Here's how bad it is. I'm a gay guy. Everyone knows this. Few would mistake me for a straight guy.
Yet, just yesterday, and this is certainly not the first time, a feminist accused me of want to rape women and/or find ways to sexually degrade them.
Male, homosexual, friends of mine who are psychotherapists (two in total) refuse to take women clients. Because that would require being in a closed door room with a woman with no witnesses.
Of course, this can only mean that I, and my friends, are liars, or crazy.
The determination to smear all men, stoked for decades by feminist propaganda, is hideous. If I were a male psychotherapist, I would restrict my practice too.
For a short while, there seemed an alliance between gay men and all women (maybe in the 70s), but it didn't last long. The feminist anti-male animus was too strong.
Yes. Many of us gay men realized (too late) that most of these lesbians really do dislike men and will throw us into the Oppressor category as soon as we don't do what mommy says.
Yes, I think it is true that in many people's minds to be gay is to be woke. I never express some mild criticism of reflexive wokeness without getting surprised looks. I used to joke that if I wanted to be sure what I thought about an issue, I'd just ask my colleagues, and they, knowing I was gay, would tell me.
Is this the idea that 'The personal is political'? This is an idea that I'm learning about. That your own personal being, from skin colour to sex, embodies a political statement. Which would mean that you are automatically part of a political group just by birth. The only way to not be part of that group would be to publicly opt out. Otherwise the assumption is you are still in.
Are the majority of gay men on the woke plantation? Most probably are non-political. Of the remaining I would say there would be a left-wing bias. But the number of central to right wing would surprise you.
There have been, unfortunately, several high profile men on the extreme far right who later came out as gay - and I mean neo-nazi skin heads (in the UK that is). While they help to break down stereotypes they really, really aren't the kind of people you want for that role.
I have a couple of gay 'associates' (they aren't friends anymore), who are pro-Brexit, anti-immigration (I can live with that), but it comes with a dose of genuinely ugly racism.
I have a good friend who hangs out at a leftist anti-feminist/pro-male site that includes gay and straight men who sees themselves as progressives/liberals/leftists but not radicals, and definitely not feminist. You might find some interesting discussions there (but I hope you'll come back here too; you can keep me honest).
There was a time when there were genuine demands for equal treatment. There must have been a time when people believed that equality in employment was a demand to judged on your merits and not your sex or sexuality. (That definition didn't last long, did it). Gay men didn't need nor evoke feminism for their civil rights campaigns. Neither did black people for their civil rights movement. Feminism was limited to being pro-woman - with allies (or am I missing something here, Janice? I know that a black man spoke at Senceca Falls in 1848).
Like listening to Emma Watson squeak, in her air-less weak voice, 'if you believe in equality you're automatically a feminist.' Sorry, love, but lots of people argued for and got equality without feminism.
I don't know when feminists decided that feminism was 'for men too'. But if you're a man and you respond with 'I don't want your help, no thanks all the same.' then the knives come out, regardless of your colour or creed.
Feminism is an incoherent creed. It has never cared about men's issues but occasionally proclaims that it does. As you note, a significant number of men, including abolitionist Frederick Douglass, signed the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, which outrageously stated that men had done nothing but oppress women throughout history.
Later on, the leaders of the women's rights movement in the U.S. broke with Douglass when he argued that it was more important, following the Civil War, for black men to have the right to vote than for white (and black) women to have it. He used the argument that women had a proxy vote through their men, and that the black man's need was more urgent than the white woman's. This did sway some suffragists, but not Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
The suffragettes in Britain were avowedly classist, unconcerned with working class men, who didn't have the right to vote and whom the suffragettes either didn't think should vote or simply weren't concerned about. The suffragette bombing and arson campaign damaged the livelihoods and endangered the lives of many working-class men.
The feminists of the Second Wave initially promised men that feminism was about liberating everyone from sex stereotypes. I think this was implicitly an appeal to gay men and men who felt undervalued because they weren't masculine enough. But we know that never went anywhere; I think feminists particularly hate non-masculine men.
In its various intersectional iterations, feminism pretends to speak for men, especially for men oppressed on the various axes of race and sexuality, but it can't stop regarding all men as privileged and dangerous. This became apparent during the Black Lives Matter resurgence in the summer of 2020, when BLM made it clear that black women would lead the movement and black men would have to be grateful.
The 'fag hag' phenomenon was interesting, but I think it was largely illusory. Eventually gay men figured out that straight women enjoyed their company simply because they didn't consider them real men and therefore didn't have to put any real effort into the relationship.
Women are generally more accepting of gays. However, straight men are often put off by flamboyant gays because they give off female signals, which causes discomfort among straight men.
I knew a gay guy who was falsely accused of rape by a woman. It went the whole way to a court case. He was shitting himself. This was around 25 years ago. The story was that he was at a party at some kind of conference held in a hotel. He got friendly with a woman. He was tall, dark, good-looking and American. This took place in London so he had a foreign appeal. They had sex in one of the hotel rooms that had been booked for the conference guests. Why, I don't know. He clearly was up for it. The next day the woman wanted to meet again and take his number. That's when he said he was gay, so it wasn't going to happen. The woman flipped and went ballistic - grabbing her clothes and screaming for him to get out of her room. A couple of days later the police came to his house and he was arrested, questioned and charged with rape. He was looking at 5 - 10 years in jail.
Luckily the other guests at the hotel could be contacted as they were mostly at the same conference. And the hotel was a trendy refurbished factory so the interior walls were thin. And the woman was very vocal in bed. He was able to get a lot of witnesses to say they heard her through the walls going 'Yes! Yes! More! etc...' There was no disputing the affirmative consent (which wasn't even a term back then). I'm sure it was humiliating for the woman to have testimony after testimony repeating her loud moaning, but that was the only punishment she got. He was acquitted. But his health suffered throughout it all. Had it taken place in her own home with no witnesses I don't know what would his defense would have been.
I've heard feminists try to make the argument that consent has to be 'informed' or it isn't really consent. They typically bring up guys who bullshit their way into bed claiming to be rich or whatever. The argument is something like "I wouldn't have had sex with him if I'd known what a loser he really was." In your friend's case, I'm pretty sure she felt like he should have told her he was gay and, because she wouldn't willingly have had sex with him if she knew, he took her against her will.
Or she could have just been pissed because he rejected her. Women have been known to ruin men's lives for less.
It was probably the 2nd case. She probably thought he was 'the one'. He ticked all the boxes.
I agree with you about the inane feminist logic (what other kind is there), about informed consent. How much of your private life do you have to reveal before you have sex? Including bank statements? According to feminist arguments a woman's previous sex life should be irrelevant to the man she is with. Even if she was born male should be irrelevant. So, yeah, informed when it suits me.
And how was the woman defrauded, I wonder? If the man promised her sex and she got it then the agreement was fulfilled. And so what if a man brags that he is rich and then turns out to be poor? The woman wasn't asking for payment. And if he was rich then having sex with him would be no guarantee he would meet her again and share his wealth. So he might as well be poor.
I wish I could remember the source of this story so I could share it, but it was so long ago I just can't. I also might be wrong about some of the details but I'm pretty sure it's essentially correct re the current discussion.
Anyway, some dude goes to a party at the Playboy mansion made up as Jim Carrey's character in the movie 'Mask'. Some number of the women there, under the mistaken impression that he actually was Carrey, engage in sexual activity with him. Then the real Jim Carrey showed up at the party. The women were pissed. Hef was pissed. Nobody much seemed inclined to recognize that the moral virtue of women who sucked some guys dick, in a public setting, whom they didn't know personally well enough to know it wasn't him just because of some green face paint, was maybe not an issue to be much upset over.
I think it is true that most social movements get hijacked by the far left/social justice/intersectional purists. That's how the far left rolls, by taking over legitimate social groups and movements, from animal rights to disability rights, from nature conservation to the credit union movement, and everything else.
I can't speak to the other two, but in the case of Carlson I strongly suspect the sexism allegations to have been a convenient fig leaf. He's been a thorn in the establishment's side for years now, and has been cutting deeper as time went on. One way or the other they needed to get rid of him.
When you have the speaker of the Senate calling for Carlson's ouster how obvious can it be why they got rid of them. The speaker can pontificate with impunity, regardless of the Constitution's first amendment.
This is why sex-segregated work environments usually function better.
Besides the issue of malicious allegations, I think fundamentally the problem is that women are far more sensitive to things that men innately do in "playing around". For example, at my workplace there are some cops who occasionally grab each others' butts and call each other "fags". Or they insult the Muslim guys religion. It's pretty obviously not serious, and nobody gets offended - they all go out and have a beer later. As long as it's just the guys, nobody complains and it doesn't turn into a federal HR case.
Brings to mind the old joke: Men like to insult each other, but they don't really mean it. Women like to compliment each other, and they don't really mean it either.
There certainly are cases where sexual comments cross ethical lines (and quid pro quo is definitely over the line). But having mixed-sex workplaces means things can get misinterpreted and gives cry-bullies too much power.
I'm fortunate that my own line of work/department (IT) is overwhelmingly male and doesn't have any real inter-sexual issues. Which means we can actually get work done.
<I’ve worked in places where I was the only man, and I’ve worked in places where there were no women. The male-only workplaces were far more productive and pleasant.>
<I’ve worked in places where I was the only man, and I’ve worked in places where there were no women. The male-only workplaces were far more productive and pleasant.>
In the past, women and men didn't really have that much to do with each other and I think this solved a lot of problems that we experience today. However, I don't agree that women are more 'sensitive' than men. They can be foul mouthed and kid around as you describe Carlos. My sister in law worked in a factory and described it as such. However, it could have been that the women were in the majority. They certainly teased any young men that worked there! I currently work in an office which is mainly women and there's always issues and dramas. The men stay quiet and out of it.
It is a fundamental tenet of academic feminism that all men somehow benefit from the very small number of men who actually do rape and sexually abuse women. How we benefit, exactly, has never been satisfactorily explained to me. It is, however, deliciously ironic that all women have clearly derived enormous benefit (to be fair, whether they wanted to or not) from the huge number of sexual misconduct allegations and the Draconian responses of the 'patriarchy' to them.
You're supposed to benefit by the fact that rape and sexual abuse make all women afraid and docile, aware of male power, and that's allegedly a great and useful thing for a man, to have women afraid of him (and hostile, and suspicious, and paranoid, and desirous of his persecution too).
That's feminist logic for you. It relies on the fundamental tenet that men want to be feared by women; that men's primary aim is to have power over women, not to love them, have sex with them, marry them, be friends with them, work collegially with them, joke with them, collaborate on projects, etc.
I've never met a man who primarily wanted to "have power" over women, or to make them fear him. I've met a lot of men who cared for women and wanted women to like him. Some wanted primarily to be left alone to do their own thing. The basic untruth of nearly everything feminists start from is staggering.
What I really find interesting is that the exact thing that feminist claim men are doing, ie creating "fear", is exactly what the feminist themselves are doing, but blaming men for it.
Well said Janice. You have described my personal feelings and the feelings of the majority of men I know. Their will always be 'bad' people (men & women) in life but they are a small minority.
It’s either a basic delusion or the fact that feminism is very good at tapping into women’s base fears and emotional reasoning which results in them dispensing with logic or evidence-based reasoning.
I’ve tried getting academic feminists to explain this to me and to demonstrate the actual evidence for the existence of a mass conspiracy on the part of men that is the supposed oppressive patriarchy. They’ve never been able to do it.
It seems to be a new mark of corporate integrity and modernity to fire a man for offenses such as those Janice describes here. The issues involve women, but the larger audience is the nervous consumer and the worried investor. They have to be assured that, by God, this particular company is doing its best in the name of equity, etc. Men pay the price, but so what? The question: What are men learning from these cases?
I don't know what men are learning. But we're all subject to the law of unintended consequences. Especially those emotional ideologues who have zero foresight (how's that 'gender is a social construct' going for the ladies?) So who knows what will happen next.
Men have achieved many great things over the millennia. We didn't suddenly become stupid in 50 years. Something will happen. Exciting, isn't it!
I think these problems are worse in the television industry because lots of the women there are employed for their looks or other sex appeal, so the situation is already charged, similar to the Hollywood actresses and Harvey Weinstein case.
Most men are quite horrified by stories of rape or sexual assault and want to protect women from this kind of thing, so they tend to side with women when there is an accusation. Then obviously some devious women will start making false accusations to gain advantage. I was brought up around not one but two sadistic and dishonest female relatives who'd even go so far as to try to get sympathy for themselves about the awful fights which they'd started, so I've never been that naive about women, but many men do seem to think that women are a lot more angelic than men, and fall for the "believe all women" stuff.
Plus you get the projection, men who would like to behave sexually with some woman or another, and then get jealous when another man seems to have done so, or women who would actually like it if the man did something sexual to them, but can't admit that to themselves, hence projecting that the man is a "predator" or something like that.
One thing which I have noticed about these problems is that the attempts to stamp out the problem do not ever seem to solve it. Supposedly, 1950s bosses would grab women's bottoms or breasts or something, so laws to protect women were brought in, then 1970s bosses would comment on women's cleavage or ask their secretary to wear a short skirt, or something, then that was outlawed, and on and on, and as more and more things are outlawed, we ended up with a situation where even looking at a woman's body, or offering to help her in some way is viewed as sexual harassment or "unwanted sexual attention", and Shell's consensual sexual relationship with Gamble is viewed as "sexual harassment" by some standard or another. So the problem just seems to not be going away, despite all the lawyering.
Agreed. The lawyering makes it worse because the lawyers want to keep the industry going, which is very profitable for them. And there are always going to be unhappy employees (unhappy people) who like the idea of being able to take revenge on someone they don't like, who want confirmation that they've been victimized. Most of us feel under-valued and taken advantage of in some manner, at some point in our working lives. Giving that feeling legal legs is disastrous.
About ten years ago, there was a big survey in Canada purporting to find that 8 out of 10 women had been sexually harassed at work. Of course the definition of harassment was fantastically broad, including having a boss who 'hovered' around you, or being hugged or patted on the shoulder, or someone making a joke. A lawyer interviewed for the article was obviously trolling for clients, encouraging all and sundry to come forward if anything at all had happened that made them (women, mainly) "uncomfortable."
I think there was a problem with domestic violence and sexual abuse. However I don't think it was ever as bad as it was portrayed. Life is not as simple as man bad, woman, good. However, the women's movement which was actually not that popular or getting that much traction made a huge issue about it. This is what activists tend to do, make lurid claims without substance. This has resulted in men losing custody of their children, for example, based on total BS.
Janice herself did a video on how Engels wrote the script for the feminist attack on the family. And women's lib means women's liberation from Western capitalist oppression.
I agree that Engels attacked the family but feminism doesn’t strictly have its roots in Marxism and it need not be anti-capitalist (although I’m sure many feminists have been and/or continue to be socialists).
There have been attempts to resolve the problem of sexual harassment by making one form of behaviour or another unacceptable in the workplace, or other areas where people meet, like exercising at a gym, or travelling on a train.
But what has happened is that, as one or another form of behaviour is outlawed, another and yet another form of behaviour is found to be unacceptable, seemingly to the point that showing even the slightest interest in a woman is now regarded as "sexual harassment". In recent cases, everyday actions such as a man talking to a woman in a parking lot, or a man glancing at a scantily-clad woman in the gym, have been claimed to be unacceptable sexual harassment.
The perfect example of this is someone called Charlotte Proudman. She got her name in the papers after the following incident. She sent a connection request on the web site "linkedin" to an older male colleague called Alexander Carter-Silk. When Carter-Silk agreed to the connection request, he incidentally sent Proudman a message saying that her profile photo was very attractive. Proudman then went on the rampage on Twitter, and then the newspapers, to protest about this comment by Carter-Silk, claiming herself to be the victim of discrimination and sexism, on no other basis than an innocuous compliment on her profile photograph.
The interesting part of this is that Proudman absolutely revels in posting selfies, dousing herself in makeup to appear on the television, describing herself as "Legal Barbie" in a recent post on Twitter and instagram, or engaging in "glam feminism". She's clearly proud of her looks (man), yet she ludicrously claimed to be the victim of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny, on the basis of a very innocuous, everyday compliment on her profile photograph.
I'm not sure how well Proudman's career is going, she seems to be doing legal aid work. None of the people I know that work in the legal profession post things to Twitter of the form "Charlie Farley successfully defended a case ..." in the way that Proudman does. I don't think it's something a very successful lawyer or barrister would do. I doubt whether she's fully trusted by her colleagues. Alexander Carter-Silk is back on Linkedin now, presumably no longer flattering women about their portrait photos.
Proudman behaved liked a complete self-entitled deluded cunt in this regard. And no, I make no apologies for describing her in such terms. The woman is fucking disgrace, but what is even more disgraceful is the way the British media and commentariat lept to her defence resulting in Carter-silk’s career abd reputation being forever destroyed. The animated excrement that is Proudman was positively delighted by the result and had no remorse whatsoever.
Thanks for this. I had no idea the consequences for Carter-Silk were so dire. I thought he was simply chastened and had to apologize, and that was it. I am genuinely stunned.
Charlotte Proudman I would suggest is motivated by things that she won't admit to on the surface.
For example she appears to be using some sort of filter on her selfies and videos to make herself look more attractive, so as I noted above she apparently wants to be desirable as a woman, and wants to get male attention. But she won't admit that.
From the way she bashes Kate Middleton (the UK princess of Wales) I suppose she is jealous of her, and from the way she goes on and on about Leonardo di Caprio's girlfriends I suppose she is jealous of them too.
She also seems to have a streak of malice, and apparently gets pleasure from other people's marital breakdowns and strife. When Tina Turner died recently, she posted a long screed on Twitter about the abuse in the marriage to Ike Turner, her husband. I thought it was in very poor taste to harp on about probably the lowest point in Tina's life just after she had died. Charlotte didn't post anything positive about Tina's achievements except that she was a "survivor".
Great article Janice! Always appreciate your support of mens rights. I would imagine it gets frustrating and seems pointless at times. I know I feel that way. I used to blame the misandrist feminist and narcissistic women for mens social inequalities. However, it's becoming more apparent and disheartening to realize that spineless or narcissistic men in leadership carry the greatest blame. They turn on their own gender. The worse being some men with daughters.
Women, as a group have adapted to changing roles and their inequitable power in our society. Their is no longer a pretense for equality. It's just an empty cliche. Sadly, men as a group, have not adapted to the new reality. Take the Bud Light controversy where a Trans person was put on the beer can. Men mobilized and boycotted the company very quickly and effectively. For frigging beer. It would probably be the same for something sports related. But have a movie or commercial that portrays men as subhuman or moronic and it's crickets. Even worse for a company with a male CEO to throw a male employee under the bus because of liability. A male college administrator siding with a women making false claims of rape.
Hopefully, a critical mass of men and women will evolve in the future to stand up for men. We must overcome the empathy gap in our society. It goes without saying that their are already many brave men and women today who are working for positive changes in men's rights. People like you Janice. I can only hope that men wake up sooner rather than later.
The history of the world isn't just the history of wars, treaties, dynastic marriages etc... It's also the history of men throwing other men under the bus for female approval or fear of female disapproval. Will it ever change? Possibly. I replied to another post where I wondered about the law of unintended consequences. Might this be one: women are seen as precious because 1 uterus is more valuable than 10000 sperm. Feminism has worked hard to devalue motherhood and maternity thinking that this was the very thing that devalued women, (crazy, isn't it?) Not all women are mothers and there are plenty of other roles in society that give women meaning and fulfilment. But 'women' as a population probably rely on a certain birth rate to be considered more precious and valuable than men. What will happen to that natural empathy when birth rates decline to below replacement levels? Women become seen as utilitarian like men? That would be one helluva shock.
Just don’t engage with women (ever), whatever the context, apply the Mike Pence rules in all your interactions with them, and use the services of hookers if you crave sex and intimacy.
This is the only safe policy for men to institute these days.
Before it was the Mike Pence rule, it was the Billy Graham rule. Strictly speaking, it is not a Biblical *rule*, but it's clear where Graham took his inspiration.
Ancient Israel's King Solomon--humbled near the end of a wildly promiscuous life that takes the whole kingdom down (https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1st+kings+11)--reflects on what his mother taught him: "Do not give your strength to women, or your ways to that which destroys kings." (Proverbs 31:3) That's not incel; it's fidelity in monogamy--what used to be called prudence, back when prudence was a more positive word.
It’s not right to disparage women. If you do, it’s no different than what the feminists do against men. I understand your frustration, but we’re all in this boat together. we should speak out against the haters of both genders that want to divide us.
How is using hookers different than engaging with women, exactly? I would imagine that hookers would be far more likely to be the kind of women you're not safe to interact with than almost anyone else.
Some people were agitated by Carlson but I agreed with much he said. Mostly, men are doing what they always have. Far greater change can be found in the lives, education, opportunities and attitudes of women. Much of this I support, but political ideologies always go too far. Men like you and I need to adjust to the new world, because it is now reality. This is difficult, and we will make mistakes as we adjust, but until we do that women cannot adjust to the new reality we create.
Like any real male abuser who likes a good feel up of a women, when it comes to taking a piece of male power for themselves, these women just couldn't help themselves.
It what sense am I disparaging women as a class? Rather I’m disparaging the attitude promulgated by many feminists and the law that men as a whole cannot be trusted to behave themselves and that because of centuries of apparent oppression, men now need to be punished by way of revenge by weaponising allegations of sexual misconduct. If it gets more men locked up, who cares whether the original allegations were true?
For what it’s worth, I adore women and will, like most men, go to extreme lengths to protect and promote their interests. But that said, I will not expose myself to the extreme risk of having my reputation and my livelihood destroyed just because I happen to be a man.
I don’t like having to institute the policies I’m advocating. I hate it. But until such time as it is safe for me to interact with women as it used to be, I have no choice.
Daphne Patai, predicted that this would happen, I am not sure if it was in her book or a short article she wrote as I can't find the reference anymore.
Patai predicted it all. I think her book *Heterophobia* is the most brilliant and prophetic analysis of feminism we have. Most of her examples are from the early 1990s, showing that all of this was already happening 30 years ago.
In her book, she referred to the work of Joel Best and how the claim makers will expand the domain of their claim once they have laid the foundations for their argument.
There is a covert process, I believe where people get on board to provide support in order to feel they are doing good, but in reality, they become foot soldiers who are unaware that they are be used and manipulated.
You once said that you thought partaking in protests changes the brain. It does!
The emotional high, you said that that was addictive and it is. It is I believe a similar feeling to what frill seekers experience. The next is that after the high, there is a release of oxytocin.
So the people who are addicted to the high continually seek the emotional reward.
About Lemon, I think the distinction between "sexual prime" and "political prime" is important here. No one expects a hot 20 year old to run for president, just as no one should expect a 50 year old seasoned campaigner to be a swimsuit model. To say, as he did, that after a certain age women aren't good for ANYTHING--not sex and not politics--is grossly misogynistic.
You've vastly extrapolated from his off-the-cuff comments and taken them out of context. He didn't say women in their 50s weren't good for anything (please show me where he said anything close to that) and he also apologized for what he did say. He did say that Nikki Haley was not considered to be in her prime and shouldn't be accusing others of needing cognitive competency tests. It was an issue that she started., but as with so many female politicians, she seems to assume she should be able to say whatever she wants about older white men, but if anyone says anything back to her, even the mildest of common-sense statements, she hits the roof in poor-me outrage.
But let's give her the right to her outrage--yours too, if that's how you want to feel. To then go on to celebrate the firing of the man is "grossly" (to use your word) narcissistic, petty, and vindictive. You'd almost think she was trying to prove the truth of sexist stereotypes about women.
I think they pulled the plug on Lemon because they either know about or see a big liability issue with him… he puts the lie to how ‘harmless homosexuality really is.
Both gay men and straight men tend to pursue sex quite openly. I think we can agree that sexual assault, whether gay or straight, is unacceptable. I'm interested by how very few gay men complain about being complimented, propositioned, leered at, joked with, romantically pursued, etc. Such complaints are primarily a power move by women, who know how effective they are.
Agree, and I never thought about the compliment thing but now that I do don’t you think it has a lot to do with finding an agreeable parter in a smaller field.
So true. I figured out early in my career that almost anything I said to a woman co-worker could be weaponized, and even though most women (well, a lot of them anyway) wouldn't do that, it only takes one.
We're not on side, you and I. I don't believe in "misogyny" the way you seem to. I think it's an over-determined word. We do not agree. We don't share goals.
I acknowledge how awful the transsexuals are (the women are awful to men, too, but you won't credit that, I know). Like you, I suspect, I think they're dangerous and disturbed.
But I do **not** agree with you about "misogyny", and I do notice you consciously ignored what I said above. So I'm hostile to you as a conversational partner.
I want this to be a space for pro-male and anti-feminist conversations. I agree with Josh that misogyny is not a very useful word, and while I can see a lot of hostility in some trans women, I wouldn't say that trans women are in general motivated by misogyny. You don't tend to want to become an identity you also despise. I don't tend to believe in misogyny either--the dynamics between men and women, and within each sex, tend to be more subtle and complex than that.
While innocent men are being booted from their jobs based on accusations let me tell you a story.
A young man complained that a female teacher mistreated him when he was in elementary school, so the school told him to go contact the school board, who then told him to contact the local police.
When the young man went to the division where the incidents happened, the detective was gathering information against him, to use for a criminal harassment investigation.
The detective quietly told him that the Toronto District School Board itself was telling the police department to pursue criminal charges.
This is how the feminists deflect responsibility for their actions. They cry harassment and then the police have to investigate the male complainant. Toronto Police have been forced to enforce the feminist law in Canada.
A more recent case is where a male student at a Toronto University was committed to a hospital for a psychological evaluation, and later criminally charged by police in the doctor's community. Again, the feminists are aware of how to deflect responsibility for their actions.
So grateful for your essays, Janice.
Here's how bad it is. I'm a gay guy. Everyone knows this. Few would mistake me for a straight guy.
Yet, just yesterday, and this is certainly not the first time, a feminist accused me of want to rape women and/or find ways to sexually degrade them.
Male, homosexual, friends of mine who are psychotherapists (two in total) refuse to take women clients. Because that would require being in a closed door room with a woman with no witnesses.
Of course, this can only mean that I, and my friends, are liars, or crazy.
The determination to smear all men, stoked for decades by feminist propaganda, is hideous. If I were a male psychotherapist, I would restrict my practice too.
For a short while, there seemed an alliance between gay men and all women (maybe in the 70s), but it didn't last long. The feminist anti-male animus was too strong.
Yes. Many of us gay men realized (too late) that most of these lesbians really do dislike men and will throw us into the Oppressor category as soon as we don't do what mommy says.
And yet the vast majority of gays remain on the woke plantation, no?
Yes, I think it is true that in many people's minds to be gay is to be woke. I never express some mild criticism of reflexive wokeness without getting surprised looks. I used to joke that if I wanted to be sure what I thought about an issue, I'd just ask my colleagues, and they, knowing I was gay, would tell me.
They do. It's demoralizing. I'm persona non grata with most gays. Fine with me.
Is this the idea that 'The personal is political'? This is an idea that I'm learning about. That your own personal being, from skin colour to sex, embodies a political statement. Which would mean that you are automatically part of a political group just by birth. The only way to not be part of that group would be to publicly opt out. Otherwise the assumption is you are still in.
Are the majority of gay men on the woke plantation? Most probably are non-political. Of the remaining I would say there would be a left-wing bias. But the number of central to right wing would surprise you.
There have been, unfortunately, several high profile men on the extreme far right who later came out as gay - and I mean neo-nazi skin heads (in the UK that is). While they help to break down stereotypes they really, really aren't the kind of people you want for that role.
I have a couple of gay 'associates' (they aren't friends anymore), who are pro-Brexit, anti-immigration (I can live with that), but it comes with a dose of genuinely ugly racism.
I have a good friend who hangs out at a leftist anti-feminist/pro-male site that includes gay and straight men who sees themselves as progressives/liberals/leftists but not radicals, and definitely not feminist. You might find some interesting discussions there (but I hope you'll come back here too; you can keep me honest).
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/
There was a time when there were genuine demands for equal treatment. There must have been a time when people believed that equality in employment was a demand to judged on your merits and not your sex or sexuality. (That definition didn't last long, did it). Gay men didn't need nor evoke feminism for their civil rights campaigns. Neither did black people for their civil rights movement. Feminism was limited to being pro-woman - with allies (or am I missing something here, Janice? I know that a black man spoke at Senceca Falls in 1848).
Like listening to Emma Watson squeak, in her air-less weak voice, 'if you believe in equality you're automatically a feminist.' Sorry, love, but lots of people argued for and got equality without feminism.
I don't know when feminists decided that feminism was 'for men too'. But if you're a man and you respond with 'I don't want your help, no thanks all the same.' then the knives come out, regardless of your colour or creed.
Feminism is an incoherent creed. It has never cared about men's issues but occasionally proclaims that it does. As you note, a significant number of men, including abolitionist Frederick Douglass, signed the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, which outrageously stated that men had done nothing but oppress women throughout history.
Later on, the leaders of the women's rights movement in the U.S. broke with Douglass when he argued that it was more important, following the Civil War, for black men to have the right to vote than for white (and black) women to have it. He used the argument that women had a proxy vote through their men, and that the black man's need was more urgent than the white woman's. This did sway some suffragists, but not Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
The suffragettes in Britain were avowedly classist, unconcerned with working class men, who didn't have the right to vote and whom the suffragettes either didn't think should vote or simply weren't concerned about. The suffragette bombing and arson campaign damaged the livelihoods and endangered the lives of many working-class men.
The feminists of the Second Wave initially promised men that feminism was about liberating everyone from sex stereotypes. I think this was implicitly an appeal to gay men and men who felt undervalued because they weren't masculine enough. But we know that never went anywhere; I think feminists particularly hate non-masculine men.
In its various intersectional iterations, feminism pretends to speak for men, especially for men oppressed on the various axes of race and sexuality, but it can't stop regarding all men as privileged and dangerous. This became apparent during the Black Lives Matter resurgence in the summer of 2020, when BLM made it clear that black women would lead the movement and black men would have to be grateful.
"There was a time when there were genuine demands for equal treatment."
I remember that time. It lasted about five minutes.
The 'fag hag' phenomenon was interesting, but I think it was largely illusory. Eventually gay men figured out that straight women enjoyed their company simply because they didn't consider them real men and therefore didn't have to put any real effort into the relationship.
Was it maybe also a proto-woke fashion to hang with gays?
Women are generally more accepting of gays. However, straight men are often put off by flamboyant gays because they give off female signals, which causes discomfort among straight men.
I knew a gay guy who was falsely accused of rape by a woman. It went the whole way to a court case. He was shitting himself. This was around 25 years ago. The story was that he was at a party at some kind of conference held in a hotel. He got friendly with a woman. He was tall, dark, good-looking and American. This took place in London so he had a foreign appeal. They had sex in one of the hotel rooms that had been booked for the conference guests. Why, I don't know. He clearly was up for it. The next day the woman wanted to meet again and take his number. That's when he said he was gay, so it wasn't going to happen. The woman flipped and went ballistic - grabbing her clothes and screaming for him to get out of her room. A couple of days later the police came to his house and he was arrested, questioned and charged with rape. He was looking at 5 - 10 years in jail.
Luckily the other guests at the hotel could be contacted as they were mostly at the same conference. And the hotel was a trendy refurbished factory so the interior walls were thin. And the woman was very vocal in bed. He was able to get a lot of witnesses to say they heard her through the walls going 'Yes! Yes! More! etc...' There was no disputing the affirmative consent (which wasn't even a term back then). I'm sure it was humiliating for the woman to have testimony after testimony repeating her loud moaning, but that was the only punishment she got. He was acquitted. But his health suffered throughout it all. Had it taken place in her own home with no witnesses I don't know what would his defense would have been.
I've heard feminists try to make the argument that consent has to be 'informed' or it isn't really consent. They typically bring up guys who bullshit their way into bed claiming to be rich or whatever. The argument is something like "I wouldn't have had sex with him if I'd known what a loser he really was." In your friend's case, I'm pretty sure she felt like he should have told her he was gay and, because she wouldn't willingly have had sex with him if she knew, he took her against her will.
Or she could have just been pissed because he rejected her. Women have been known to ruin men's lives for less.
It was probably the 2nd case. She probably thought he was 'the one'. He ticked all the boxes.
I agree with you about the inane feminist logic (what other kind is there), about informed consent. How much of your private life do you have to reveal before you have sex? Including bank statements? According to feminist arguments a woman's previous sex life should be irrelevant to the man she is with. Even if she was born male should be irrelevant. So, yeah, informed when it suits me.
And how was the woman defrauded, I wonder? If the man promised her sex and she got it then the agreement was fulfilled. And so what if a man brags that he is rich and then turns out to be poor? The woman wasn't asking for payment. And if he was rich then having sex with him would be no guarantee he would meet her again and share his wealth. So he might as well be poor.
I wish I could remember the source of this story so I could share it, but it was so long ago I just can't. I also might be wrong about some of the details but I'm pretty sure it's essentially correct re the current discussion.
Anyway, some dude goes to a party at the Playboy mansion made up as Jim Carrey's character in the movie 'Mask'. Some number of the women there, under the mistaken impression that he actually was Carrey, engage in sexual activity with him. Then the real Jim Carrey showed up at the party. The women were pissed. Hef was pissed. Nobody much seemed inclined to recognize that the moral virtue of women who sucked some guys dick, in a public setting, whom they didn't know personally well enough to know it wasn't him just because of some green face paint, was maybe not an issue to be much upset over.
Love you Josh. You make me laugh. You are a breathe of fresh air, and a real welcome member of the commentariat.
I think it is true that most social movements get hijacked by the far left/social justice/intersectional purists. That's how the far left rolls, by taking over legitimate social groups and movements, from animal rights to disability rights, from nature conservation to the credit union movement, and everything else.
Cancerous would be putting it mildly.
I can't speak to the other two, but in the case of Carlson I strongly suspect the sexism allegations to have been a convenient fig leaf. He's been a thorn in the establishment's side for years now, and has been cutting deeper as time went on. One way or the other they needed to get rid of him.
When you have the speaker of the Senate calling for Carlson's ouster how obvious can it be why they got rid of them. The speaker can pontificate with impunity, regardless of the Constitution's first amendment.
This is why sex-segregated work environments usually function better.
Besides the issue of malicious allegations, I think fundamentally the problem is that women are far more sensitive to things that men innately do in "playing around". For example, at my workplace there are some cops who occasionally grab each others' butts and call each other "fags". Or they insult the Muslim guys religion. It's pretty obviously not serious, and nobody gets offended - they all go out and have a beer later. As long as it's just the guys, nobody complains and it doesn't turn into a federal HR case.
Brings to mind the old joke: Men like to insult each other, but they don't really mean it. Women like to compliment each other, and they don't really mean it either.
There certainly are cases where sexual comments cross ethical lines (and quid pro quo is definitely over the line). But having mixed-sex workplaces means things can get misinterpreted and gives cry-bullies too much power.
I'm fortunate that my own line of work/department (IT) is overwhelmingly male and doesn't have any real inter-sexual issues. Which means we can actually get work done.
I come from an IT background and it's true for now. Give it 2-4 years and it will be very different.
The is a article about the Single sex workplace and it states exactly the same thing
What is?
<I’ve worked in places where I was the only man, and I’ve worked in places where there were no women. The male-only workplaces were far more productive and pleasant.>
Secrets of the single-sex workplace
Darren Blacksmith
Website Kitten News
<I’ve worked in places where I was the only man, and I’ve worked in places where there were no women. The male-only workplaces were far more productive and pleasant.>
Archived at Pandora the National Library
In the past, women and men didn't really have that much to do with each other and I think this solved a lot of problems that we experience today. However, I don't agree that women are more 'sensitive' than men. They can be foul mouthed and kid around as you describe Carlos. My sister in law worked in a factory and described it as such. However, it could have been that the women were in the majority. They certainly teased any young men that worked there! I currently work in an office which is mainly women and there's always issues and dramas. The men stay quiet and out of it.
There is an episode on Friends where two of the girls are fighting each other and Joey steps in and in an instant they both turn on him.
Maybe I'll do that software engineering course after all.
It is a fundamental tenet of academic feminism that all men somehow benefit from the very small number of men who actually do rape and sexually abuse women. How we benefit, exactly, has never been satisfactorily explained to me. It is, however, deliciously ironic that all women have clearly derived enormous benefit (to be fair, whether they wanted to or not) from the huge number of sexual misconduct allegations and the Draconian responses of the 'patriarchy' to them.
You're supposed to benefit by the fact that rape and sexual abuse make all women afraid and docile, aware of male power, and that's allegedly a great and useful thing for a man, to have women afraid of him (and hostile, and suspicious, and paranoid, and desirous of his persecution too).
That's feminist logic for you. It relies on the fundamental tenet that men want to be feared by women; that men's primary aim is to have power over women, not to love them, have sex with them, marry them, be friends with them, work collegially with them, joke with them, collaborate on projects, etc.
I've never met a man who primarily wanted to "have power" over women, or to make them fear him. I've met a lot of men who cared for women and wanted women to like him. Some wanted primarily to be left alone to do their own thing. The basic untruth of nearly everything feminists start from is staggering.
Feminist: Men have enormous privilege over women and use their institutional power to oppress us.
Man: What privilege? What privileges do we have that you don't?
Feminist: You can silence us, for a start. Just your strength and size intimidates us into not speaking our truth. Don't deny my lived experience.
Man: Well I don't think so but let's give it a try. Shut up and make me a sandwich.
Feminist (face contorted with astonished rage, kicking man in the testicles): Who the FUCK do you think you are?!?!?
ALWAYS assume projection on the part of feminists.
Confession through projection is a classic Barnesism.
What I really find interesting is that the exact thing that feminist claim men are doing, ie creating "fear", is exactly what the feminist themselves are doing, but blaming men for it.
That's why one of the posters here used the term "cry bullies".
Marxists do it too.
Oh, so THAT'S why women always do what I want, because they're afraid of me, I replied as I rolled my eyes so hard it made me dizzy.
Well said Janice. You have described my personal feelings and the feelings of the majority of men I know. Their will always be 'bad' people (men & women) in life but they are a small minority.
It’s either a basic delusion or the fact that feminism is very good at tapping into women’s base fears and emotional reasoning which results in them dispensing with logic or evidence-based reasoning.
I’ve tried getting academic feminists to explain this to me and to demonstrate the actual evidence for the existence of a mass conspiracy on the part of men that is the supposed oppressive patriarchy. They’ve never been able to do it.
What you mean is that you 'denied their lived experience'.. lol
It seems to be a new mark of corporate integrity and modernity to fire a man for offenses such as those Janice describes here. The issues involve women, but the larger audience is the nervous consumer and the worried investor. They have to be assured that, by God, this particular company is doing its best in the name of equity, etc. Men pay the price, but so what? The question: What are men learning from these cases?
I don't know what men are learning. But we're all subject to the law of unintended consequences. Especially those emotional ideologues who have zero foresight (how's that 'gender is a social construct' going for the ladies?) So who knows what will happen next.
Men have achieved many great things over the millennia. We didn't suddenly become stupid in 50 years. Something will happen. Exciting, isn't it!
In the Canadian public sector, it’s just a complaint from a female which leads to a man getting canned. No one is there to help the man.
I think these problems are worse in the television industry because lots of the women there are employed for their looks or other sex appeal, so the situation is already charged, similar to the Hollywood actresses and Harvey Weinstein case.
Most men are quite horrified by stories of rape or sexual assault and want to protect women from this kind of thing, so they tend to side with women when there is an accusation. Then obviously some devious women will start making false accusations to gain advantage. I was brought up around not one but two sadistic and dishonest female relatives who'd even go so far as to try to get sympathy for themselves about the awful fights which they'd started, so I've never been that naive about women, but many men do seem to think that women are a lot more angelic than men, and fall for the "believe all women" stuff.
Plus you get the projection, men who would like to behave sexually with some woman or another, and then get jealous when another man seems to have done so, or women who would actually like it if the man did something sexual to them, but can't admit that to themselves, hence projecting that the man is a "predator" or something like that.
One thing which I have noticed about these problems is that the attempts to stamp out the problem do not ever seem to solve it. Supposedly, 1950s bosses would grab women's bottoms or breasts or something, so laws to protect women were brought in, then 1970s bosses would comment on women's cleavage or ask their secretary to wear a short skirt, or something, then that was outlawed, and on and on, and as more and more things are outlawed, we ended up with a situation where even looking at a woman's body, or offering to help her in some way is viewed as sexual harassment or "unwanted sexual attention", and Shell's consensual sexual relationship with Gamble is viewed as "sexual harassment" by some standard or another. So the problem just seems to not be going away, despite all the lawyering.
Agreed. The lawyering makes it worse because the lawyers want to keep the industry going, which is very profitable for them. And there are always going to be unhappy employees (unhappy people) who like the idea of being able to take revenge on someone they don't like, who want confirmation that they've been victimized. Most of us feel under-valued and taken advantage of in some manner, at some point in our working lives. Giving that feeling legal legs is disastrous.
About ten years ago, there was a big survey in Canada purporting to find that 8 out of 10 women had been sexually harassed at work. Of course the definition of harassment was fantastically broad, including having a boss who 'hovered' around you, or being hugged or patted on the shoulder, or someone making a joke. A lawyer interviewed for the article was obviously trolling for clients, encouraging all and sundry to come forward if anything at all had happened that made them (women, mainly) "uncomfortable."
I think there was a problem with domestic violence and sexual abuse. However I don't think it was ever as bad as it was portrayed. Life is not as simple as man bad, woman, good. However, the women's movement which was actually not that popular or getting that much traction made a huge issue about it. This is what activists tend to do, make lurid claims without substance. This has resulted in men losing custody of their children, for example, based on total BS.
Feminism is a form of Marxism. Men losing custody of children means the State gets more say in the lives of those children.
Feminism is not Marxism--at least not orthodox Marxism. Feminism is its own thing.
Janice herself did a video on how Engels wrote the script for the feminist attack on the family. And women's lib means women's liberation from Western capitalist oppression.
Feminism is orthodox Marxism.
I agree that Engels attacked the family but feminism doesn’t strictly have its roots in Marxism and it need not be anti-capitalist (although I’m sure many feminists have been and/or continue to be socialists).
There have been attempts to resolve the problem of sexual harassment by making one form of behaviour or another unacceptable in the workplace, or other areas where people meet, like exercising at a gym, or travelling on a train.
But what has happened is that, as one or another form of behaviour is outlawed, another and yet another form of behaviour is found to be unacceptable, seemingly to the point that showing even the slightest interest in a woman is now regarded as "sexual harassment". In recent cases, everyday actions such as a man talking to a woman in a parking lot, or a man glancing at a scantily-clad woman in the gym, have been claimed to be unacceptable sexual harassment.
The perfect example of this is someone called Charlotte Proudman. She got her name in the papers after the following incident. She sent a connection request on the web site "linkedin" to an older male colleague called Alexander Carter-Silk. When Carter-Silk agreed to the connection request, he incidentally sent Proudman a message saying that her profile photo was very attractive. Proudman then went on the rampage on Twitter, and then the newspapers, to protest about this comment by Carter-Silk, claiming herself to be the victim of discrimination and sexism, on no other basis than an innocuous compliment on her profile photograph.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/08/charlotte-proudman-alexander-carter-silk-linkedin-photo-comment-law-firms
The interesting part of this is that Proudman absolutely revels in posting selfies, dousing herself in makeup to appear on the television, describing herself as "Legal Barbie" in a recent post on Twitter and instagram, or engaging in "glam feminism". She's clearly proud of her looks (man), yet she ludicrously claimed to be the victim of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny, on the basis of a very innocuous, everyday compliment on her profile photograph.
I will never forget this incident. It seemed the unofficial beginning of what would become MeToo; and it didn't damage Proudman's career one whit.
I wonder what happened to poor Alexander Carter-Silk. He fell all over himself apologizing at the time.
He had to give a career as a solicitor. I’ve no idea what he’s doing now.
No fucking consequences for Proudman.
I didn't know that. Wow. I am sickened.
I'm not sure how well Proudman's career is going, she seems to be doing legal aid work. None of the people I know that work in the legal profession post things to Twitter of the form "Charlie Farley successfully defended a case ..." in the way that Proudman does. I don't think it's something a very successful lawyer or barrister would do. I doubt whether she's fully trusted by her colleagues. Alexander Carter-Silk is back on Linkedin now, presumably no longer flattering women about their portrait photos.
Proudman behaved liked a complete self-entitled deluded cunt in this regard. And no, I make no apologies for describing her in such terms. The woman is fucking disgrace, but what is even more disgraceful is the way the British media and commentariat lept to her defence resulting in Carter-silk’s career abd reputation being forever destroyed. The animated excrement that is Proudman was positively delighted by the result and had no remorse whatsoever.
She isn’t fit to be a lawyer.
Thanks for this. I had no idea the consequences for Carter-Silk were so dire. I thought he was simply chastened and had to apologize, and that was it. I am genuinely stunned.
Charlotte Proudman I would suggest is motivated by things that she won't admit to on the surface.
For example she appears to be using some sort of filter on her selfies and videos to make herself look more attractive, so as I noted above she apparently wants to be desirable as a woman, and wants to get male attention. But she won't admit that.
From the way she bashes Kate Middleton (the UK princess of Wales) I suppose she is jealous of her, and from the way she goes on and on about Leonardo di Caprio's girlfriends I suppose she is jealous of them too.
She also seems to have a streak of malice, and apparently gets pleasure from other people's marital breakdowns and strife. When Tina Turner died recently, she posted a long screed on Twitter about the abuse in the marriage to Ike Turner, her husband. I thought it was in very poor taste to harp on about probably the lowest point in Tina's life just after she had died. Charlotte didn't post anything positive about Tina's achievements except that she was a "survivor".
Great article Janice! Always appreciate your support of mens rights. I would imagine it gets frustrating and seems pointless at times. I know I feel that way. I used to blame the misandrist feminist and narcissistic women for mens social inequalities. However, it's becoming more apparent and disheartening to realize that spineless or narcissistic men in leadership carry the greatest blame. They turn on their own gender. The worse being some men with daughters.
Women, as a group have adapted to changing roles and their inequitable power in our society. Their is no longer a pretense for equality. It's just an empty cliche. Sadly, men as a group, have not adapted to the new reality. Take the Bud Light controversy where a Trans person was put on the beer can. Men mobilized and boycotted the company very quickly and effectively. For frigging beer. It would probably be the same for something sports related. But have a movie or commercial that portrays men as subhuman or moronic and it's crickets. Even worse for a company with a male CEO to throw a male employee under the bus because of liability. A male college administrator siding with a women making false claims of rape.
Hopefully, a critical mass of men and women will evolve in the future to stand up for men. We must overcome the empathy gap in our society. It goes without saying that their are already many brave men and women today who are working for positive changes in men's rights. People like you Janice. I can only hope that men wake up sooner rather than later.
The history of the world isn't just the history of wars, treaties, dynastic marriages etc... It's also the history of men throwing other men under the bus for female approval or fear of female disapproval. Will it ever change? Possibly. I replied to another post where I wondered about the law of unintended consequences. Might this be one: women are seen as precious because 1 uterus is more valuable than 10000 sperm. Feminism has worked hard to devalue motherhood and maternity thinking that this was the very thing that devalued women, (crazy, isn't it?) Not all women are mothers and there are plenty of other roles in society that give women meaning and fulfilment. But 'women' as a population probably rely on a certain birth rate to be considered more precious and valuable than men. What will happen to that natural empathy when birth rates decline to below replacement levels? Women become seen as utilitarian like men? That would be one helluva shock.
Just don’t engage with women (ever), whatever the context, apply the Mike Pence rules in all your interactions with them, and use the services of hookers if you crave sex and intimacy.
This is the only safe policy for men to institute these days.
Before it was the Mike Pence rule, it was the Billy Graham rule. Strictly speaking, it is not a Biblical *rule*, but it's clear where Graham took his inspiration.
Ancient Israel's King Solomon--humbled near the end of a wildly promiscuous life that takes the whole kingdom down (https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1st+kings+11)--reflects on what his mother taught him: "Do not give your strength to women, or your ways to that which destroys kings." (Proverbs 31:3) That's not incel; it's fidelity in monogamy--what used to be called prudence, back when prudence was a more positive word.
It's still a great word for people who think! Thanks for this, welcome!
It’s not right to disparage women. If you do, it’s no different than what the feminists do against men. I understand your frustration, but we’re all in this boat together. we should speak out against the haters of both genders that want to divide us.
How is using hookers different than engaging with women, exactly? I would imagine that hookers would be far more likely to be the kind of women you're not safe to interact with than almost anyone else.
The Mike Pence procedure is starting to look very sensible; but for all men, not just married ones.
Some people were agitated by Carlson but I agreed with much he said. Mostly, men are doing what they always have. Far greater change can be found in the lives, education, opportunities and attitudes of women. Much of this I support, but political ideologies always go too far. Men like you and I need to adjust to the new world, because it is now reality. This is difficult, and we will make mistakes as we adjust, but until we do that women cannot adjust to the new reality we create.
I think the "adjustment" to the "new reality" is to reclaim our balls and PUSH THE FUCK BACK ON THIS SHIT!!!
Like any real male abuser who likes a good feel up of a women, when it comes to taking a piece of male power for themselves, these women just couldn't help themselves.
It what sense am I disparaging women as a class? Rather I’m disparaging the attitude promulgated by many feminists and the law that men as a whole cannot be trusted to behave themselves and that because of centuries of apparent oppression, men now need to be punished by way of revenge by weaponising allegations of sexual misconduct. If it gets more men locked up, who cares whether the original allegations were true?
For what it’s worth, I adore women and will, like most men, go to extreme lengths to protect and promote their interests. But that said, I will not expose myself to the extreme risk of having my reputation and my livelihood destroyed just because I happen to be a man.
I don’t like having to institute the policies I’m advocating. I hate it. But until such time as it is safe for me to interact with women as it used to be, I have no choice.
Is that really so difficult to understand?
Daphne Patai, predicted that this would happen, I am not sure if it was in her book or a short article she wrote as I can't find the reference anymore.
Patai predicted it all. I think her book *Heterophobia* is the most brilliant and prophetic analysis of feminism we have. Most of her examples are from the early 1990s, showing that all of this was already happening 30 years ago.
In her book, she referred to the work of Joel Best and how the claim makers will expand the domain of their claim once they have laid the foundations for their argument.
There is a covert process, I believe where people get on board to provide support in order to feel they are doing good, but in reality, they become foot soldiers who are unaware that they are be used and manipulated.
Yes, we'll said. That's the process.
You once said that you thought partaking in protests changes the brain. It does!
The emotional high, you said that that was addictive and it is. It is I believe a similar feeling to what frill seekers experience. The next is that after the high, there is a release of oxytocin.
So the people who are addicted to the high continually seek the emotional reward.
About Lemon, I think the distinction between "sexual prime" and "political prime" is important here. No one expects a hot 20 year old to run for president, just as no one should expect a 50 year old seasoned campaigner to be a swimsuit model. To say, as he did, that after a certain age women aren't good for ANYTHING--not sex and not politics--is grossly misogynistic.
You've vastly extrapolated from his off-the-cuff comments and taken them out of context. He didn't say women in their 50s weren't good for anything (please show me where he said anything close to that) and he also apologized for what he did say. He did say that Nikki Haley was not considered to be in her prime and shouldn't be accusing others of needing cognitive competency tests. It was an issue that she started., but as with so many female politicians, she seems to assume she should be able to say whatever she wants about older white men, but if anyone says anything back to her, even the mildest of common-sense statements, she hits the roof in poor-me outrage.
But let's give her the right to her outrage--yours too, if that's how you want to feel. To then go on to celebrate the firing of the man is "grossly" (to use your word) narcissistic, petty, and vindictive. You'd almost think she was trying to prove the truth of sexist stereotypes about women.
There goes that easy "misogyny" claim again.
Women---you're the same as the black people crying "racist!" every time something doesn't go their way.
"How dare you disagree with me!" is the best definition I have seen. The Rantings of a Single Male, David Ellis
Hate speech laws are now being used to legally prevent disagreement.
I think they pulled the plug on Lemon because they either know about or see a big liability issue with him… he puts the lie to how ‘harmless homosexuality really is.
Both gay men and straight men tend to pursue sex quite openly. I think we can agree that sexual assault, whether gay or straight, is unacceptable. I'm interested by how very few gay men complain about being complimented, propositioned, leered at, joked with, romantically pursued, etc. Such complaints are primarily a power move by women, who know how effective they are.
Agree, and I never thought about the compliment thing but now that I do don’t you think it has a lot to do with finding an agreeable parter in a smaller field.
Bingo on the power play!
Sadly, they are hurting the majority of decent women by creating fear and resentment in their workplace towards women.
So true. I figured out early in my career that almost anything I said to a woman co-worker could be weaponized, and even though most women (well, a lot of them anyway) wouldn't do that, it only takes one.
You're doing the feminists work for them. These bitches accuse gay men of being "the worst misogynists", and you repeat it.
We're not.
The worst misogynists are the militant M2F transsexuals
We're not on side, you and I. I don't believe in "misogyny" the way you seem to. I think it's an over-determined word. We do not agree. We don't share goals.
I acknowledge how awful the transsexuals are (the women are awful to men, too, but you won't credit that, I know). Like you, I suspect, I think they're dangerous and disturbed.
But I do **not** agree with you about "misogyny", and I do notice you consciously ignored what I said above. So I'm hostile to you as a conversational partner.
Many women seem to be calling the whole trans movement misogynistic and see it as a sly ruse by the patriarchy. You can't reason with them.
Here’s a great idea… don’t engage with me then!
I want this to be a space for pro-male and anti-feminist conversations. I agree with Josh that misogyny is not a very useful word, and while I can see a lot of hostility in some trans women, I wouldn't say that trans women are in general motivated by misogyny. You don't tend to want to become an identity you also despise. I don't tend to believe in misogyny either--the dynamics between men and women, and within each sex, tend to be more subtle and complex than that.
While innocent men are being booted from their jobs based on accusations let me tell you a story.
A young man complained that a female teacher mistreated him when he was in elementary school, so the school told him to go contact the school board, who then told him to contact the local police.
When the young man went to the division where the incidents happened, the detective was gathering information against him, to use for a criminal harassment investigation.
The detective quietly told him that the Toronto District School Board itself was telling the police department to pursue criminal charges.
This is how the feminists deflect responsibility for their actions. They cry harassment and then the police have to investigate the male complainant. Toronto Police have been forced to enforce the feminist law in Canada.
A more recent case is where a male student at a Toronto University was committed to a hospital for a psychological evaluation, and later criminally charged by police in the doctor's community. Again, the feminists are aware of how to deflect responsibility for their actions.