname is not hers to use or abuse as she wishes.
Most surveys show that women are the most disliked and unstable members of the household: ie sisters score sisters and mothers lower than the male members!
So by their own admission women are difficult.
Good idea to privilege them by affirmative action, putting them in high office
Most capable women I have known have disliked working with and under or for other women. My wife much prefers working with men; there are far far fewer tensions and tantrums for one thing.
You don't think it is founded in the female view of men as utilities, of no intrinsic worth other than for our usefulness and therefore disposable with as little thought as a sweet wrapper?
K. Kisin said in a video short that compassion for men is never going to happen, humans are not wired that way. I agree with him on this. I also think that most men do not want compassion, or sympathy, or therapist couches. What men need is respect, and this is where the feminists have managed to strike a deadly blow. The incessant portrayal of men as idiots, oppressors; the constant invasion of male spaces, promotion of women to corporate leadership positions, etc.; the war on fathers--all of this has worked quite effectively to deny men their unique roles in society and to undermine their sense of self-worth. The most complete form of subjugation is psychological.
Thanks for this, Kevin. Good distinction. I wrote a long-ish comment about Kisin's allegation (which I hadn't known of) above, but I take your point. The vast majority of men couldn't care less about a pity party; they don't expect it and don't need it. They want an opportunity to make their contribution to their societies. I do know quite a few men, however, who would prefer that they not feel the strong dislike that today emanates from many women, even strangers, whom they interact with on the street, in coffee shapes, in stores, etc.
Men want and need to work. End of story. Any society that doesn’t make that an absolute priority is doomed.
I spent 2 decades in Japan. There, social harmony is the priority. It would be inconceivable there to have high male unemployment. Thus they reduced returns on capital while maintaining employment.
The west, in its infantile stupidity decided long ago - the denigration of Keynes - that societal considerations were of No importance versus than the social fabric.
One of the many facets of this are the ridiculous ideas of the feminized psychology that everything has a positive denouement after hours of couchtime.
It is simply the case that if a man has traumas, often the best way to cope is through the structure and conscientiousness that work brings: it helps sublimate hurt emotions.
Considering that family law courts nd false rape accusations have led to male suicide, do you think those males who killed themselves should've just manned-up and earned some respect?
This is the real issue. It doesn't matter much (though it's nice) if individual women start to like men again and care about them. The laws need to be changed. I couldn't agree more.
I think this is the important point. There have always been all sorts of varieties of ways of living and thinking. Regulated not by Laws of the state but religious authority, which relied pretty heavily on spiritual threats. As the industrial revolution burned on.There was an explosion of legislation in Britain on every conceivable topic often following "Christian" teaching. A couple of hundred years later we have a myriad of Laws and "Guidance" from the State. So many in fact that even legally constituted bodies such as the Police or Social Services get confused. It is in the Laws and in particular the Guidance that most damage is done. For it is in these that the power of the state is marshalled. Certainly in the UK the more power the state has, most extreme in those dependent on state welfare. I have yet to see anyone claim trans men are women who are a danger for Men's "sex based rights", because there are non! Whereas TERFs constantly assert women have many.
It’s the HRA and SC. But what needs to be junked first is the 2010 Equality Act.
Britain is blissfully unaware that it is all going the shitter because of this liberal dog shit. We have to have a crisis before anything changed. And even then the festering middle class scum in the enormous bureaucracies will fight it hand and tooth
I was responding to earlier comments regarding the importance of respect in men's lives. Men have traditionally been expected to die for their families and communities. Perhaps resorting to suicide in the face of perceived failure to do their duty (due to a biased family court system, for example) could be linked to this.
Latterly in my career I had a lot to do with mental health services. The most common set of feelings expressed my male patients with suicidal thoughts are those of being "useless" and others being "better off without me". The official "risk factors" for male suicides are topped by"relationship breakdown" and "prolonged unemployment" . These are much less important in female patients. The other striking gender difference is in the fact that many more females "attempt" suicide but fail and receive help. While sadly the majority of men attempting suicide succeed, which results in about 80% of suicides being boys and men. I always found this chilling because it suggests males do not make a "cry for help" as many females do, because they believe they won't get any or don't believe they are worth it..
What's more chilling is that perhaps their assessment that they will not receive (suitable, useful?) help is accurate. Most help seems to be along the lines that men should become more like women and talk things through and ask for help nicely. People tend to respond very positively to women crying and being emotional in a very protective way. However, men especially young men can present as being very angry and obnoxious and the mainly female helping professions are not that receptive. Speaking from my own experience anyway.
I would not comment on people I have no personal knowledge of. Regarding "some respect", it depends on what is meant by "respect". As a broad principle with which to approach fellow human beings, respect for me would be something like "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others."[google]
The feminists are right in the sense that this is a "man made world". As well as the incredible comfort, wealth and abundance in material terms this "making" included medicine, hospitals, the red cross, due process, "human rights", successful fights against disease, child protection, policing. The enlightenment, science........, the "Birkenhead Drill"...... an on and on.
Well of course the list is endless because it is still the case that men are busy in every way. It is after all comparatively recently women have some salience in some fields. Clearly there is vast evidence of male altruism, sympathy, care, love and concern for their fellow men as well as women and children. I think it true that often their sympathies are greater for women and children but there is ample evidence that men have and do care for boys and men too.
In a sense they are correct. Of course, men did not act alone but perhaps were facilitated and supported by the women in their lives who, in some cases, were directly involved. Curie for example?
I remember watching a couple of Louise Perry’s appearances on popular podcasts and coming away less than impressed, albeit rather unsurprised.
Maybe I’m just a cynical asshole, but I just can’t be bothered to take these type of women seriously, at least when it comes to gender issues. Honestly, I’d rather deal with an inveterate, militant, man-hating feminist than this particular brand of minuscule, milquetoast male advocate.
I don’t generally like reducing people to a label of “friend” or “foe,” however, when it comes to gender issues, THESE WOMEN ARE NOT YOUR “FRIENDS!”
Make no mistake, these women haven’t experienced some grand epiphany or seen the proverbial light of day when it comes to the harms inflicted by their ideology. These women are merely sprinkling sugar on the soggy shit sandwich that society serves to the slaves it seeks to make of men, all in hopes that a minimal amount of sweetness will make the meal minimally palatable.
You are completely correct in your statement that women who make even the most mild critique of feminism are saturated with praise, often by men who are of the mistaken belief that the woman has completely defected from feminism in a “she’s on our side now!” type of way. Most of the time, nothing could be further from the truth.
Watching women attempt to justify the unjustifiable and dance around (or even outright defend) the mayhem caused by feminist ideology is a lot like watching public health officials do the same with regard to COVID lockdown policies. They’re deeply ego-invested in the enterprise, and may have even derived benefit from it, so they will never dare admit to any substantive level of wrongdoing or error.
One larrikin mentioned - I think it was in the comments section of UnHerd - that such women as Perry and Harrington, when commenters comment on their musings, use their 1st names, so Louise and Mary. This is also the case with a trans-identifying male who writes for UnHerd called Debbie Hayton. He criticises trans ideology and the commenters call him Debbie. It is not the name per se but the fact it is a female directed proper noun that is used.
When are feminists going to say "sorry" for foisting on all of us the recasting of society as consisting of "oppressors," i.e. all males in the patriarchy, and abused, innocent "victims," i.e. all females. This neo-marxist framework has been happily adopted by gay activists, race activists, trans activists, and Muslim activists to divide and destroy civil society in North America and beyond. Feminist do not just hate men, they hate everything that men created: Western civilization, science, art, literature, and constitutional law and politics. Feminists are the enemies of society.
James Lindsay's lecture "The Marxist Roots of DEI - Session 1: Equity | James Lindsay", now on his New Discourses YouTube channel, is well worth a listen, primarily. because he has done the difficult reading of the source material that underpins this subject.
If you will forgive me, here is the description for that lecture;
"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives have taken over the country, reaching into every aspect of our work, school, and lives. What is "DEI," though? New Discourses founder James Lindsay explains the idea and its history in unprecedented depth in this new series from an in-person workshop in Miami, Florida, breaking down each of the three letters in detail. What we'll find is that it's a contemporary and managerial repackaging of socialism.
In this first episode of the series, Lindsay dives into the concept at the center of DEI: Equity. It is not possible to understand DEI initiatives without realizing that equity is what drives them. Equity is the goal of all DEI programs, which is to say that DEI programs exist to force captive audiences of people to achieve "equitable" redistribution of resources, status, and wealth according to neo-Marxist Identity Theories like Critical Race Theory. Equity is an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal, including shares of social and cultural capital. In other words, it's an expansion of socialism. Once we understand what equity is about, the purposes of "Diversity" and "Inclusion" initiatives become clear. Join James Lindsay as he walks you through the roots and true meaning of "Equity.""
I do not expect a rapid reform of feminism because of the corrupting effect of abortion on female consciousness. Most young women cannot allow any humanisation of the fetus before birth. Nor do they give any thought to the father who will not be. The idea that they have any responsibly to either is dismissed, in favour of me, me, me. As someone who supported abortion as a young man, within limits of term, and other safeguards, abortion now appears like a runaway train, a terrible mistake. Instead of a protection for woman in extremis it is an industry maximising growth without regard for its effects on our humanity. Of course, as an old man my humanity does not permit me an opinion, on such matters, a constraint I will disregard. And people no older are encouraged to "take control" by ending their existence as a gesture to a better world. The decision made in favour of death is always marked by fear, and in rejection of hope, and not the best foundation for a better world.
here in the UK. David Steele who was effectively the author of the 1966 Act. Is horrified at the way the Act is "interpreted". In the UK Abortion is illegal except two doctors agree there are dangers to the mother or child. The fatal flaw was that psychological danger was included. And so well over 90% are allowed under this provision. It is the corruption of the medical profession to agree to these as well as to the women. Here in debates it is assumed there is "abortion on demand" and that is what happens, but its not the Law.
In my youth, I found "safe, legal and rare" persuasive, but in hindsight that was never the real goal. Today's many available forms of birth control and morning after pills should mean fewer unplanned pregnancies (or at least that was the promise). There's also been huge social change. Unwed mothers are not only no longer stigmatized, but are portrayed as strong and heroic, with no stigma to illegitimate children. One would think there'd be less, not more demand for abortion.
Even more chilling is the demand to expand abortion availability to birth and beyond - to infanticide weeks after birth. I read a piece by Dr. Paul McHugh, who evaluated all the medical records from George Tiller's clinic. Tiller always claimed to be saving women facing deadly danger if a pregnancy continued to term. But the procedure of late-term abortion actually takes days, while a C-section that is likely to save both mother and child's lives, takes about 30 minutes. McHugh didn't find a single example of a woman whose life was saved by Tiller. The kind of circumstances where pregnancy is deadly dangerous are not suddenly discovered at month 6. If a life-saving abortion must be done, it's going to be known before the baby is viable. If the mother can survive days of cervical dilation and waiting, a C-section would be quicker and less traumatic. How. 4 week old infant can be a candidate for "abortion" is beyond disturbing.
Bravo, Janice. I contend that the incivility fomented by deranged militant feminism that was contrived and deployed by Marxists throughout the last 120 years toward men and boys is irreconcilable and that deranged militant feminism must be allowed to proceed toward self-destruction before civility between males and females via dialogue is restored.
I don't think anyone reading this article (or similar articles) will be around when any of this will be resolved. And what would resolution look like anyway. Thankfully we as men, have writers like you Janice, Christina Hoff- Summers, Barbara Kay and Camille Paglia to hold the Light of Truth up to the darkness, but your numbers are small and the force generated by women who have been inculcated from their pre-teens to hate men and feel that they are victims is irresistible.
The answer for those of us in the male-sphere is other men who know what young men need to hear and show them how to act. And I'm not talking about the Andrew Tate's or Rash V (or whatever his name is)'s of the world. I'm talking about everyday fathers, uncles, cousins or niegbors. How one gets involved is an individual thing, but getting involved one must! Understanding Mothers understand the need too and should allow tutelage of this sort to flow but with a watchful eye focusing on content, and safety.
The Army WAS a viable alternative until the co-ed thing but now along with the RCMP and maybe even the Police seems to be a good place to have a sexual assault charge laid that, even if found false, is never really gone for good from a young mans record or life. Who needs that/
We need female writers like you all, who get it, and I mean whole heartedly get it, Not Marie Harrington or the coven at Unherd. Speaking of which, now that Naomi Wolf has apologized to we conservatives, what do you think of the chances...
I have to agree that anyone currently reading this article will Not(sic) be around when it is resolved, if ever.
But it is a base to build on. Little did I know the path I was going to go down after reading Farrells' book "Why men are the way they are". Nor that it would take me until my sixth decade of life to become aware of so much more and to be able to articulate it.
Being able to articulate is something I struggle with.
One notes that gay men have shown strong solidarity with their heterosexual brothers in this feminist takeover.
I quite like the idea that gay men are going out to bat for hetero men. In fact it helps enormously in breaking down homophobia!
In our corrupt, low brow society the voices of gay men are unimpeachable. Thus your voices are listened to while ours are drowned out or censored. Thanks just for showing up here Jamie
Have hope. People often don't see the tipping point just about to happen. I've noticed in the past 2 years, since the lockdowns many unintended consequences. Possibly included in the unintended outcomes of being stuck in our homes are floods of videos that reveal deep and widespread unhappiness with our feminist-warped society. Older men express their despair seeing a lifetime's work turned into cash-and-prizes for a suddenly restless wife. Older women either complain bitterly about the lack of "good men" or warn younger women about biological realities of childbearing (either way, they're not putting on feminist happy face, thus serving as negative examples). Young men are rejecting hook up culture and crying out for stable marriage.
I think the trans movement, with its incoherent ideology and vicious "activism" might even be highlighting the impossibility of escaping our biological reality.
Excellent response to Harrington. I posted a lengthy comment below the Triggernometry and a shorter one below the New Culture Forum interview.
I was not convinced by Harrington's analogical argument for the Cyborg proposition and very much not inclined toward her denigration of men - even if flippant - using bestial euphemisms.
The Fiamengo File breakdown regarding Harrington's blind spot in regarding men was bang on point.
I saw Harrington on The New Culture Forum (never heard of her before). I was not terribly impressed with her argument either, nor her claim that, for jobs using laptops (as opposed to physical labor) the sex of the worker is irrelevant. She used herself as a writer, for her example of the irrelevance of the sex of the writer. Of course there's no way feminists would allow the idea that men and women perform differently as writers (or researchers, etc.) to be examined scientifically, but even prepubescent children respond differently to school routines and subject matter (girls may have been sold STEM in recent decades, but even when they get such degrees, end up in more people-centric jobs than men with similar degrees).
I think Harrington's blind spot regarding men is large enough to resemble a solar eclipse.
She is also a regular writer for the online magazine Unherd. Some of her insights are interesting on various topics but on this occasion, when I listened to her dialogue pushing the subject of her book I was taken aback when she referenced men. Janice Flamingo's critique is pretty much on point IMO.
I am in the process of re evaluating my consideration of Harrington's position when she openly admitted to not understanding men , that their interactions were opaque to her but then, in what seemed like a contradiction, went on to use what I think was references to ape and monkey behaviour when describing male interactions.
Harrington's work seems to follow in the vein of Reeves' Of Boys and Men. Its rhetoric wants to titillate us with the prospect that feminism is prepared to relinquish its age-old tactic of making baseless allegations of misogyny to shut down scrutiny of its political claims and agenda, but a closer look reveals other motives. I want to be hopeful that Harrington is legitimately committed to reforming feminism so that it favors gender equality over female supremacy, but I remain concerned that she is just backfilling the same old feminist agenda and perpetuating the same objectionable goals by advancing cheap rhetorical tricks in order to obfuscate feminism's fundamental refusal to renounce its longstanding tradition of demonizing and vilifying men and boys. Until feminism can acknowledge the need for such a renunciation as the sine qua non for productive discourse on this issue, we should remain suspicious of all political or media stunts designed to detract our attention away from its fundamental antagonism for gender equality.
Reeves to me had the personality demeanour of a caring, sympathetic, agreeable male to female concerns. I came away thinking that he belonged to the feminisation of male behaviour doctrine.
He's effeminate, that's what he is. Same for Warren Farrell. There are some studies that suggest men who are low in testosterone tend to have more inclination towards supporting gender quality. They're more likely to be left wing which align with idea of a feminine mindset as women are more left wing than men.
Janice, thanks for yet another amazing article. You might possibly have had enough of Mary Harrington interviews for now, but here she is on The New Culture Forum, which is usually more insightful on gender issues than Triggernometry in particular, which cravenly bows to feminists:
You beat me to it, Janice. I was intending to write an article critiquing Harrington. Not that I don't welcome her analysis of how feminism has harmed women. All pretty much on the money. (Did she just make up "care feminism"?). But what is horribly evident is that her gynocentrism is still very much in place. As you rightly observer, she had very little to say about how men (and children) have been harmed by feminism - nor that men might have any opinion that needed taking into account. Typically, she simply assumes that men will respond to the new command for the about-turn in women's strategy (if that were to happen en masse). True, she had acknowledged that men and boys need all male spaces (the first feminist I've ever heard admit the bleedin' obvious that it is unfair to oblige cubs and scouts to take girls, whilst brownies and guides must remain all-female). But the way she expressed it was telling: "we should allow them their own space". Allow, is it? "Thank ee, ma'am", I thought, doffing my imaginary cloth cap, wringing it nervously in my hands whilst looking at my shoes.
I rushed with this because I knew that if I read yours first, mine would seem superfluous. The reverse doesn't apply. Looking forward to yours.
Oh heck. Now I know how Pete Townsend felt when he found out The Who was going on after Hendrix.
I too look forward to William Collin's view.
lol Hendrix actually toured as the opening act for The Monkees at every stop. That must have been supremely humbling.
"Allow, is it? "
If you ever listen to the vernacular, especially in my country I am not sure about others, husbands can often be heard saying, "She allowed me to go fishing or play golf."
Robert Treborlang wrote a series of books about Australia, the most stand out one is "How to be Normal in Australia" which didn't go down very well with people I knew, but I thought is was hilarious, with so many home truths.
It is a personal, familial and social tragedy that whole generations of men were dismissed for voicing any concern over rampant, vindictive feminism. Now, with men's voices more or less silenced, how ironic that only the whimpering of female suffering at its hands is bringing about any change.
Well said.
That these insightful articles seem revolutionary is eye opening. For the Western woman there appears to be no end to the quest for women's rights -- unless those same rights are to be extended to women in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
As a man, watching Trans women use feminist tactics to take on *shocked* feminists has been a valuable lesson in cause and effect.
A wise old Roman poet once wrote: 'Fortune gives too much to many and enough to none.'
That’s right. So few see that trans ideology is wrecking feminist ideology - exposing its internal contradictions
Trans ideology also strains to clarify the original LG alliance, as gays and lesbians come to terms with status downgrades -- after all they are merely 'cis'. Gay white men in particular find themselves on the losing end of intersectional politics.
I'm curious where the idea comes from that empathy is a female trait. It seems many women don't give a damn about men damaged by feminism until the precise moment it begins to harm themselves.
Perhaps this is because the class warfare indoctrination has been so effective. The out-group, men, has been demonized so completely that empathy for them is impossible.
I think women do have a special kind of empathy in that some number of women have a heightened awareness of others' emotional states, probably stemming from their need, in earlier times, to be intensely aware of how their children were doing. In the interests of survival, women needed to be able to perceive the meaning of different types of cries by their babies; needed to be able to tell the difference between a child who was just pretending to be sick in order to get out of doing something and one who was seriously ill; that kind of thing.
I think it is still the case that in general (vast generalization, of course), women are more attuned to other people's moods and feelings. (Think of the man who is mystified to learn that his wife has been angry at him for hours while he was just going about his business quite unconcerned.) But being attuned to other people's feelings doesn't mean you necessarily care about them; perhaps you take pleasure in their discomfort or shame.
With the advent of the feminist victim mindset, empathy is heightened for other alleged victims and dramatically attenuated for alleged non-victims. One of the aspects of the victim mindset is the justification of revenge-taking--because of the alleged harm that has been done to victims by perpetrators--and the necessary withdrawal of empathy from alleged perpetrators. When I was a feminist in my 30s, it was standard for feminists to say "Cry me a river" every time a man raised any issue relating to men's experiences or problems. The idea clearly was that it was fine for men to suffer; they deserved it, and, morally, we didn't have to care.
As in your third paragraph, any empathy they have is only for other women. There are types of fake empathy for men ('Patriarchy hurts men too,' programs to heal 'toxic masculinity'), but these are only aimed at achieving feminist goals.
Thanks Janice. I have long thought that many women feign empathy for people - men, in particular - the better to manipulate them.
It has a name Mike - it’s called narcissistic empathy. Empathy is shown to others simply to boost ones one image. It is a subset of virtue signaling.
It has a cousin which I call moral exhibitionism.
And it all takes place in a sick society of toxic sentimentality as Dalyrimple notes.
Time for me to reread that book by Dalrymple.
Theodore Dalrymple? Which book is that?
Spoilt Rotten
A wicked old witch
Laid a bait, did a switch
For to eat young Hansel and Gretel
Thanks Mike - and Janice. I now have the beginnings of a lyric. Though I tend to prefer alliterative verse to end rhyme.
I agree that a lot of women weaponize their empathy. It's simply a tool for more effectively managing the people around them. They can spot emotional vulnerability like an owl can spot a mouse on the ground from 100 feet in the dark.
Are we not straying into the subjective "men are ... / women are ... " territory that derailed the equal rights movement in the first place?
I think using 'subjective' does that.
Agreed.
I can't answer this now but will hope to do so later. I've given it a lot of thought and have come to similar conclusions to yours.
Having worked all my working life in overwhelmingly female industries I long ago came to the conclusion that what this means is women "project" onto others and make assumptions quickly on the basis of this. The evidence being the constant parade of problems between the women I managed which boiled down to wildly inaccurate assumptions about what this or that "really meant". Needless to say until my intervention no one thought of checking out assumed slights, insults, digs, etc. by asking directly. In a world in which people constantly fish for compliments("did you notice my hair?"do you think this suits me" and so on and on), "its not what she said its the way she said it", "well that's what I'd think" and so on. There are endless, it seems, possibilities to get situations quite wrong or be upset entirely without reason. So generally I'd observe "women's intuition" and "empathy" is on a par with newspaper astrology. What always surprises me is that given all the evidence, endlessly trumpeted by feminists of all hues, that females are vastly more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, low level depression and all sorts of "mental health problems". No one seems to look for the factors that mean boys and men generally don't have these problems in such abundance (being the majority of the much smaller number with acute mental illnesses though). Why is it that with each successive wave of "support" for girls and women the situation gets worse?
It is of course quite useful to simply assume those cloddish males will carry on, not getting in on all the important drama of women's lives. This does seem the be the message of any consideration of men, it will distract from "women".
Nigel, Thanks so much for this post, which stated very clearly things I've never been able to articulate so well about how women interact, especially in terms of the kinds of conflicts that can fester over misunderstandings and misattributions, if not deliberate misrepresentations, accepted as fact. Women so often use the phrase, "I feel that..." before making unsupported claims of fact, and get very salty when facts are produced that don't align with the "feeling." They will even elevate feelings to justify changing laws, for example, restricting free speech because of how some theoretical person might feel harm from hearing or reading some opinion or fact that doesn't align with their feelings (ignoring the fungible and fleeting nature of so many feelings).
That men would be categorized as not concerned with feelings (or even not feeling as deeply as women) is a useful fiction that makes it easier to keep attention off the suffering of men, and for preventing people noticing that women's feelings-based demands can often be irrational.
I think the mental illness issue is getting worse for 2 reasons - more mental health professionals need to have customers, and social medial sites like tumblr and tik tok have been making mental illnesses "cool." I believe a lot of young girls and women are really suffering and unhappy, but the sources of that suffering isn't going to be unearthed by the self-esteem merchants selling "MH" wares, who fully buy into feminist ideology. Having been a teen whose mom pushed me to focus on a career and my own city apartment, I recall the unhappiness of being pushed to ignore my own healthy and normal desire to start marriage and family life. No therapist today is going to tell a 19 year old girl that she'd be happier settling down with her high school boyfriend and having a baby.
Nice observations. Delve further by reading Admirable Evasions by Dalyrimple.
“Psychological trauma grows at the same rate as the publicly available funds used to combat it!”
While I don't doubt the nasty reality of PTSD, I think the rapid growth in numbers of those suffering from it may be down to increasing acceptance of it and the reduction in the threshold for diagnosis. My father's generation (WW2) acknowledged the reality of what he called, if I recall correctly, Shell Shock but dealt with it by not talking about it, bottling it up and quietly observing Remembrance Day once a year. My grandfather's generation (the horrors of WW1) were even more stoical.
I'm not suggesting that those in distress should suffer in silence, however, there are those who are not really deserving yet will jump on a sympathy bandwagon unless told to get off.
I once worked, briefly, with a very silly woman who could not resist boasting about the £36,000.00 / annum she was getting in state benefits for two sons she'd managed to have diagnosed with various 'disorders' that when I was a child were considered to be bad behaviour. She worked, she said, only because her husband's accountant (her husband ran his own business) had advised her to in order to qualify for tax credits. She seemed shocked when I expressed my disapproval.
' ... before making unsupported claims of fact ... '
A statement that is unsupported is a claim and not a fact.
That's why I called it an "unsupported claim of fact."
I don't want a long argument but a statement is either a claim or a fact, it cannot be both.
The matter is closed as far as I am concerned.
I don't want a long argument either. I should have used a more clear wording, perhaps "a claim stated as fact."
Feminists rightly point out that considerable effort was placed in the upper classes to educate their young men to control their emotions. In the Victorian era immense effort was expended on concerns that males would be volatile and wild, sentimental, foolhardy or cowardly. Now of course many of the emotions could be considered negative, but certainly it wasn't thought that males were without a rich emotional life, one that needed considerable molding and control. In a sense modern feminists agree, for they seem obsessed with controlling the youngest male lest they become dangerously subject to any number of emotions that frighten them.
There are answers as Jordan Peterson attests.
We know women have hormonal driven psychological traits that render them more “open” and more neurotic.
We also know that their general animus is conflict avoidance. From this latter point flows all manner of issues and terrible consequences, explaining your observations above.
It is very clear to me that gender is as important to observe on the biologically driven psychology as physiologjcal differences.
This is the part that feminists fear the most, since it means conceding that in certain roles - especially higher up the hierarchy - men are better suited.
I think it's more accurate to say that women are absolutely conflict averse and will agree to or do almost anything to avoid it. Most men also prefer to avoid conflict, however, we have red lines that result in conflict if crossed, which is why we have more self-control and can exercise restraint, women do not; any compromise or concession is acceptable to them as long as it defuses tension and avoids conflict.
That is an odd belief, isn't it? One would think that a successful army, sports team, group of explorers, etc. would need people who have a basic understanding of other people, empathy and sympathy included. There are plenty of videos about drill sergeants on YouTube, for instance, and though they are loud and tough the good ones also know when to pull back and be supportive.
Konstantin Kisin, one of the interviewers of Harrington, while being interviewed himself a few days later about Jordan Peterson, stated that humans are biologically programmed to sympathise with women and view men as dispensable, and that therefore men's rights movements are doomed to failure. He went on to say that men should just man up, be better, and find good women to marry.
Ironic, since he, a Russian, satirizes Russian men as vodka-swilling, bear-wrestling cave dwellers who think a man must be a weakling if the bear wins.
That's a popular idea in men's rights circles as well, that all cultures prioritize women, so men's advocacy is a losing fight. Very neat. But better minds than mine have also pointed out that many things are "biologically programmed" into human beings. We are biologically programmed to prefer our own family and clan to all others. We are biologically programmed to eat vast amounts of fat and sugar as a survival strategy against famine. We are biologically programmed to steal resources from others, particularly from out-groups. Men are biologically programmed to have sex with everything in sight. And so on. Culture is what channels and circumscribes our biological impulses, directing them to more socially-useful and enlightened, even moral, ends. The same should go for men's suffering.
If pressed, I'm sure Kisin would admit that cultures cannot flourish without men and that thereby valuing men and giving men reasons to contribute makes good biological sense too.
On this subject, I cannot recommend Steve Moxon's "Culture is biology" highly enough: https://www.academia.edu/6594302/Culture_IS_Biology_Why_We_Cannot_Transcend_Our_Genes_or_Ourselves
Esther Vilar, points out in her book that a single man is not of much use to society. (not exactly verbatim).
Typhon Blue in her Youtube channel describes the domestication of men to be similar to that of a draught horse that works for the farmer or the mistress.
“don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards," Mondesta Pozzo.
Correct. Culture always has biological origins. This is the modern denial. Cultures do not survive when they try to push against the biological tide.
Yes, I was struck by his assertions as well. There may well be deeply embedded evolutionary factors at play, but that is not the same as a biological determinism governing all relationships. He pretty much threw all men under the bus with that one.
I like Kisin in general, but he does have tons of fallacious thought.
My eyes rolled when he came out with that crap
Women, in the main, are solipsistic so can have no idea what empathy is; it is a male trait almost exclusively, although there are some laudable exceptions. Like 'freedom' which they do not understand because they do not have to win it for themselves or defend it, since men suffer in their stead and give it to them free of responsibility and accountability, empathy is a word they like the sound of, believing it a superior characteristic that elevates them above mere males.
Angela Merkel opening the migrant floodgates is an example of this.
Then there's the male human rights lawyers who think they're superior to the average male by dint of having what are regarded as feminine traits.
You make a good point, and not just about male human rights lawyers.
Exactly. Collins title The Empathy Gap is another way of saying 'the fraud of empathy.'
I think women tend to score higher on average in neuroticism, and I think that neuroticism has a damping effect on empathy. My experience has been that women have a greater capacity to offer comfort but that comfort is often limited to those in their family or close allies. It is also clear that women have forgone their abilities in comforting and instead are taking on the more masculine push for higher status.
Yes Tom, I agree. I have thought for a long time that women confuse empathy with sympathy (the arm round the shoulder and the comforting hug without any sincerity). For me, empathy is not about a heightened perception of others' emotions, which women often misapprehend, but understanding that others have different needs and priorities and their putting them first is not necessarily to disregard or overlook the woman's own.
As an example, 'happy wife happy life' does not describe an empathic woman, and far too many women are like that, so many that the saying is a cheap laugh for a third rate comedian. Another is the way women mistreat their husbands' surnames, which they seem not to realise they have a duty to protect and to which they cling even after they have abandoned the men they obtained them from. An empathic woman would understand that his surname is not hers to use or abuse as she wishes.
Most surveys show that women are the most disliked and unstable members of the household: ie sisters score sisters and mothers lower than the male members!
So by their own admission women are difficult.
Good idea to privilege them by affirmative action, putting them in high office
Most capable women I have known have disliked working with and under or for other women. My wife much prefers working with men; there are far far fewer tensions and tantrums for one thing.
Yes, that has also been my experience. Both women and men prefer male bosses. For good reason.
Really interesting stuff. Would love to have a look at that research. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
In here, I believe. The report was mentioned in British newspapers
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122417737951
It stands to reason given women’s hormonal cycles
Thanks! Very interesting stuff. From a brief look it seems that husband and wife were about equal but the other female relatives got higher marks! lol
IIRC, Jordan Peterson had a hypothesis for this indifference to men - something about misplaced maternalism seeing men as predators.
You don't think it is founded in the female view of men as utilities, of no intrinsic worth other than for our usefulness and therefore disposable with as little thought as a sweet wrapper?
To mangle a heuristic slightly, I would tend to not put down to malice, that which can be put down to personality traits, in the 1st instance.
I see; interesting.
Well, perhaps the views you describe stem from trait differences in personality?
Beautifully done. The damage that modern feminism has done is now undeniable. Your logic is clear and you state it so well. Thank you.
K. Kisin said in a video short that compassion for men is never going to happen, humans are not wired that way. I agree with him on this. I also think that most men do not want compassion, or sympathy, or therapist couches. What men need is respect, and this is where the feminists have managed to strike a deadly blow. The incessant portrayal of men as idiots, oppressors; the constant invasion of male spaces, promotion of women to corporate leadership positions, etc.; the war on fathers--all of this has worked quite effectively to deny men their unique roles in society and to undermine their sense of self-worth. The most complete form of subjugation is psychological.
Thanks for this, Kevin. Good distinction. I wrote a long-ish comment about Kisin's allegation (which I hadn't known of) above, but I take your point. The vast majority of men couldn't care less about a pity party; they don't expect it and don't need it. They want an opportunity to make their contribution to their societies. I do know quite a few men, however, who would prefer that they not feel the strong dislike that today emanates from many women, even strangers, whom they interact with on the street, in coffee shapes, in stores, etc.
Men want and need to work. End of story. Any society that doesn’t make that an absolute priority is doomed.
I spent 2 decades in Japan. There, social harmony is the priority. It would be inconceivable there to have high male unemployment. Thus they reduced returns on capital while maintaining employment.
The west, in its infantile stupidity decided long ago - the denigration of Keynes - that societal considerations were of No importance versus than the social fabric.
One of the many facets of this are the ridiculous ideas of the feminized psychology that everything has a positive denouement after hours of couchtime.
It is simply the case that if a man has traumas, often the best way to cope is through the structure and conscientiousness that work brings: it helps sublimate hurt emotions.
I don’t think this can be said for most women.
I agree. There is an interesting explanation for the type of bias inherent in Harrington's thesis and present more broadly - the gamma hypothesis.
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/gamma-bias-new-theory
Cheers for that!
" The incessant portrayal of men as idiots, oppressors..."
Women have always shamed men to get want they want.
Come back carrying your shield or on it
Roger that, what Spartan mothers used to tell their sons. If you do not fight bravely for Sparta, you would be better off dead.
The 1st sentiment is a consequence of marxist feminism IMO, as opposed to equality feminism or choice feminism for example.
The latter sentiment was, as an example, on full display with the White feather movement of WWI.
Watch Janice video on Ernest Bax…fantastic research work by her.
Considering that family law courts nd false rape accusations have led to male suicide, do you think those males who killed themselves should've just manned-up and earned some respect?
This is the real issue. It doesn't matter much (though it's nice) if individual women start to like men again and care about them. The laws need to be changed. I couldn't agree more.
I think this is the important point. There have always been all sorts of varieties of ways of living and thinking. Regulated not by Laws of the state but religious authority, which relied pretty heavily on spiritual threats. As the industrial revolution burned on.There was an explosion of legislation in Britain on every conceivable topic often following "Christian" teaching. A couple of hundred years later we have a myriad of Laws and "Guidance" from the State. So many in fact that even legally constituted bodies such as the Police or Social Services get confused. It is in the Laws and in particular the Guidance that most damage is done. For it is in these that the power of the state is marshalled. Certainly in the UK the more power the state has, most extreme in those dependent on state welfare. I have yet to see anyone claim trans men are women who are a danger for Men's "sex based rights", because there are non! Whereas TERFs constantly assert women have many.
It’s the HRA and SC. But what needs to be junked first is the 2010 Equality Act.
Britain is blissfully unaware that it is all going the shitter because of this liberal dog shit. We have to have a crisis before anything changed. And even then the festering middle class scum in the enormous bureaucracies will fight it hand and tooth
Perhaps it is marxist 'dog shit'? That is, identity marxism.
According to St Paul, wives should respect their husbands while husbands should love their wives and be prepared to die for them.
How does that help a man who is in suicidal despair due to a biased family court system?
I was responding to earlier comments regarding the importance of respect in men's lives. Men have traditionally been expected to die for their families and communities. Perhaps resorting to suicide in the face of perceived failure to do their duty (due to a biased family court system, for example) could be linked to this.
Latterly in my career I had a lot to do with mental health services. The most common set of feelings expressed my male patients with suicidal thoughts are those of being "useless" and others being "better off without me". The official "risk factors" for male suicides are topped by"relationship breakdown" and "prolonged unemployment" . These are much less important in female patients. The other striking gender difference is in the fact that many more females "attempt" suicide but fail and receive help. While sadly the majority of men attempting suicide succeed, which results in about 80% of suicides being boys and men. I always found this chilling because it suggests males do not make a "cry for help" as many females do, because they believe they won't get any or don't believe they are worth it..
What's more chilling is that perhaps their assessment that they will not receive (suitable, useful?) help is accurate. Most help seems to be along the lines that men should become more like women and talk things through and ask for help nicely. People tend to respond very positively to women crying and being emotional in a very protective way. However, men especially young men can present as being very angry and obnoxious and the mainly female helping professions are not that receptive. Speaking from my own experience anyway.
I would not comment on people I have no personal knowledge of. Regarding "some respect", it depends on what is meant by "respect". As a broad principle with which to approach fellow human beings, respect for me would be something like "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others."[google]
The feminists are right in the sense that this is a "man made world". As well as the incredible comfort, wealth and abundance in material terms this "making" included medicine, hospitals, the red cross, due process, "human rights", successful fights against disease, child protection, policing. The enlightenment, science........, the "Birkenhead Drill"...... an on and on.
Well of course the list is endless because it is still the case that men are busy in every way. It is after all comparatively recently women have some salience in some fields. Clearly there is vast evidence of male altruism, sympathy, care, love and concern for their fellow men as well as women and children. I think it true that often their sympathies are greater for women and children but there is ample evidence that men have and do care for boys and men too.
In a sense they are correct. Of course, men did not act alone but perhaps were facilitated and supported by the women in their lives who, in some cases, were directly involved. Curie for example?
Men do indeed care for boys and other men.
Whilst Madame Curie was collecting her prizes her husband died from radiation poisoning.
And Marie didn't get off lightly - dying of aplastic pernicious anaemia Brough on by long exposure to radiation.
I thank God for your voice -- your clear reason & courage!
Too kind.
I remember watching a couple of Louise Perry’s appearances on popular podcasts and coming away less than impressed, albeit rather unsurprised.
Maybe I’m just a cynical asshole, but I just can’t be bothered to take these type of women seriously, at least when it comes to gender issues. Honestly, I’d rather deal with an inveterate, militant, man-hating feminist than this particular brand of minuscule, milquetoast male advocate.
I don’t generally like reducing people to a label of “friend” or “foe,” however, when it comes to gender issues, THESE WOMEN ARE NOT YOUR “FRIENDS!”
Make no mistake, these women haven’t experienced some grand epiphany or seen the proverbial light of day when it comes to the harms inflicted by their ideology. These women are merely sprinkling sugar on the soggy shit sandwich that society serves to the slaves it seeks to make of men, all in hopes that a minimal amount of sweetness will make the meal minimally palatable.
You are completely correct in your statement that women who make even the most mild critique of feminism are saturated with praise, often by men who are of the mistaken belief that the woman has completely defected from feminism in a “she’s on our side now!” type of way. Most of the time, nothing could be further from the truth.
Watching women attempt to justify the unjustifiable and dance around (or even outright defend) the mayhem caused by feminist ideology is a lot like watching public health officials do the same with regard to COVID lockdown policies. They’re deeply ego-invested in the enterprise, and may have even derived benefit from it, so they will never dare admit to any substantive level of wrongdoing or error.
One larrikin mentioned - I think it was in the comments section of UnHerd - that such women as Perry and Harrington, when commenters comment on their musings, use their 1st names, so Louise and Mary. This is also the case with a trans-identifying male who writes for UnHerd called Debbie Hayton. He criticises trans ideology and the commenters call him Debbie. It is not the name per se but the fact it is a female directed proper noun that is used.
When are feminists going to say "sorry" for foisting on all of us the recasting of society as consisting of "oppressors," i.e. all males in the patriarchy, and abused, innocent "victims," i.e. all females. This neo-marxist framework has been happily adopted by gay activists, race activists, trans activists, and Muslim activists to divide and destroy civil society in North America and beyond. Feminist do not just hate men, they hate everything that men created: Western civilization, science, art, literature, and constitutional law and politics. Feminists are the enemies of society.
James Lindsay's lecture "The Marxist Roots of DEI - Session 1: Equity | James Lindsay", now on his New Discourses YouTube channel, is well worth a listen, primarily. because he has done the difficult reading of the source material that underpins this subject.
If you will forgive me, here is the description for that lecture;
"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives have taken over the country, reaching into every aspect of our work, school, and lives. What is "DEI," though? New Discourses founder James Lindsay explains the idea and its history in unprecedented depth in this new series from an in-person workshop in Miami, Florida, breaking down each of the three letters in detail. What we'll find is that it's a contemporary and managerial repackaging of socialism.
In this first episode of the series, Lindsay dives into the concept at the center of DEI: Equity. It is not possible to understand DEI initiatives without realizing that equity is what drives them. Equity is the goal of all DEI programs, which is to say that DEI programs exist to force captive audiences of people to achieve "equitable" redistribution of resources, status, and wealth according to neo-Marxist Identity Theories like Critical Race Theory. Equity is an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal, including shares of social and cultural capital. In other words, it's an expansion of socialism. Once we understand what equity is about, the purposes of "Diversity" and "Inclusion" initiatives become clear. Join James Lindsay as he walks you through the roots and true meaning of "Equity.""
They are. Even Stalin figured that out after just 2 years of female “emancipation”
I do not expect a rapid reform of feminism because of the corrupting effect of abortion on female consciousness. Most young women cannot allow any humanisation of the fetus before birth. Nor do they give any thought to the father who will not be. The idea that they have any responsibly to either is dismissed, in favour of me, me, me. As someone who supported abortion as a young man, within limits of term, and other safeguards, abortion now appears like a runaway train, a terrible mistake. Instead of a protection for woman in extremis it is an industry maximising growth without regard for its effects on our humanity. Of course, as an old man my humanity does not permit me an opinion, on such matters, a constraint I will disregard. And people no older are encouraged to "take control" by ending their existence as a gesture to a better world. The decision made in favour of death is always marked by fear, and in rejection of hope, and not the best foundation for a better world.
here in the UK. David Steele who was effectively the author of the 1966 Act. Is horrified at the way the Act is "interpreted". In the UK Abortion is illegal except two doctors agree there are dangers to the mother or child. The fatal flaw was that psychological danger was included. And so well over 90% are allowed under this provision. It is the corruption of the medical profession to agree to these as well as to the women. Here in debates it is assumed there is "abortion on demand" and that is what happens, but its not the Law.
In my youth, I found "safe, legal and rare" persuasive, but in hindsight that was never the real goal. Today's many available forms of birth control and morning after pills should mean fewer unplanned pregnancies (or at least that was the promise). There's also been huge social change. Unwed mothers are not only no longer stigmatized, but are portrayed as strong and heroic, with no stigma to illegitimate children. One would think there'd be less, not more demand for abortion.
Even more chilling is the demand to expand abortion availability to birth and beyond - to infanticide weeks after birth. I read a piece by Dr. Paul McHugh, who evaluated all the medical records from George Tiller's clinic. Tiller always claimed to be saving women facing deadly danger if a pregnancy continued to term. But the procedure of late-term abortion actually takes days, while a C-section that is likely to save both mother and child's lives, takes about 30 minutes. McHugh didn't find a single example of a woman whose life was saved by Tiller. The kind of circumstances where pregnancy is deadly dangerous are not suddenly discovered at month 6. If a life-saving abortion must be done, it's going to be known before the baby is viable. If the mother can survive days of cervical dilation and waiting, a C-section would be quicker and less traumatic. How. 4 week old infant can be a candidate for "abortion" is beyond disturbing.
Bravo, Janice. I contend that the incivility fomented by deranged militant feminism that was contrived and deployed by Marxists throughout the last 120 years toward men and boys is irreconcilable and that deranged militant feminism must be allowed to proceed toward self-destruction before civility between males and females via dialogue is restored.
I don't think anyone reading this article (or similar articles) will be around when any of this will be resolved. And what would resolution look like anyway. Thankfully we as men, have writers like you Janice, Christina Hoff- Summers, Barbara Kay and Camille Paglia to hold the Light of Truth up to the darkness, but your numbers are small and the force generated by women who have been inculcated from their pre-teens to hate men and feel that they are victims is irresistible.
The answer for those of us in the male-sphere is other men who know what young men need to hear and show them how to act. And I'm not talking about the Andrew Tate's or Rash V (or whatever his name is)'s of the world. I'm talking about everyday fathers, uncles, cousins or niegbors. How one gets involved is an individual thing, but getting involved one must! Understanding Mothers understand the need too and should allow tutelage of this sort to flow but with a watchful eye focusing on content, and safety.
The Army WAS a viable alternative until the co-ed thing but now along with the RCMP and maybe even the Police seems to be a good place to have a sexual assault charge laid that, even if found false, is never really gone for good from a young mans record or life. Who needs that/
We need female writers like you all, who get it, and I mean whole heartedly get it, Not Marie Harrington or the coven at Unherd. Speaking of which, now that Naomi Wolf has apologized to we conservatives, what do you think of the chances...
I have to agree that anyone currently reading this article will Not(sic) be around when it is resolved, if ever.
But it is a base to build on. Little did I know the path I was going to go down after reading Farrells' book "Why men are the way they are". Nor that it would take me until my sixth decade of life to become aware of so much more and to be able to articulate it.
Being able to articulate is something I struggle with.
One notes that gay men have shown strong solidarity with their heterosexual brothers in this feminist takeover.
I quite like the idea that gay men are going out to bat for hetero men. In fact it helps enormously in breaking down homophobia!
In our corrupt, low brow society the voices of gay men are unimpeachable. Thus your voices are listened to while ours are drowned out or censored. Thanks just for showing up here Jamie
Have hope. People often don't see the tipping point just about to happen. I've noticed in the past 2 years, since the lockdowns many unintended consequences. Possibly included in the unintended outcomes of being stuck in our homes are floods of videos that reveal deep and widespread unhappiness with our feminist-warped society. Older men express their despair seeing a lifetime's work turned into cash-and-prizes for a suddenly restless wife. Older women either complain bitterly about the lack of "good men" or warn younger women about biological realities of childbearing (either way, they're not putting on feminist happy face, thus serving as negative examples). Young men are rejecting hook up culture and crying out for stable marriage.
I think the trans movement, with its incoherent ideology and vicious "activism" might even be highlighting the impossibility of escaping our biological reality.
A great (personally comforting) read. Thank You for this.
That means a lot to me. I write for my own comfort too.
Excellent response to Harrington. I posted a lengthy comment below the Triggernometry and a shorter one below the New Culture Forum interview.
I was not convinced by Harrington's analogical argument for the Cyborg proposition and very much not inclined toward her denigration of men - even if flippant - using bestial euphemisms.
The Fiamengo File breakdown regarding Harrington's blind spot in regarding men was bang on point.
I saw Harrington on The New Culture Forum (never heard of her before). I was not terribly impressed with her argument either, nor her claim that, for jobs using laptops (as opposed to physical labor) the sex of the worker is irrelevant. She used herself as a writer, for her example of the irrelevance of the sex of the writer. Of course there's no way feminists would allow the idea that men and women perform differently as writers (or researchers, etc.) to be examined scientifically, but even prepubescent children respond differently to school routines and subject matter (girls may have been sold STEM in recent decades, but even when they get such degrees, end up in more people-centric jobs than men with similar degrees).
I think Harrington's blind spot regarding men is large enough to resemble a solar eclipse.
She is also a regular writer for the online magazine Unherd. Some of her insights are interesting on various topics but on this occasion, when I listened to her dialogue pushing the subject of her book I was taken aback when she referenced men. Janice Flamingo's critique is pretty much on point IMO.
I am in the process of re evaluating my consideration of Harrington's position when she openly admitted to not understanding men , that their interactions were opaque to her but then, in what seemed like a contradiction, went on to use what I think was references to ape and monkey behaviour when describing male interactions.
Harrington's work seems to follow in the vein of Reeves' Of Boys and Men. Its rhetoric wants to titillate us with the prospect that feminism is prepared to relinquish its age-old tactic of making baseless allegations of misogyny to shut down scrutiny of its political claims and agenda, but a closer look reveals other motives. I want to be hopeful that Harrington is legitimately committed to reforming feminism so that it favors gender equality over female supremacy, but I remain concerned that she is just backfilling the same old feminist agenda and perpetuating the same objectionable goals by advancing cheap rhetorical tricks in order to obfuscate feminism's fundamental refusal to renounce its longstanding tradition of demonizing and vilifying men and boys. Until feminism can acknowledge the need for such a renunciation as the sine qua non for productive discourse on this issue, we should remain suspicious of all political or media stunts designed to detract our attention away from its fundamental antagonism for gender equality.
That's an interesting perspective and insight.
I started looking at feminist tactics through the lens of 'Relational Aggression', and to me it makes it much clearer what they are doing.
I think reforming feminism is a case of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I think it is more like trying to make a gourmet meal from poisonous fungi.
Maybe
I remember listening to a podcast of Reeves and his book.
There was something about his position that I found unsettling but cannot quite put my finger on. I'll have to go back and have another listen.
That's the problem with a lot of published material in regards to gender, something feels like it is missing a crucial element.
Reeves to me had the personality demeanour of a caring, sympathetic, agreeable male to female concerns. I came away thinking that he belonged to the feminisation of male behaviour doctrine.
He's effeminate, that's what he is. Same for Warren Farrell. There are some studies that suggest men who are low in testosterone tend to have more inclination towards supporting gender quality. They're more likely to be left wing which align with idea of a feminine mindset as women are more left wing than men.
Detract?
Janice, thanks for yet another amazing article. You might possibly have had enough of Mary Harrington interviews for now, but here she is on The New Culture Forum, which is usually more insightful on gender issues than Triggernometry in particular, which cravenly bows to feminists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k29ZXGdwUc
Keep up the great work!
Mike Buchanan
Party leader
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk