I think our ancestors, men and women, were aware of the debilitating levels of negative emotion inherent in many women and ancient societal norms mitigated against it.
Right! That explains the restrictions against women in important decision making leadership positions across the globe for centuries. While it was wrong to outright prohibit women in decision-making roles, the feminist view that the natural and fair order is for women to be 50% occupying such roles is misguided. Separating emotions from the cold-logic required to chart courses of action is something men, on average, do far better.
True. I would go even further to say that there is a legitimate question of whether a small minority of women should lose certain opportunities for leadership given the almost-inevitable problems that come with female leadership. I'm not sure of the answer.
I spend a lot of time in Asia where the UN reports 20% of parliamentarians and 30% of private sector managers are women. I've never detected the slightest hint of misandry in Asian society, let alone anti-male rage. In fact, I've seen no evidence whatsoever of "the almost-inevitable problems that come with female leadership" in the West. Which tells me the problem is not female leadership per se, but FEMINIST leadership, be it male or female. In fact I would argue the bigger problem is MALE leaders, so called "allies", who pander to and promote feminists in our governments and institutions. As opposed to Trump, who promotes women on merit and performance. He's promoting some genuine high calibre women who will hopefully rid their respective departments of feminist management altogether.
Thank you for that pointer. I have previously seen 4B only as a kind-of going-their-own-way movement: women having nothing to do with men (other than living off their taxes, enjoying their efforts to maintain social infrastructure, being secure because of men, etc..). 4B's activities seem more like those of the Canadian and Mexican feminists, or those of the UK feminists of the beginning of last century that Janice wrote of.
Traditional Competent Men were built tough and could handle abusive stressful situations and find solutions. Men in a room can fist-fight their way to a solution and still be friends, even more so, having earned respect, in fact. Gentlemen cannot do that with a lady in the room.
'Lady' LOL. You have a rather sophomoric/adolescent viewpoint. If you espouse Christianity, then you should know that w0e-MEN are more sinful than MEN and are not permitted to be in authority. You bar brawl scenario is idiotic. You're filled with contradictions. 'Gentlemen' don't settle things with bar room brawls. STOP framing everything as protecting w0e-MEN.
Merit based hiring would result in 1% of w0e-MEN in MALE roles. As it stands w0e-MEN in police & military jobs are about 14 to 16%... that number itself the result of affirmative action. With no affirmative action there wouldn't even be that meniscal number. To say "as long as she's qualified" when such a tiny number itself the byproduct of affirmative action, would not justify the sloganeering. And if you believe in God's precepts that w0e-MEN are not to have authority over MEN, there is justification for outright prohibiting w0e-MEN from MALE roles. If a MAN qualifies on the w0e-MAN'S volleyball team he should get the spot would be the moral equivalent
I wouldn't say 100% women is the goal, but 100% women-plus-male-simps is certainly the goal, to have zero people in authority who would stand up for fairness for men.
It's ironic, really, how for centuries, millennia really, mostly-male leaders established societal norms that required gentle treatment of women and punished or scorned anything but. Feminism comes along and twists this into "oppression," and then the feminists chart their own course to become the actual oppressors!
What really sucks for competent women like J.F. (and some I have worked with and learned from) is that the inability to have a rational conversation about the behavior a lot of women display is going to result in women in general being boxed out of positions where they could have a positive impact.
A merit-based system would allow those of merit to ascend and those without to not. Communists want to destroy the West with Feminism as a weapon. Communist countries do not allow this self-destructive nonsense.
Very strictly merit-based, with absolutely no expectation that women should occupy 50% of any profession, or even be represented at all unless deserving. We would also need to revamp/scale back/eliminate the sexual harassment legislation that makes it possible for women to destroy men's careers with trivial or outright false claims.
Yes. How about a bad-faith clause? If the woman lies in a sexual harassment claim, and probably so, she gets/bears the punishment she was trying to inflict on the innocent victim. I bet the false claims numbers would drop off a cliff. Actual accountability would be refreshing. A breath of fresh air.
Yes, unfortunately, though the Left is outright anti-male, there are too many in the Republican ranks who are willing to do women's bidding also, even when it means betraying men.
Too many cowardly allies, not sure what they are getting paid, traded in compensation, it simply cannot be worth it. Cult members do weird irrational things.
Thank you, Janice. I think that we are seeing the progressive working out, or metastasizing, of an arrogance that women assumed long ago, the arrogance of moral superiority to men. It is there in the "Sentiments" you mention, it is there in feminism's founding historical analysis (guilty male oppressors, innocent female victims) and our current culture is saturated in it. It is a perverse vanity that is poisonous over the long term, and we are seeing the poison in many forms - not least the rage you describe so well. The solution is humility, for women to accept that they are no better than men, to accept the very equality that they say they have been pursuing all along.
However, moral superiority is like an addiction, it delivers a psychic pleasure that is hard to let go of. Accordingly, I expect the situation to become increasingly toxic until, for one reason or another, it either becomes unsustainable and we recover, or the patient (our civilization) dies.
Without wanting to lift any blame from women, we have to address the fact that men with their default chivalry and their always pardoning and always desirous stance toward women have been the enablers of the current malaise. There's a lot in feminism resembling a bunch of uninhibited kids lacking adult supervision. Without boundary setting, they will become unhinged fast.
I can't imagine why women would want to have genuine equality. Lose all those advantages they have? No chance.
I suspect the impression of moral superiority is partially embedded in the evolutionary concentration that child rearing is largely a maternal matter. To control men they way that women do (and have had to, for humanity to have survived, since a man has been required to support a woman nursing a child), the woman must have an innate feeling of superiority - or at least 'rightness' - about her actions and behaviors.
"Rage is exhausting and sick-making, not freeing. It clouds judgement and extinguishes empathy, muting joy and warping perception. Though so often touted as a goad to political action (which, admittedly, it can be), it is just as often an end in itself that leaves the enraged person unable to complete projects or maintain relationships. Rarely managing to focus on its putative target, rage almost always expands its domain, bleeding into other areas of life."
This is an amazing and accurate assessment of this spiritual disease.
Great article! Worth re-reading a few times to get every point.
Reading this made me think of Islamic rage, typically directed against Israel and the USA, against Jews in general, and also periodically against Christians, and its ultimate expression, jihad. It's certainly an example of groupthink, and it is ritualistic. Feminism and female rage, while not resorting to suicide bombings, certainly have that same religious fervour. They do have actual casualties though: their unborn children -- which are also ritually sacrificed. I have long maintained that Leftism is a secular functional religion, and feminism is one of its main denominations.
The truth is that women have always raged against men when men cheated on them, for example, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." But the ritualization of female rage against men was perfected by feminists in the 20th century, and greatly amplified in the 21st century by social media and the authority of academia.
One of the characteristics of it that always caught my attention was how it's usually young privileged women who allow themselves to get so enraged by pretending to be part of a victim group. They falsely claim to be rape victims, or they will broaden the definition of rape to refer to trivial occurrences such as a man flatulating near them ("fart rape") or being "raped" by the male gaze in public. This trivializes actual rape.
It's the same phenomenon as people with brown skin claiming to be part of an oppressed global collective on whose behalf they are outraged. In reality, they are often among the most privileged class in human history: middle and upper-middle-class university students.
I can see how Eileen Wornos was so enraged with men that she started killing them, but a grad student from a middle-class household in the West screaming at a feminist rally and shaving her head in response to Trump's win is not oppressed -- but she would like to be. She wants very badly to be a victim because it confers high social status.
The anti-Trump women mainly had on their mind the abortion issue. This issue has galvanized them perhaps more than any other. They see it as the right to control their own bodies; I see it as them demanding the right to kill their own offspring, a human being who deserves the opportunity to live, even though handicapped with a crazy mother. It's a contentious issue. Somehow Trump became a symbol for them, even though he has little to do with the issue. Which begs the question: if they have the right to be so infuriated on behalf of pregnant women who want abortions, don't I have the same right to be infuriated with them for wanting to kill those babies? Someone should speak up for the unborn.
But in fact, I should not be infuriated to the point of near madness. Nor should anyone. That does not solve anything. This is an issue that in a sane society, we could openly debate and decide by means of reason and ethics. The Supreme Court decision, giving it back to the states to decide, is as close to that as we're going to see to sanity anytime soon. Each state has its own view on what constitutes life -- which is to say when life begins. Letting the states decide is what infuriates these women because in some states, 2nd and 3rd term abortions are not allowed.
What they also miss seeing is that motherhood is a great blessing, one they should not miss out on. I have met women who are past menopause who aborted children and now being alone regret it. It's a tragedy for them which they did not think of when caught up in the mass hysteria of the feminist cause when they were young. This is a sad legacy of feminism: it has condemned untold numbers of women to a life in which they regret not having what can be the most meaningful experience of one's life -- motherhood. It robs men of fatherhood too (myself included).
Feminism is thus fundamentally anti-human. It creates a sort of religious violence that draws young women into it, which many later will regret. It is anti-family, anti-baby, anti-human, anti-God, anti-man, and ultimately anti-woman because a woman is not supposed to live in some independent bubble. Nor are men. We are all part of society, part of families and social networks. Leftism destroys traditional ties and rebuilds groups in its own image. It becomes a destructive god onto which they cast their children -- and ultimately themselves -- as living sacrifices. It is a fire, like jihad, that consumes them as well in the long run - though at the time they don't know that.
There is no genocide in Gaza. All casualties are consequences of a war being lawfully conducted by Israel under the rules of conduct of war and international treaties. It trivializes the word "genocide" to call that war by that name.
The IDF has used precision bombing and warned citizens to leave the warzone before attacks. They have gone out of their way to avoid unnecessary deaths.
All civilian deaths in that warzone are the result of Hamas' use of human shields; Hamas openly states their intent to use their citizens in this way, as sacrifices to Islam, instead of allowing them to move to safety as a responsible government would do.
Yes, Israel is winning militarily, which is a good thing, because it actually prevents a genocide of Jews by Hamas and Iran. Their stated intention is to wipe out all the Jews, similar to Hitler's mandate.
And how can it be called genocide when the population keeps increasing exponentially despite the conflict? A strange genocide indeed when the population goes up, not down.
There was, however, a well-documented massacre executed by the people of Gaza on peaceful Israeli communities on October 7th, 2023; it had openly genocidal intent" and was intended as a prelude to killing all the Jews worldwide. Hamas makes no secret of its intent to commit genocide in Israel.
All casualties in that war are 100% the responsibility of Hamas for 1) starting the war, and 2) barbarically using citizens as human shields.
Iran and Hams don't care if the Arabs die there as human sacrifices for Islam, but they know how to cleverly use those deaths as propaganda, to convince naïve Westerners that there's a genocide, turning them into useful idiots for Islamic terrorism and Jew-hatred.
Lastly, it looks like feminists are okay with Hamas raping women and children. Leftists are okay with Islam's brutality against women in general because Leftism/feminism is not about womens' rights; it's about seizing power and destroying the West. See Janice's article on the silence of feminists after Oct 7th: https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminists-do-gymnastics-over-reports
How can it be genocide if the killing can be stopped by Hamas any time they wish? It would only be genocide if Israel continued to bomb them after they surrendered and returned the hostages.
Janice, Janice, Janice, are you seriously saying that WW1 was unjust to the 850,000 British men who were killed on the front? Nonsense! As Hillary Clinton taught us, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
& we will again soon suffer global conflict in Asia and Europe where women will willingly force the men in their lives to sacrifice their lives so that they, the women, are safe; but few of these women or the western countries they live in, would dare to suggest that women be actual front-line combatants; the hypocrisy of narcissistic feminism
Just ask feminists if they should be treated equally to men by having exactly the same duty of military service by conscription. Count the number of times you’ll be accused of misogyny.
I saw an article recently (can't find it now) that said women should not be subject to conscription because they already suffer disproportionately in a misogynistic society.
They always have their rebuttals ready, don't they. If women are not allowed in the military, it is oppression, if they are required to sign up for the military, it is also oppression. I also read an example of a guy talking about the distribution of suicide between the genders to a bunch of wokies and when he (falsely) stated that women commit more suicides then men, it was because women suffer more then men, when he revealed this was false and that men actually commit more suicides, their rebuttable was that men are more empowered/powerful then women and therefore have more strength to commit to killing oneself. There really seems to be no other solution then to just straight up ignore women all together, unless they have a long and trustworthy record of earning their right to have a say in the matter.
I’m reminded of the answer given by a Prussian minister to Felix Mendelssohn who had enquired about the policy of Jewish emancipation: “Same rights, same duties.” I fail to see why women should have any exemption from civic duty and responsibility.
This could be put a little differently: No one assumes that Black or Jewish men (any men, for that matter) who have a history of oppression dating back centuries in the case of Blacks, and two and a half millennia in the case of Jews, should be exempt from their responsibilities as citizens. Women, as a general class, were not loaded into the stinking holds of slave ships, nor shoved into gas chambers. Of course, there were a lot of women in each of those situations but they weren’t there because they were women.
To reiterate the point: Women are not the only category of people who can claim a history of oppression/subjugation. Men have a comparable history, particularly if they come from religious and/or racial/ethnic backgrounds. Nobody suggests that they should be exempt from any of the duties of citizenship regardless of how their ancestors were treated.
Good points about men from discriminated against groups. And for Centuries until the power of the aristocracy was diminished by taxes female Aristocrats had both privileges and power. In an irony the constant research to "find" powerful women in history constantly reinforces this point, certainly in the British Isles.
So true Janice. Loved this sentence: "Rage is exhausting and sick-making, not freeing. It clouds judgement and extinguishes empathy, muting joy and warping perception." Exactly! Great summary. This is the path of the 3 or 4 year old little girl who throws a kicking and screaming tantrum. Adults see that not as a call to action, but as a childish display of self centered narcissism that deserves limits be set. Yup, that is just how I see these women today.
Women in western society are the most coddled. pampered and tolerated demographic in world history.
I always say there is no need to read countless books and participate in gender studies and historical research to prove this demonstrable fact. Visit your local shopping mall and go for a walk. What you will see is an abundance of retail stores created for one purpose- to serve the needs and satisfy the wants of women and girls. Pedicurists, manicurists, jewelry and handbag stores, clothing stores, hairdressing salons, homeware shops and so much more.
Look at the women lying back in their comfortable seats with their feet being attended to. It reminds one of the old shoe -shining boys attending to the suited newspaper reading gents of the Victorian era. Or the manicurists fussing over the extended hand of some poor overwrought female who has the time and money to sit in a room having her nails painted while her hubby or partner is at work.
Even the stores purportedly created for the needs of men and women cater to women's products at a ratio of five to one. The men's clothing section in Kmart or Target is usually found in the back corner of the store and a man must wade through an ocean of lingerie, dresses, female footwear, make up displays, handbags and hats before you arrive.
Retail outlets are in the business to make money. This clearly indicates a simple truth- women are their target audience and women clearly control the finances.
Yet still, women scream about being invisible and voiceless- oppressed and ignored, while they gather in great numbers to chat over coffee and lattes in their favourite cafe.
When I was seriously ill many years ago this reality hit me like a sledgehammer. Every day I watched female hosts on Oprah, Jesse Raphael, Ricki Lake and Phil Donohue berate men for their power and privilege with vicious relentless rage and I would look out my lounge room window and watch a gaggle of women laughing and chatting as they played tennis in the middle of a working week.
On the days I felt strong enough to shop ( I had undergone an above knee amputation) I saw crowds of women in the cafes and shops. All of them looked very happy and content, yet they would have readily agreed with all of the sentiments expressed on those man hating shows.
While I was fielding endless questions about when I was going to return to work (and feeling red hot guilt for daring to recuperate at home after the op and coping with chemotherapy) I felt my own rage begin to bubble at this gross misrepresentation of reality in our society.
The lunatics you cited who claim their rights have been taken cannot cite one right they have lost. Not one female would be aware that men have NO reproductive rights to lose in the first place. They would be ignorant of their privilege when it comes to having a vote in America. Men must sign away their bodily autonomy before being given the right. Females have no conditions attached to their rights.
There is a genuine mental illness affecting a frighteningly large number of women and social media's only redeeming feature is the exposure of these freaks on facebook, you tube and Instagram.
I hope they squirm every day of the next four years over their imaginary oppression.
(1) It is very telling that women upset about Trump’s election are exclusively focused on punishing men…despite the fact that he wouldn’t have been elected if not for the increased number of women who voted for him. Indeed 52% of white women voted for Trump. Why aren’t feminists punishing them?!?
(2) When feminists say, “Men have always been allowed to lose their cool,” they are simply showing how pathetically ignorant they are about the male experience. And when I decided to start a men’s rights movement in 1976, people dismissed what I said by the very accusation of “You just sound angry.”
(3) According to Mahdawi and company, women are angrier than men because they have been wronged. So, when I taught the first class ever on men’s issues, I told the students that more women commit suicide than men and asked for their theories on why. They said it was because women have it tougher than men. Then, I told them that actually it's the reverse and more men commit suicide than women. They explained that it was because men have more power than women so, when they have problems, they can do something about it (namely, kill themselves). With feminists, the facts don’t matter because they will always fit the facts into their narrative.
There have been some angry articles about the betrayal by white women of black and brown women, allegedly because the white gals couldn't resist allying themselves with white male power.
For a while, there was some talk of Democrat-voting white women getting a certain tattoo on their wrists in order to identify themselves as the good white women (presumably so that the bad white women could be appropriately punished through exclusion and shaming).
But anger at white women is never quite as vicious (except in a women's studies course!) as anger at white men.
Many decades ago, I produced something called "The Reversal Test." It had 25 questions, each one citing actual phenomena that feminists complained about. In the test, I then reversed the situation and gave 3 potential reactions from feminists (1- Feminists would have one altered complaint; 2- Feminists would have a different altered complaint; or 3- Feminists would stop complaining). Of course, the correct answer was NEVER "Feminists would stop complaining." Many questions had documentation that feminists do indeed complain about something as well as the reverse of that same thing. For example, feminists cite "Ladies first" as demeaning to Western women and AT THE SAME TIME cite "Men first" as equally demeaning...to Arab women.
Male rage is heavily policed - sometimes literally policed, with water-cannons and batons. But even in social settings, any raging man looking for a fight might actually find someone bigger and stonger willing to take up the offer.
The only reason women's rage is a 'source of power' is because women don't get hit. Women have the freedom to dish out fighting talk knowing that men won't take them up on it. Mona Elthahawy can make her sadistic threats against men safe in the knowledge that she won't get the shit kicked out of her.
This is the rage of cosseted, spoilt, protected children.
If feminist's fighting talk was met with actual counter punches then this 'source of power' would be snuffed out in an afternoon.
That battle of the sexes is all fun and games because one side isn't fighting back - and is often supportive of women. I don't know how sustainable this is, however.
I've said before that we often talk about the civilising influence that women have on men, but it's taboo to talk about the civilising influence that men have on women. Women have been on a crusade to deny that men have any civilising influence on them. The latest catch-phrase is 'de-centering men'. This rage is (one) result. I wonder how many angry women even like what they've become.
I'm reminded of those scenes from 1950s B-movies - where the world is being overrun by giant ants and the hero's girlfriend has collasped into head-shaking terror, crying 'I can't go on!' Struggling against his grip on her shoulders - he finally slaps her, just to get the plot back on track.
I think a large part of women's mental well-being relies on living in a world where men have everything under control. Feminists have demanded that men give up this control - and men largely have.
Yes, my friend. I want to write something in future on Mona Eltahawy's most-cited source, legal scholar Mary Anne Franks. Franks actually argues seriously that women should start perpetrating violence against men in order to redistribute victimization, and that the law should allow them to do so. She calls it optimal violence; i.e., women are the majority of victims and should be allowed to even the score against men. The fantasy nature of it is simply breathtaking.
I'm not sure which applies more--a paradox. or an oxymoron. Modern Western women are currently contracepting from 85-90% of the human race into oblivion and yet are still describing themselves as victims as opposed to perpetrators; I'm trying to get rid of the word "drivel" from my thought process; but, frankly, it's difficult.
My now ex wife, starting not long after we were married, would frequently hit me on my upper arms and body. This continued for years until after our first son was born, when, after having hit me yet again, I said to her; "If You Ever Hit Me Again, I WILL HIT YOU BACK!" Something in they way I said this convinced her I was not joking and that she would suffer the consequences if she ever hit me again. She never hit me again.
In AU family court, the corrupt FCoA judge, colin james forrest, was incensed that I had said this to my then-wife; her deemed that my actions constituted domestic violence and my ex-wife's were just affection. Interestingly in his reasons for deporting my AU born, raised, schooled and habitual residents, this misandrist state, that because I "was bigger, I should be able to control my wife" ~ in 2019 ~ WTF?
Most of this "rage" is performative. For a woman to see society's deck stacked against her, she must embrace an ideology that has little to do with reality and nothing to do with emotional/psychological/spiritual well-being. As time goes on, this nonsense will be more and more rejected as unhelpful and unhealthy. Well done, Janice.
Unforntunantly, because feminists have pushed the "accepted norm" pendulum to the extremes of absurdity, the back-swing (back-lash?) against this ideological institutionalised misandristic hatred of men (and the women who support us), will result in catastrophic back-swing to the detriment of us all (irrespective of gender and identity) and our society
Women's rage may be the same envy-fueled rage that motivated Cain to kill Abel. As I point out the The Birth of Feminism, men are favored by God in that they are bigger, stronger, faster etc, and of course they have Freud's favorite appendage ;)
I would just like to point out that this envy is mostly feminist instigated. Women have natural gifts that no man will ever have, their "femininity" broadly speaking, and they know it. And some women are just like men, and that's fine. The tragedy is the scale on which so many young women are getting swindled out of their natural gifts by a bunch of noisy but persuasive malcontents.
I would suggest PENIS ENVY is innate in w0e-MEN and feminism has stoked it... as it is explained in Genesis 3 "Your desire will be to control your husband, but he will rule over you" It is the sin of w0e-MAN'S nature to envy MEN'S authority... feminism itself started with Eve falling for Satan's promise of EQUALITY. >Penis Envy is in Genesis it didn't come from feminism.
I believe the verse says "Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you". My reading of that verse is that in the fallen world, the social order must be patriarchal, where the husband has authority over his wife and has an exclusive claim to her sexually (to guarantee that his children are actually his own). Otherwise women will run amok-- see Janice's essay above.
I suspect in fact most have no real idea about what they want. Mostly its about what they don't want.... no children, no housework, no hard work, no responsibility, no "judgement", no shame its all no no no no.
The Bible calls woman the 'weaker vessel', which is simply the plain truth. Little wonder that women hate Christianity and Scripture so much. While their own cultures lie and pander to them, the Bible unflinchingly speaks the truth about female constitution and nature.
The Bible isn't the only or final word on humanity and the nature of man and woman. To dismiss women as the "weaker vessel" is to take both man and woman out of the context of nature. Neither man nor woman can be understood without reference to the other. So it is pointless to try and put a final judgment of worth on either.
The Bible IS the final word on humanity and the nature of man and woman. And women ARE 'the weaker vessel'. If the past 50 years of their conduct has not convinced you of that obvious fact, nothing will.
Men trying to play the Equality Hero do women, men, children and their societies no favor, and they keep both women and men from having to face hard truths about themselves.
This should be obvious, but that YOU accept the Bible as the final word does not MAKE it the final word. Furthermore, that you believe it to be the final word means that you are probably a fundamentalist Christian who has been taught to read the Bible literally. Whereas as I view the Bible as a cultural artefact that contains a complex mixture of historical record and instructive metaphor that gives us a window into the psyche of our ancestors. So I doubt that we will agree and get past this point.
Do you think you are tarring me with your 'Fundie Christian' dismissal? Is that an insult in your world? Ho ho ho, just another stoopid Fundie Christian? I probably believe in Santa Claus too, eh?
It is instructive that you imagine your wisdom is greater than God's, and that your wisdom is greater than the collective sages of old. Because, after all, you are the great Steve Brule! :O)
I haven't been 'taught to read the Bible literally' by anybody. You make it sound like I've been brainwashed as a way of dismissing what I have said.
In fact, I came to understand the truth of Scripture very late in my life, and this only after so many hard experiences IN THIS WORLD led me to see that those ancients already knew about the Woman Situation, and about all the other human foibles and problems. Nobody 'taught' me. I do not attend any church and I have no teacher or pastor or leader. It wasn't a conspiracy of fellow Fundie Bible Nuts that, you know, trapped me in their Fundie Cult and put the pressure on me until I cracked.
My experience in life FORCED me to accept that what I believed was false and incomplete, and that what was contained in Scripture was true, because those things were reflected -- over and over -- in this world by real people and real circumstances.
You dismiss out of hand what you don't even vaguely understand, and that is not wisdom.
Although the more accurate word that I was looking for was "inerrant" rather than "literal," I didn't imagine that my assessment of your point of view, which you verified, would trigger such an angry response from you. Your accusations and assessment of me, on the other hand, have no connection with reality, which does not surprise me in the least.
So, as I correctly surmised, we are not going to agree.
Speaking as a non-fundamentalist Christian who sees the Bible as true and who knows that some parts are literal, and others allegorical, etc., I doubt he'd argue that the Bible is the final word because he accepts it as such. Not even the fundiest of fundies thinks that.
Scripture is true regardless of what I think of it. It'd take a massive ego to imagine that What I Believe is the litmus test for truth in the universe. My puny existence neither validates nor invalidates the Bible in some objective way. I have not come to believe -- like so many others that ignore or dismiss Scripture -- that I am my own God and the keeper of all wisdom and truth.
Many parts of Scripture are literal. Some are allegorical. Some are compactions or distillations, as with the Book of Genesis. Portions of that book must be presented in summary or just that one chapter alone would be 20 million words long.
AGREED. The bible is most definitely the final word on humanity especially fe-MALE nature. The problem is there are so many FAKE Christians who espouse chivalry instead of scripture, they end up exonerating w0e-MEN from accountability. w0e-MEN are weaker morally not just physically. They need to reap what they sow. So, while I agree that w0e-MEN should be prohibited from decision making roles, I also support holding them to the SAME accountability as a MAN such as signing for the draft etc.
Yes. The denominations are chock-full of 'teachers' and 'pastors' who are chivalric instead of Christian. Woman-pleasers. Wife-pleasers. World-pleasers. Careerists. Not God-pleasers.
The churches in America have become part-and-parcel of feminism. Their presentations and teachings are little different from secular society, and they strive to be accepted in the world rather than be accepted by God.
A friend of mine told me of once sitting in church and having his pastor tell all the men in the pews to turn and apologize to their wives for the wrongs they have done to them. Never would the wives be instructed to apologize to their husbands. That sums it up in a nutshell.
Considering that Yahweh is probably who you're referring to. He's a circumcising violent child genital mutilator.
What's more anti male and emasculating than that? Than baby boy violent genital torture?
CIRCUMCISION is the conservative's gender reassignment mutilation. Both sides of the political spectrum in the USA seem to love torturing and mutilating children like absolute fools.
Leonard Glick, in the book, "Marked In Your Flesh", I think was the title, he states that circumcsion found the Jews through their enslavement in Egypt....but then there doesn't seem to be much evidence some say for that enslavement to begin with.... regardless...
All non life saving procedures should be banned on all minors. No argument about it.
Circumcision is misandrist emasculation - violent and stupid.
Circumcision is no longer required by God. I don't know the reason God wanted this and it doesn't change my belief in scripture. I've read that it was not a drastic type of cut like what we know today, it was a much more minor cut. AGREE circumcision should never be done to a baby or a boy unless & until he's of age and wants his dick to look like a mushroom.
Just for information's sake, the Jewish rite of circumcision as practiced today is radically different from the Old Testament rite. Information about that: https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
"Simply thinking over the unfairness of being female can apparently set off apoplexy"
Some of the best writing on this subject to be found absolutely anywhere. I'm a huge fan, Gay, have thought of myself as a feminist my whole life, and thank you.
I have pondered throughout my 2.5 score years as an adult; "how can a male claim to be a feminist?" Yes we, males, can support women, but a male claiming "I am a woman" doesn't make him a woman! I support people being able to safely identify as they wish, but I reject that this "identification" makes them who/what they identify as nor does it give them the right to force me to acknowledge their identity.
Wow! What an unbelievably great piece. I'll be sharing this everywhere I can. I think you're basically required reading for men's right activists or whatever any one person may wish to call him- or herself.
"Few women spoke afterwards of what had caused their heartless gusto. The White Feather movement strongly suggests that women’s rage against men is not necessarily a result of female suffering. It may be, on the contrary, a fact of female nature that some women indulge and exploit."
I have an interpretation of what "a fact of female nature" may mean here, though I think, based on some things you said later in your article, that you probably mean something different than I do. It seems like women are, on some level, inclined to disregard the vast majority of men as sort of inhuman non-entities, or worse, as unworthy of life. The reason women walked around putting White Feathers in men's coats is because they didn't want to miss their chance to see these unworthy slugs (as the women saw them) finally sent to the meat grinder where they belonged (again, not my view).
It's the same reason that, whenever you read what women have to say about how men are, you get the eerie feeling they're not at all talking about you or any man you've ever met, but about a distinct and small class of men, namely, the men whom those women find attractive, and you realize, in those moments, that for women, no one else but this class of men qualifies as real, human, or deserving of consideration or empathy. The failure to reach the category of the most sexually attractive men is the worst crime any man can commit. It's appalling and unforgivable. No murderer, rapist or pedophile can rouse female hatred faster or more swiftly than the mediocre beta male.
Today, women circulate memes that say things like, "Men used to go to war. Now they make pregnant women stand on buses." I'm starting to think the right way to interpret this and similar statements is a really just a complaint that most men exist at all.
"This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger than those of men and only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender."
No, no, men constantly have to compete against each other with many negative consequences for both males and females. Women make “friends,” while men most usually just make “allies.” There’s a huge difference.
You are a studied and very cool woman, thank you for your post of which I just read, I'm in England, it's basically the same, I'm male 59, and I've witnessed this pointless fury for decades, hysterical history, unprecedented thought processes, me thinks Gil Scott Heron, got that predicted in b movie, bless him 😀
Feminists say letting women rule would be the Best. England had a lady Queen forever and life sucked. Some of the worst PMs were ladies. The wokest and most ridiculous MPs are ladies. WTF. I just point that out, and the feminist heads explode in rage. I beleive in a merit based equal opportunity, if you got the goods to do the job have at it. But if you suck, then fired and no crying about it. I am speaking in general here.
Yes, the disaster list of proven lady incompetence is a mile long. Merit-based is the way to go. Fools claiming if only women would rule, the world would be rainbows, and peace, are either ignorant of reality or ideologically possessed. Not sure what else would explain it.
Janice, you just keep hitting it out of the park. Excellent, informative and interesting as all hell. Fantastic article!
Thank you, chuffed!
feminists are afraid to look over the outfield fence ~ where stark reality awaits them
You sir nailed it out of the park.
I think our ancestors, men and women, were aware of the debilitating levels of negative emotion inherent in many women and ancient societal norms mitigated against it.
Right! That explains the restrictions against women in important decision making leadership positions across the globe for centuries. While it was wrong to outright prohibit women in decision-making roles, the feminist view that the natural and fair order is for women to be 50% occupying such roles is misguided. Separating emotions from the cold-logic required to chart courses of action is something men, on average, do far better.
True. I would go even further to say that there is a legitimate question of whether a small minority of women should lose certain opportunities for leadership given the almost-inevitable problems that come with female leadership. I'm not sure of the answer.
I spend a lot of time in Asia where the UN reports 20% of parliamentarians and 30% of private sector managers are women. I've never detected the slightest hint of misandry in Asian society, let alone anti-male rage. In fact, I've seen no evidence whatsoever of "the almost-inevitable problems that come with female leadership" in the West. Which tells me the problem is not female leadership per se, but FEMINIST leadership, be it male or female. In fact I would argue the bigger problem is MALE leaders, so called "allies", who pander to and promote feminists in our governments and institutions. As opposed to Trump, who promotes women on merit and performance. He's promoting some genuine high calibre women who will hopefully rid their respective departments of feminist management altogether.
> I've never detected the slightest hint of misandry in Asian society, let alone anti-male rage.
Um, you missed the 4B movement then? South Korea is notorious for its extreme levels of feminism that make western feminism look tame by comparison.
Thank you for that pointer. I have previously seen 4B only as a kind-of going-their-own-way movement: women having nothing to do with men (other than living off their taxes, enjoying their efforts to maintain social infrastructure, being secure because of men, etc..). 4B's activities seem more like those of the Canadian and Mexican feminists, or those of the UK feminists of the beginning of last century that Janice wrote of.
Traditional Competent Men were built tough and could handle abusive stressful situations and find solutions. Men in a room can fist-fight their way to a solution and still be friends, even more so, having earned respect, in fact. Gentlemen cannot do that with a lady in the room.
'Lady' LOL. You have a rather sophomoric/adolescent viewpoint. If you espouse Christianity, then you should know that w0e-MEN are more sinful than MEN and are not permitted to be in authority. You bar brawl scenario is idiotic. You're filled with contradictions. 'Gentlemen' don't settle things with bar room brawls. STOP framing everything as protecting w0e-MEN.
People who are qualified can be in any position they qualify for.
Merit based hiring would result in 1% of w0e-MEN in MALE roles. As it stands w0e-MEN in police & military jobs are about 14 to 16%... that number itself the result of affirmative action. With no affirmative action there wouldn't even be that meniscal number. To say "as long as she's qualified" when such a tiny number itself the byproduct of affirmative action, would not justify the sloganeering. And if you believe in God's precepts that w0e-MEN are not to have authority over MEN, there is justification for outright prohibiting w0e-MEN from MALE roles. If a MAN qualifies on the w0e-MAN'S volleyball team he should get the spot would be the moral equivalent
DON'T agree that it was ever wrong to outright prohibit w0e-MEN from decision making roles. God prohibits w0e-MEN from decision making roles.
LOL... you forgot to quote verse... and the contradicting verses
WTF? This is not the paradigm we live in
I wouldn't say 100% women is the goal, but 100% women-plus-male-simps is certainly the goal, to have zero people in authority who would stand up for fairness for men.
I agree.
It's ironic, really, how for centuries, millennia really, mostly-male leaders established societal norms that required gentle treatment of women and punished or scorned anything but. Feminism comes along and twists this into "oppression," and then the feminists chart their own course to become the actual oppressors!
That's true. The real hard core ones aren't after equality. They're after domination.
Yup.
What really sucks for competent women like J.F. (and some I have worked with and learned from) is that the inability to have a rational conversation about the behavior a lot of women display is going to result in women in general being boxed out of positions where they could have a positive impact.
A merit-based system would allow those of merit to ascend and those without to not. Communists want to destroy the West with Feminism as a weapon. Communist countries do not allow this self-destructive nonsense.
Very strictly merit-based, with absolutely no expectation that women should occupy 50% of any profession, or even be represented at all unless deserving. We would also need to revamp/scale back/eliminate the sexual harassment legislation that makes it possible for women to destroy men's careers with trivial or outright false claims.
Yes. How about a bad-faith clause? If the woman lies in a sexual harassment claim, and probably so, she gets/bears the punishment she was trying to inflict on the innocent victim. I bet the false claims numbers would drop off a cliff. Actual accountability would be refreshing. A breath of fresh air.
There I agree with you!
Right wing misandrists like such as fake Christians and Republicans are just as bad as the feminists.
Yes, unfortunately, though the Left is outright anti-male, there are too many in the Republican ranks who are willing to do women's bidding also, even when it means betraying men.
Too many cowardly allies, not sure what they are getting paid, traded in compensation, it simply cannot be worth it. Cult members do weird irrational things.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say; it must be over my head.
Thank you, Janice. I think that we are seeing the progressive working out, or metastasizing, of an arrogance that women assumed long ago, the arrogance of moral superiority to men. It is there in the "Sentiments" you mention, it is there in feminism's founding historical analysis (guilty male oppressors, innocent female victims) and our current culture is saturated in it. It is a perverse vanity that is poisonous over the long term, and we are seeing the poison in many forms - not least the rage you describe so well. The solution is humility, for women to accept that they are no better than men, to accept the very equality that they say they have been pursuing all along.
However, moral superiority is like an addiction, it delivers a psychic pleasure that is hard to let go of. Accordingly, I expect the situation to become increasingly toxic until, for one reason or another, it either becomes unsustainable and we recover, or the patient (our civilization) dies.
I arrived at my analysis thanks to some good conversations with you.
I suspect only collapse will solve it. Most progressive issues can be cured with a few days of hunger.
metastasizing ~ yeah, feminism is a cancerous religion
Without wanting to lift any blame from women, we have to address the fact that men with their default chivalry and their always pardoning and always desirous stance toward women have been the enablers of the current malaise. There's a lot in feminism resembling a bunch of uninhibited kids lacking adult supervision. Without boundary setting, they will become unhinged fast.
I can't imagine why women would want to have genuine equality. Lose all those advantages they have? No chance.
I suspect the impression of moral superiority is partially embedded in the evolutionary concentration that child rearing is largely a maternal matter. To control men they way that women do (and have had to, for humanity to have survived, since a man has been required to support a woman nursing a child), the woman must have an innate feeling of superiority - or at least 'rightness' - about her actions and behaviors.
"Rage is exhausting and sick-making, not freeing. It clouds judgement and extinguishes empathy, muting joy and warping perception. Though so often touted as a goad to political action (which, admittedly, it can be), it is just as often an end in itself that leaves the enraged person unable to complete projects or maintain relationships. Rarely managing to focus on its putative target, rage almost always expands its domain, bleeding into other areas of life."
This is an amazing and accurate assessment of this spiritual disease.
Great article! Worth re-reading a few times to get every point.
Reading this made me think of Islamic rage, typically directed against Israel and the USA, against Jews in general, and also periodically against Christians, and its ultimate expression, jihad. It's certainly an example of groupthink, and it is ritualistic. Feminism and female rage, while not resorting to suicide bombings, certainly have that same religious fervour. They do have actual casualties though: their unborn children -- which are also ritually sacrificed. I have long maintained that Leftism is a secular functional religion, and feminism is one of its main denominations.
The truth is that women have always raged against men when men cheated on them, for example, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." But the ritualization of female rage against men was perfected by feminists in the 20th century, and greatly amplified in the 21st century by social media and the authority of academia.
One of the characteristics of it that always caught my attention was how it's usually young privileged women who allow themselves to get so enraged by pretending to be part of a victim group. They falsely claim to be rape victims, or they will broaden the definition of rape to refer to trivial occurrences such as a man flatulating near them ("fart rape") or being "raped" by the male gaze in public. This trivializes actual rape.
It's the same phenomenon as people with brown skin claiming to be part of an oppressed global collective on whose behalf they are outraged. In reality, they are often among the most privileged class in human history: middle and upper-middle-class university students.
I can see how Eileen Wornos was so enraged with men that she started killing them, but a grad student from a middle-class household in the West screaming at a feminist rally and shaving her head in response to Trump's win is not oppressed -- but she would like to be. She wants very badly to be a victim because it confers high social status.
The anti-Trump women mainly had on their mind the abortion issue. This issue has galvanized them perhaps more than any other. They see it as the right to control their own bodies; I see it as them demanding the right to kill their own offspring, a human being who deserves the opportunity to live, even though handicapped with a crazy mother. It's a contentious issue. Somehow Trump became a symbol for them, even though he has little to do with the issue. Which begs the question: if they have the right to be so infuriated on behalf of pregnant women who want abortions, don't I have the same right to be infuriated with them for wanting to kill those babies? Someone should speak up for the unborn.
But in fact, I should not be infuriated to the point of near madness. Nor should anyone. That does not solve anything. This is an issue that in a sane society, we could openly debate and decide by means of reason and ethics. The Supreme Court decision, giving it back to the states to decide, is as close to that as we're going to see to sanity anytime soon. Each state has its own view on what constitutes life -- which is to say when life begins. Letting the states decide is what infuriates these women because in some states, 2nd and 3rd term abortions are not allowed.
What they also miss seeing is that motherhood is a great blessing, one they should not miss out on. I have met women who are past menopause who aborted children and now being alone regret it. It's a tragedy for them which they did not think of when caught up in the mass hysteria of the feminist cause when they were young. This is a sad legacy of feminism: it has condemned untold numbers of women to a life in which they regret not having what can be the most meaningful experience of one's life -- motherhood. It robs men of fatherhood too (myself included).
Feminism is thus fundamentally anti-human. It creates a sort of religious violence that draws young women into it, which many later will regret. It is anti-family, anti-baby, anti-human, anti-God, anti-man, and ultimately anti-woman because a woman is not supposed to live in some independent bubble. Nor are men. We are all part of society, part of families and social networks. Leftism destroys traditional ties and rebuilds groups in its own image. It becomes a destructive god onto which they cast their children -- and ultimately themselves -- as living sacrifices. It is a fire, like jihad, that consumes them as well in the long run - though at the time they don't know that.
Nah, "feminism's" genesis was in the mid-19th century ~ by the opening of the 20th C angry women were dictating what other women could think
And what would you call Netanyahu’s Israel’s genocidal holocaust in Gaza? It has exactly the same entitlement flavor as the feminists Janice mentions.
There is no genocide in Gaza. All casualties are consequences of a war being lawfully conducted by Israel under the rules of conduct of war and international treaties. It trivializes the word "genocide" to call that war by that name.
The IDF has used precision bombing and warned citizens to leave the warzone before attacks. They have gone out of their way to avoid unnecessary deaths.
All civilian deaths in that warzone are the result of Hamas' use of human shields; Hamas openly states their intent to use their citizens in this way, as sacrifices to Islam, instead of allowing them to move to safety as a responsible government would do.
Yes, Israel is winning militarily, which is a good thing, because it actually prevents a genocide of Jews by Hamas and Iran. Their stated intention is to wipe out all the Jews, similar to Hitler's mandate.
And how can it be called genocide when the population keeps increasing exponentially despite the conflict? A strange genocide indeed when the population goes up, not down.
There was, however, a well-documented massacre executed by the people of Gaza on peaceful Israeli communities on October 7th, 2023; it had openly genocidal intent" and was intended as a prelude to killing all the Jews worldwide. Hamas makes no secret of its intent to commit genocide in Israel.
All casualties in that war are 100% the responsibility of Hamas for 1) starting the war, and 2) barbarically using citizens as human shields.
Iran and Hams don't care if the Arabs die there as human sacrifices for Islam, but they know how to cleverly use those deaths as propaganda, to convince naïve Westerners that there's a genocide, turning them into useful idiots for Islamic terrorism and Jew-hatred.
Lastly, it looks like feminists are okay with Hamas raping women and children. Leftists are okay with Islam's brutality against women in general because Leftism/feminism is not about womens' rights; it's about seizing power and destroying the West. See Janice's article on the silence of feminists after Oct 7th: https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminists-do-gymnastics-over-reports
Isreal has been creating it's enemies since day one, you need to look into Luck Larry Silverstien
How can it be genocide if the killing can be stopped by Hamas any time they wish? It would only be genocide if Israel continued to bomb them after they surrendered and returned the hostages.
Most people in the comments found Janice through one of the Zio Alt light channels...
I firmly believe that feminism started the woke movement which has totally fucked up the entire world.
Femimism was fazed one of the woke communist takedown of the West.
Janice, Janice, Janice, are you seriously saying that WW1 was unjust to the 850,000 British men who were killed on the front? Nonsense! As Hillary Clinton taught us, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
Female anguish always matters more than male life. Any feminist will tell you that.
Er I think the primary victims of war were those husbands, fathers and sons who lost their lives, limbs and minds etc in combat.
& we will again soon suffer global conflict in Asia and Europe where women will willingly force the men in their lives to sacrifice their lives so that they, the women, are safe; but few of these women or the western countries they live in, would dare to suggest that women be actual front-line combatants; the hypocrisy of narcissistic feminism
Indeed!
I've heard of a good cure to ease the suffering of women there.
Give them a gun and send them to the front lines, problem solved.
The Donald proposed that to Liz Chenney, and unleashed more rage from the feminists and their soy-boy sycophants.
So that was where it came from.
No way you could ever offer anything viable to that pack of psychos.
Just ask feminists if they should be treated equally to men by having exactly the same duty of military service by conscription. Count the number of times you’ll be accused of misogyny.
I saw an article recently (can't find it now) that said women should not be subject to conscription because they already suffer disproportionately in a misogynistic society.
They always have their rebuttals ready, don't they. If women are not allowed in the military, it is oppression, if they are required to sign up for the military, it is also oppression. I also read an example of a guy talking about the distribution of suicide between the genders to a bunch of wokies and when he (falsely) stated that women commit more suicides then men, it was because women suffer more then men, when he revealed this was false and that men actually commit more suicides, their rebuttable was that men are more empowered/powerful then women and therefore have more strength to commit to killing oneself. There really seems to be no other solution then to just straight up ignore women all together, unless they have a long and trustworthy record of earning their right to have a say in the matter.
I’m reminded of the answer given by a Prussian minister to Felix Mendelssohn who had enquired about the policy of Jewish emancipation: “Same rights, same duties.” I fail to see why women should have any exemption from civic duty and responsibility.
This could be put a little differently: No one assumes that Black or Jewish men (any men, for that matter) who have a history of oppression dating back centuries in the case of Blacks, and two and a half millennia in the case of Jews, should be exempt from their responsibilities as citizens. Women, as a general class, were not loaded into the stinking holds of slave ships, nor shoved into gas chambers. Of course, there were a lot of women in each of those situations but they weren’t there because they were women.
To reiterate the point: Women are not the only category of people who can claim a history of oppression/subjugation. Men have a comparable history, particularly if they come from religious and/or racial/ethnic backgrounds. Nobody suggests that they should be exempt from any of the duties of citizenship regardless of how their ancestors were treated.
Good points about men from discriminated against groups. And for Centuries until the power of the aristocracy was diminished by taxes female Aristocrats had both privileges and power. In an irony the constant research to "find" powerful women in history constantly reinforces this point, certainly in the British Isles.
Lol
Great witch quote there.
So true Janice. Loved this sentence: "Rage is exhausting and sick-making, not freeing. It clouds judgement and extinguishes empathy, muting joy and warping perception." Exactly! Great summary. This is the path of the 3 or 4 year old little girl who throws a kicking and screaming tantrum. Adults see that not as a call to action, but as a childish display of self centered narcissism that deserves limits be set. Yup, that is just how I see these women today.
Was just thinking that "rage" is more like adolescent narcissism here.
& yet we are now supposed to celebrate an adult woman having a 3 year-old's tantrum ~ how our civilisation has fallen :-(
Women in western society are the most coddled. pampered and tolerated demographic in world history.
I always say there is no need to read countless books and participate in gender studies and historical research to prove this demonstrable fact. Visit your local shopping mall and go for a walk. What you will see is an abundance of retail stores created for one purpose- to serve the needs and satisfy the wants of women and girls. Pedicurists, manicurists, jewelry and handbag stores, clothing stores, hairdressing salons, homeware shops and so much more.
Look at the women lying back in their comfortable seats with their feet being attended to. It reminds one of the old shoe -shining boys attending to the suited newspaper reading gents of the Victorian era. Or the manicurists fussing over the extended hand of some poor overwrought female who has the time and money to sit in a room having her nails painted while her hubby or partner is at work.
Even the stores purportedly created for the needs of men and women cater to women's products at a ratio of five to one. The men's clothing section in Kmart or Target is usually found in the back corner of the store and a man must wade through an ocean of lingerie, dresses, female footwear, make up displays, handbags and hats before you arrive.
Retail outlets are in the business to make money. This clearly indicates a simple truth- women are their target audience and women clearly control the finances.
Yet still, women scream about being invisible and voiceless- oppressed and ignored, while they gather in great numbers to chat over coffee and lattes in their favourite cafe.
When I was seriously ill many years ago this reality hit me like a sledgehammer. Every day I watched female hosts on Oprah, Jesse Raphael, Ricki Lake and Phil Donohue berate men for their power and privilege with vicious relentless rage and I would look out my lounge room window and watch a gaggle of women laughing and chatting as they played tennis in the middle of a working week.
On the days I felt strong enough to shop ( I had undergone an above knee amputation) I saw crowds of women in the cafes and shops. All of them looked very happy and content, yet they would have readily agreed with all of the sentiments expressed on those man hating shows.
While I was fielding endless questions about when I was going to return to work (and feeling red hot guilt for daring to recuperate at home after the op and coping with chemotherapy) I felt my own rage begin to bubble at this gross misrepresentation of reality in our society.
The lunatics you cited who claim their rights have been taken cannot cite one right they have lost. Not one female would be aware that men have NO reproductive rights to lose in the first place. They would be ignorant of their privilege when it comes to having a vote in America. Men must sign away their bodily autonomy before being given the right. Females have no conditions attached to their rights.
There is a genuine mental illness affecting a frighteningly large number of women and social media's only redeeming feature is the exposure of these freaks on facebook, you tube and Instagram.
I hope they squirm every day of the next four years over their imaginary oppression.
Wow, what an experience. Thanks for this.
There's a k-mart where you live? 🤣
Yep. They are rather common.
LOL
I hope they'll be squirming for much longer than four years. I'm hoping Dems remain in the wilderness for a generation.
Some thoughts....
(1) It is very telling that women upset about Trump’s election are exclusively focused on punishing men…despite the fact that he wouldn’t have been elected if not for the increased number of women who voted for him. Indeed 52% of white women voted for Trump. Why aren’t feminists punishing them?!?
(2) When feminists say, “Men have always been allowed to lose their cool,” they are simply showing how pathetically ignorant they are about the male experience. And when I decided to start a men’s rights movement in 1976, people dismissed what I said by the very accusation of “You just sound angry.”
(3) According to Mahdawi and company, women are angrier than men because they have been wronged. So, when I taught the first class ever on men’s issues, I told the students that more women commit suicide than men and asked for their theories on why. They said it was because women have it tougher than men. Then, I told them that actually it's the reverse and more men commit suicide than women. They explained that it was because men have more power than women so, when they have problems, they can do something about it (namely, kill themselves). With feminists, the facts don’t matter because they will always fit the facts into their narrative.
Agreed about feminist logic. Every time!
There have been some angry articles about the betrayal by white women of black and brown women, allegedly because the white gals couldn't resist allying themselves with white male power.
For a while, there was some talk of Democrat-voting white women getting a certain tattoo on their wrists in order to identify themselves as the good white women (presumably so that the bad white women could be appropriately punished through exclusion and shaming).
But anger at white women is never quite as vicious (except in a women's studies course!) as anger at white men.
Many decades ago, I produced something called "The Reversal Test." It had 25 questions, each one citing actual phenomena that feminists complained about. In the test, I then reversed the situation and gave 3 potential reactions from feminists (1- Feminists would have one altered complaint; 2- Feminists would have a different altered complaint; or 3- Feminists would stop complaining). Of course, the correct answer was NEVER "Feminists would stop complaining." Many questions had documentation that feminists do indeed complain about something as well as the reverse of that same thing. For example, feminists cite "Ladies first" as demeaning to Western women and AT THE SAME TIME cite "Men first" as equally demeaning...to Arab women.
Male rage is heavily policed - sometimes literally policed, with water-cannons and batons. But even in social settings, any raging man looking for a fight might actually find someone bigger and stonger willing to take up the offer.
The only reason women's rage is a 'source of power' is because women don't get hit. Women have the freedom to dish out fighting talk knowing that men won't take them up on it. Mona Elthahawy can make her sadistic threats against men safe in the knowledge that she won't get the shit kicked out of her.
This is the rage of cosseted, spoilt, protected children.
If feminist's fighting talk was met with actual counter punches then this 'source of power' would be snuffed out in an afternoon.
That battle of the sexes is all fun and games because one side isn't fighting back - and is often supportive of women. I don't know how sustainable this is, however.
I've said before that we often talk about the civilising influence that women have on men, but it's taboo to talk about the civilising influence that men have on women. Women have been on a crusade to deny that men have any civilising influence on them. The latest catch-phrase is 'de-centering men'. This rage is (one) result. I wonder how many angry women even like what they've become.
I'm reminded of those scenes from 1950s B-movies - where the world is being overrun by giant ants and the hero's girlfriend has collasped into head-shaking terror, crying 'I can't go on!' Struggling against his grip on her shoulders - he finally slaps her, just to get the plot back on track.
I think a large part of women's mental well-being relies on living in a world where men have everything under control. Feminists have demanded that men give up this control - and men largely have.
Yes, my friend. I want to write something in future on Mona Eltahawy's most-cited source, legal scholar Mary Anne Franks. Franks actually argues seriously that women should start perpetrating violence against men in order to redistribute victimization, and that the law should allow them to do so. She calls it optimal violence; i.e., women are the majority of victims and should be allowed to even the score against men. The fantasy nature of it is simply breathtaking.
I'm not sure which applies more--a paradox. or an oxymoron. Modern Western women are currently contracepting from 85-90% of the human race into oblivion and yet are still describing themselves as victims as opposed to perpetrators; I'm trying to get rid of the word "drivel" from my thought process; but, frankly, it's difficult.
My now ex wife, starting not long after we were married, would frequently hit me on my upper arms and body. This continued for years until after our first son was born, when, after having hit me yet again, I said to her; "If You Ever Hit Me Again, I WILL HIT YOU BACK!" Something in they way I said this convinced her I was not joking and that she would suffer the consequences if she ever hit me again. She never hit me again.
In AU family court, the corrupt FCoA judge, colin james forrest, was incensed that I had said this to my then-wife; her deemed that my actions constituted domestic violence and my ex-wife's were just affection. Interestingly in his reasons for deporting my AU born, raised, schooled and habitual residents, this misandrist state, that because I "was bigger, I should be able to control my wife" ~ in 2019 ~ WTF?
Sounds as if you married my second wife.
Most of this "rage" is performative. For a woman to see society's deck stacked against her, she must embrace an ideology that has little to do with reality and nothing to do with emotional/psychological/spiritual well-being. As time goes on, this nonsense will be more and more rejected as unhelpful and unhealthy. Well done, Janice.
Afirming they are living through an episode of "The Handmaids Tale" is not working out too well.
Unforntunantly, because feminists have pushed the "accepted norm" pendulum to the extremes of absurdity, the back-swing (back-lash?) against this ideological institutionalised misandristic hatred of men (and the women who support us), will result in catastrophic back-swing to the detriment of us all (irrespective of gender and identity) and our society
Excellent article!
Women's rage may be the same envy-fueled rage that motivated Cain to kill Abel. As I point out the The Birth of Feminism, men are favored by God in that they are bigger, stronger, faster etc, and of course they have Freud's favorite appendage ;)
I was thinking of your video when I was writing this. Here it is for anyone new to anti-feminism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8QgjbPeESg&list=PLGFFi6pRCnCdbjClvzOOb01N6zmDpjDE4&index=2
Thank you Janice,
When you think about it, all of the goals of feminism amount to: "we want what men have."
If that isn't a scream of envy, then I don't know what is.
I would just like to point out that this envy is mostly feminist instigated. Women have natural gifts that no man will ever have, their "femininity" broadly speaking, and they know it. And some women are just like men, and that's fine. The tragedy is the scale on which so many young women are getting swindled out of their natural gifts by a bunch of noisy but persuasive malcontents.
Agreed. Feminism is evil, which is the subject of an essay that I'm currently writing. And I don't use the term "evil" lightly.
Steve, I wrote an essay with this title about 20 years ago. I could send it to you if you're interested.
That's great David! I think you should publish it here. Is it published elsewhere?
I would suggest PENIS ENVY is innate in w0e-MEN and feminism has stoked it... as it is explained in Genesis 3 "Your desire will be to control your husband, but he will rule over you" It is the sin of w0e-MAN'S nature to envy MEN'S authority... feminism itself started with Eve falling for Satan's promise of EQUALITY. >Penis Envy is in Genesis it didn't come from feminism.
I believe the verse says "Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you". My reading of that verse is that in the fallen world, the social order must be patriarchal, where the husband has authority over his wife and has an exclusive claim to her sexually (to guarantee that his children are actually his own). Otherwise women will run amok-- see Janice's essay above.
Admittingly, I haven't read Janices whole article yet. Did you mean the whole article when you said above essay? THANKS
I disagree. The standard feminist position is “we want more than men have.”
I suspect in fact most have no real idea about what they want. Mostly its about what they don't want.... no children, no housework, no hard work, no responsibility, no "judgement", no shame its all no no no no.
You left out the second clause, “and we want men to have none of it.”
Penis envy which is real
The Bible calls woman the 'weaker vessel', which is simply the plain truth. Little wonder that women hate Christianity and Scripture so much. While their own cultures lie and pander to them, the Bible unflinchingly speaks the truth about female constitution and nature.
The Bible isn't the only or final word on humanity and the nature of man and woman. To dismiss women as the "weaker vessel" is to take both man and woman out of the context of nature. Neither man nor woman can be understood without reference to the other. So it is pointless to try and put a final judgment of worth on either.
The Bible IS the final word on humanity and the nature of man and woman. And women ARE 'the weaker vessel'. If the past 50 years of their conduct has not convinced you of that obvious fact, nothing will.
Men trying to play the Equality Hero do women, men, children and their societies no favor, and they keep both women and men from having to face hard truths about themselves.
This should be obvious, but that YOU accept the Bible as the final word does not MAKE it the final word. Furthermore, that you believe it to be the final word means that you are probably a fundamentalist Christian who has been taught to read the Bible literally. Whereas as I view the Bible as a cultural artefact that contains a complex mixture of historical record and instructive metaphor that gives us a window into the psyche of our ancestors. So I doubt that we will agree and get past this point.
Do you think you are tarring me with your 'Fundie Christian' dismissal? Is that an insult in your world? Ho ho ho, just another stoopid Fundie Christian? I probably believe in Santa Claus too, eh?
It is instructive that you imagine your wisdom is greater than God's, and that your wisdom is greater than the collective sages of old. Because, after all, you are the great Steve Brule! :O)
I haven't been 'taught to read the Bible literally' by anybody. You make it sound like I've been brainwashed as a way of dismissing what I have said.
In fact, I came to understand the truth of Scripture very late in my life, and this only after so many hard experiences IN THIS WORLD led me to see that those ancients already knew about the Woman Situation, and about all the other human foibles and problems. Nobody 'taught' me. I do not attend any church and I have no teacher or pastor or leader. It wasn't a conspiracy of fellow Fundie Bible Nuts that, you know, trapped me in their Fundie Cult and put the pressure on me until I cracked.
My experience in life FORCED me to accept that what I believed was false and incomplete, and that what was contained in Scripture was true, because those things were reflected -- over and over -- in this world by real people and real circumstances.
You dismiss out of hand what you don't even vaguely understand, and that is not wisdom.
Although the more accurate word that I was looking for was "inerrant" rather than "literal," I didn't imagine that my assessment of your point of view, which you verified, would trigger such an angry response from you. Your accusations and assessment of me, on the other hand, have no connection with reality, which does not surprise me in the least.
So, as I correctly surmised, we are not going to agree.
Speaking as a non-fundamentalist Christian who sees the Bible as true and who knows that some parts are literal, and others allegorical, etc., I doubt he'd argue that the Bible is the final word because he accepts it as such. Not even the fundiest of fundies thinks that.
Scripture is true regardless of what I think of it. It'd take a massive ego to imagine that What I Believe is the litmus test for truth in the universe. My puny existence neither validates nor invalidates the Bible in some objective way. I have not come to believe -- like so many others that ignore or dismiss Scripture -- that I am my own God and the keeper of all wisdom and truth.
Many parts of Scripture are literal. Some are allegorical. Some are compactions or distillations, as with the Book of Genesis. Portions of that book must be presented in summary or just that one chapter alone would be 20 million words long.
You, sir, are absolutely correct.
AGREED. The bible is most definitely the final word on humanity especially fe-MALE nature. The problem is there are so many FAKE Christians who espouse chivalry instead of scripture, they end up exonerating w0e-MEN from accountability. w0e-MEN are weaker morally not just physically. They need to reap what they sow. So, while I agree that w0e-MEN should be prohibited from decision making roles, I also support holding them to the SAME accountability as a MAN such as signing for the draft etc.
Yes. The denominations are chock-full of 'teachers' and 'pastors' who are chivalric instead of Christian. Woman-pleasers. Wife-pleasers. World-pleasers. Careerists. Not God-pleasers.
The churches in America have become part-and-parcel of feminism. Their presentations and teachings are little different from secular society, and they strive to be accepted in the world rather than be accepted by God.
A friend of mine told me of once sitting in church and having his pastor tell all the men in the pews to turn and apologize to their wives for the wrongs they have done to them. Never would the wives be instructed to apologize to their husbands. That sums it up in a nutshell.
EXACTLY! Thank you, Michael. Real believers know that God created w0e-MAN to be an asset to MAN... not to be center stage
w0e-MEN are definitively more flawed than MEN morally & intellectually due to smaller brain size. The bible as Gods word, is proven in many ways.
BINGO BINGO BINGO! There are many fake Christians who espouse gyno-centrism instead of scripture
I'm an atheist (life-long) so your reference to camp-fire fables...
Considering that Yahweh is probably who you're referring to. He's a circumcising violent child genital mutilator.
What's more anti male and emasculating than that? Than baby boy violent genital torture?
CIRCUMCISION is the conservative's gender reassignment mutilation. Both sides of the political spectrum in the USA seem to love torturing and mutilating children like absolute fools.
Leonard Glick, in the book, "Marked In Your Flesh", I think was the title, he states that circumcsion found the Jews through their enslavement in Egypt....but then there doesn't seem to be much evidence some say for that enslavement to begin with.... regardless...
All non life saving procedures should be banned on all minors. No argument about it.
Circumcision is misandrist emasculation - violent and stupid.
"Freedom and liberty "...."ethics"....
Cultures that do this are debased and perverted.
Circumcision is no longer required by God. I don't know the reason God wanted this and it doesn't change my belief in scripture. I've read that it was not a drastic type of cut like what we know today, it was a much more minor cut. AGREE circumcision should never be done to a baby or a boy unless & until he's of age and wants his dick to look like a mushroom.
None of that changes the lesson of Cain and Abel.
If you isolate the story from the rest of the violent child mutilation nonsense and rubbish in the surrounding texts - then yeah, sure.
If you nullify every story because of something objectionable in its larger culture then you will not have any stories at all.
Agreed.
When you make coffee you filter out the grounds, right? You don't drink them, do you?
Discard what is objectionable and disgusting, retain what is useful. You could apply that to everything.
That being said, some cultures are more palatable than others. That's undeniable.
You tried to pull all of Abrahamic tradition into the story that I used. And now you are backtracking. Make up your mind.
Just for information's sake, the Jewish rite of circumcision as practiced today is radically different from the Old Testament rite. Information about that: https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
"Simply thinking over the unfairness of being female can apparently set off apoplexy"
Some of the best writing on this subject to be found absolutely anywhere. I'm a huge fan, Gay, have thought of myself as a feminist my whole life, and thank you.
I have pondered throughout my 2.5 score years as an adult; "how can a male claim to be a feminist?" Yes we, males, can support women, but a male claiming "I am a woman" doesn't make him a woman! I support people being able to safely identify as they wish, but I reject that this "identification" makes them who/what they identify as nor does it give them the right to force me to acknowledge their identity.
Hi will. Thanks for the comment, but I don't think that's the topic under discussion.
Wow! What an unbelievably great piece. I'll be sharing this everywhere I can. I think you're basically required reading for men's right activists or whatever any one person may wish to call him- or herself.
"Few women spoke afterwards of what had caused their heartless gusto. The White Feather movement strongly suggests that women’s rage against men is not necessarily a result of female suffering. It may be, on the contrary, a fact of female nature that some women indulge and exploit."
I have an interpretation of what "a fact of female nature" may mean here, though I think, based on some things you said later in your article, that you probably mean something different than I do. It seems like women are, on some level, inclined to disregard the vast majority of men as sort of inhuman non-entities, or worse, as unworthy of life. The reason women walked around putting White Feathers in men's coats is because they didn't want to miss their chance to see these unworthy slugs (as the women saw them) finally sent to the meat grinder where they belonged (again, not my view).
It's the same reason that, whenever you read what women have to say about how men are, you get the eerie feeling they're not at all talking about you or any man you've ever met, but about a distinct and small class of men, namely, the men whom those women find attractive, and you realize, in those moments, that for women, no one else but this class of men qualifies as real, human, or deserving of consideration or empathy. The failure to reach the category of the most sexually attractive men is the worst crime any man can commit. It's appalling and unforgivable. No murderer, rapist or pedophile can rouse female hatred faster or more swiftly than the mediocre beta male.
Today, women circulate memes that say things like, "Men used to go to war. Now they make pregnant women stand on buses." I'm starting to think the right way to interpret this and similar statements is a really just a complaint that most men exist at all.
There was a study related to this: "Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/
From Wikipedia:
"This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger than those of men and only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
No, no, men constantly have to compete against each other with many negative consequences for both males and females. Women make “friends,” while men most usually just make “allies.” There’s a huge difference.
??? Are the feminists complaining that men ‘make’ women stand on buses? That just about sums their outright stupidity and entitlement up.
You are a studied and very cool woman, thank you for your post of which I just read, I'm in England, it's basically the same, I'm male 59, and I've witnessed this pointless fury for decades, hysterical history, unprecedented thought processes, me thinks Gil Scott Heron, got that predicted in b movie, bless him 😀
Feminists say letting women rule would be the Best. England had a lady Queen forever and life sucked. Some of the worst PMs were ladies. The wokest and most ridiculous MPs are ladies. WTF. I just point that out, and the feminist heads explode in rage. I beleive in a merit based equal opportunity, if you got the goods to do the job have at it. But if you suck, then fired and no crying about it. I am speaking in general here.
England ~ Margie Thatcher (very bloodthirsty woman) and the other female UK PM's as well as the Nordic and Germanic Female PM's...
Yes, the disaster list of proven lady incompetence is a mile long. Merit-based is the way to go. Fools claiming if only women would rule, the world would be rainbows, and peace, are either ignorant of reality or ideologically possessed. Not sure what else would explain it.
LOL ~ male leaders are just as fallible and manipulated as female leaders and prone to the same narcissistic mistakes
Merit is the point regardless of sex.