Nov 10, 2023·edited Nov 10, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
In a world where an (ostensibly) serious public figure can stand in front of a microphone and declare that women have always been “the primary victims of war,” it should come as no surprise that a group of (ostensibly) serious intellectuals can sit in front of a microphone and declare that women have been the primary victims of feminism.
If people are so blindly ignorant and devoid of perspective to let the first claim pass unchallenged, the second one is practically a lay-up.
For all of his wisdom and virtues, Jordan Peterson is one of the worst when it comes to the issue of failing to hold women fully accountable for their misdeeds and failings (although he may be gradually moving in the right direction). Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that his own daughter, a single mother by choice who practically rode his coattails to public prominence and wealth, is a rather stark embodiment of the criticisms commonly made of modern women by individuals in this space.
This all goes back to the theme of “conservatives” just being the opposite side of the modern gynocentric coin (with feminists being the other). As “based” and “red-pilled” as these individuals can be on a whole host of controversial topics, they all slam on the proverbial brakes when it comes to anything vaguely resembling full accountability and equality for female behavior.
On a podcast with Michael Shermer about 5 years ago, Heather Mac Donald, a woman who is/would be labeled a conservative by any definition, claimed that men, while rarely being guilty of actual rape, “certainly are acting as boorishly as possible” when discussing the issue of campus rape hysteria and the fear of false accusations.
Even if I were to willing to wholeheartedly grant her premise (and I wouldn’t be), that’s a profoundly obtuse observation to make about the modern world unless you immediately follow it with:
“...and women certainly are acting as whorishly as possible.”
I agree about the failure to hold women accountable. That was a standard line of Heather Mac Donald's (a woman whose erudition and eloquence I deeply admire in general) in a series of interviews about campus rape hysteria. There is a wonderful moment in an interview with Bettina Arndt when Mac Donald lectured men that if they want to avoid false accusations, they should simply behave like gentlemen. Arndt's eyes widened momentarily as she pointed out that men could be (and were) accused when they didn't even *know* their accuser, and there was a moment of silence. Mac Donald seemed not to have considered that. We are always quick to believe in male bad behavior; always ready with an excuse for women.
And a lot of people who have never met a man can jump in and make it seem real. And some who know him well can reverse their personal knowledge. None of this is about the "behavior" of men. That's a projection screen.
After writing my original post, I went back and listened to the portion of the podcast I was referring to. I didn’t get the quote completely accurate initially, so I went back and edited.
Mac Donald was actually considerably more fairly balanced than my initial criticism may have led one to believe, however, as you alluded to, she (like many others) seems to have a tendency to pull back on full, equal criticism of women as a group.
For all of her positive qualities (and there are a great many) with regard to shining a light on and discussing controversial issues without bias, she strikes me as someone who probably wouldn’t hesitate to tell a man to “keep it in your pants,” but would stop well short of telling a woman to “keep your legs closed.”
She readily acknowledged the disparity in libido/sex drive between men and women, as well as noting that women (not men) are the primary agents in their own sexualization, and that chastity (probably) wouldn’t kill them.
However, her analysis took a turn toward the 19th century when she implored men to embrace chivalry, kiss their dates on the cheek at the end of the evening, and write them love poetry (!).
Speaking of love poetry, I think it might be a good exercise to encourage women to write love poetry to and about men. Over the summer, my husband & I had a discussion about the vast amount of Western literature, and well as modern classic rock & roll lyrics, are men expressing their love, appreciation of and desire to be close to women.
Not only is there no parallel tradition of women writing about the virtues and delights of men, there's growing trend that's worse than the imbalance in love poetry production. Contemporary young women often have a list of all the qualities a man must have (physical, financial, intellectual, emotional). Girls didn't have such lists in my youth. There's a TedX video by a woman in her late 30s, unhappily single, discussing how she'd recently removed certain items from her want list (one item dropped: Owning a boat!)
This is a rather hilarious (and correct) observation.
Years ago, Chris Rock did a bit in a stand up special “Bigger & Blacker” where he opined on the litany of songs on the radio dedicated to and extolling the virtues of moms. He followed it with:
“What’s the ‘daddy’ song? PAPA WAS A ROLLING STONE!”
As you pointed out, there’s a pretty pronounced dearth of songs where women demonstrate genuine, wholesome love and affection for the men in their lives. To the extent that they do, it’s usually some thinly-veiled psychosis that essentially distills to, “If you ever left me, I’d go crazy and kill myself (or, more likely, just you).”
Taylor Swift has, in no small part, become vastly wealthy off of writing songs deriding her ex-boyfriends. One wonders if Travis Kelce can anticipate some of the lyrics that will be written about him when that relationship reaches its end.
Years ago, Amy Lee (of the band “Evanescence”) released a song entitled “Call Me When You’re Sober” that was a not-so-subtle shot at Shaun Morgan, a former boyfriend and lead singer of the band “Seether.” Morgan, while (like anyone in any relationship - failed or otherwise) probably not completely free of blame, had lapsed into alcoholism following his brother’s suicide. He recounted how fans of Lee would gather outside his hotel and blare the song, as if he had committed some evil against her (and by extension them, to some degree).
Don’t get me wrong, “You Oughta Know” by Alanis Morrisette is one of my favorite songs ever, and may be the best “jilted lover” song of all-time, but you’d have a hard(er) time finding a gender-reversed equivalent that goes as hard and raw as that song does.
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I don’t wish him pain or misery, but, at this point, a man willingly involving himself in a relationship with Taylor Swift is an ever so slight half-step above the man who willingly accepts an invitation to a sleepover at Lorena Bobbitt’s house.
As far as I’m concerned, signing up to be Taylor Swift’s boyfriend is like signing up to be Leonardo DiCaprio’s girlfriend:
Don’t act like you didn’t know what you were signing up for.
Did Heather get the new memo on how we are once again going to expect (perhaps we should? No, but dammit worth asking if they are going to frame it) the highest standards of men while abrogating female responsibility.
The more feminism runs, the more longhouse it gets and we can now see the "Radical Lesbian Feminist" not even as the revolutionary figure she seeks to portray herself as but a regressive, revanchist defender of the oldest and worst stereotypes of women as deranged, mercenary, repressive and lacking agency.
The observation that Janice makes about the intense interest in the unhappiness of women and your quote "men have never behaved more boorishly" suggest to me that men are still held responsible for everything. No wonder they are retreating from marriage and going their own way.
Yes I think responsibility is the key to understanding this. At it's most extreme its shown in the teenage boys who become responsible for their mothers, sisters and grandparents should their father die in one of the many conflicts in the "middle east". But a pervasive presumption it seems through the"'west" also, one even some feminists identify in "benign sexism" or "denying agency" where it is obvious women are excused or presumed not responsible for their own actions. One mis understood example of this was the law in England that required a woman to have a Male guarantor for any large loan. Brought in by lobbying by Charkes Dickens and the Church in the mid Victorian era it was to prevent women from being imprisoned for debt. Of course in a society with no real welfare or notion of bankruptcy someone had to be held responsible should the debt not be paid, and it seemed civilised to make men (relatives usually) formally responsible for the debt(and take the risk of imprisonment).. And of course this idea of Male responsibility, and punishment of "irresponsible men", pervades many of the campaigns of the 19th and early 20th century, and by default amplifies the absence of responsibility that women have for themselves.
It was part of a general movement to protect women. For instance in excluding them from dangerous industries such as mining, iron and steel works etc. So seen as progressive at the time. Due to the growth in upper middle classes and consequently the numbers of leisured women there was a huge increase in women's societies often linked to Churches. These had huge resources and influence with their husbands. I studied this in the late 70s because I learned my mother had had difficulties sorting the mortgage when my father died suddenly in the mid 60s Just when the guarantor law had been repealed. I learned that almost all the "sexist" laws repealed in the lat 60s and early 70s in the UK were in fact at most 100 years old and most were the result of "progressives" and "philanthropists" protecting women. Rather than some milllenia old patriarchal plot.
The old complaint of feminists that married women couldn't even get a credit card unless their husbands signed for it stems from the same concern. Of course the husbands had to agree, since it was the husbands who would be ultimately responsible for paying off the card if necessary. I hate that this is always presented as the ultimate insult to women when in fact it stemmed from protectiveness. Our whole family court system still operates on a similar principle, but you don't hear many feminists complaining that it is insulting for a woman to be able to live on her husband's income even years after she has left him and provides no services whatsoever in return.
Married men were responsible for supporting their families. Obviously some did not do this well and others abandoned them. However, married women had no obligation to support their husbands. How come I learned this history at school in the 1960's in Ireland but younger people don't seem to know anything about it?
The early writings of Melanie Philips for instance. Much of what I learned was from the research of self declared "feminists". Many, like Philips, are now seen as not feminists or "anti". It was "feminist" academics who high lighted these sort of things as "benign sexism". Their contention being that doing things like treating women as influenced by men or mad rather than responsible for their own actions "denied their agency". The generous treatment of women in criminal justice was one such big issue at the time. Their were protests here "up north", by women, at the Acts you refer to as in the Mill Towns and Mining Towns where the mills and mines were practically the only source of employment, these Acts cut off or curtailed earnings for families. Paradoxically creating the dependance on the male wage earner! Engels in his writings about Manchester observed the fact that both men and women worked, and childcare relied on relatives. In fact he was appalled that women took only a couple of weeks off to give birth and then were back in the Mills! As the economist Catherine Hakim pointed out in her work it wasn't until the comparative affluence of the 1960s that the woman at home man at work model of family life became more widespread with the levels of female economic activity in 1990 being the same as in 1890. As I know from my own genealogy research the absence of welfare etc. required people to work to earn a living. Modern feminists appear to believe that in everyone in the 19th Century were gentry able to enjoy the "season" as in Austin novels.
Though this is a personal comment; When I was 8 my father died suddenly. At the get together following his funeral a number of adults told me I was now the "man of the house" and should look after my mother and brother (he was 4). This made a big impression on me. However I just accepted it, it wasn't until I had my own children and they reached such an age that it seemed an odd thing to say to a child. I'm sure my uncle and other relatives thought this was a helpful thing but in today's world I'm sure it would be regarded as giving a big burden to a grieving child. I hope so.
I really don't know its origins. Its still widely used locally but more often to late teenage males as a reason to get a job and behave responsibly. I suspect there is a social class element to this. A presumption that as soon as possible a young man should get a job or trade and "settle down" and become a "family man" (though these days the latter does not necessarily include formal marriage). Women still refer to "hubby" and men "the wife" even though frequently not actually married. I live in one of Manchester's most affluent suburbs but right on the border of "the biggest council estate in europe" the difference in social mores and behaviors is quite stark.
As you say it was difficult to work out what I was supposed to do. It is only in retrospect that i realised that I interpreted this to be as "sensible" as possible and indulge my brother as I had to look after him a lot as my mother worked. I reflected on this some years ago when an old friend opined "you were always middle aged!". But then perhaps that's just my personality, who knows?
Nov 11, 2023·edited Nov 11, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I wish more people would realize what a profoundly conservative movement feminism is. Sure, they want to change the rights of women to match those of (the most privileged) men and do away with the responsibilities of women but that isn't a prescription for a bold new society. It would, rather, bring us back to ye olden days when most power was inherited and the inheritor was as likely to be a she as a he.
It is certainly no coincidence that existing centers of power--political, economic, even most religious sects--have had no problem with feminism whatsoever.
You could argue that feminism was a reaction against the inevitable shift towards a more gender equal society brought about by new technology. The home was being filled up with mod cons and the workplace (office / factory) was becoming much more women-friendly with indoor plumbing, electric lighting, central heating, safe public transport links etc.
As gender roles became less clearly defined, feminism (patriarchy theory) ensured women retained their monopoly on being society's default fragile/ victim class in everyone's minds (and the law).
Feminism arose in the culture where, ironically women had the most rights in world history. Even if you roll in the mediterranean in general, Egyptian women had a lot of property and familial rights, Romans granted women extensive rights, including herbal abortions and even infanticide for poor post-natal health (the woman has the right until age one, the father after that for severe moral infractions, even if not often exercised), Jewish culture allowed divorce, and norther European cultures writ large gave women more rights than they currently enjoy in many poarts of the world.
Not that I had that much respect for Mr. Peterson before, but whatever amount I had for him just dropped significantly. How can he and the others be blatantly ignorant? Or are they just stupid, or incompetent? I'm of the age that witnessed the start of the downfall: beginning with the JFK murder when I was 13, society has been going downhill ever since, and I was there during the entire sixties insanity, which included the women who would be candidates for a life partner who drank the feminist Kool-Aid. I unfortunately married one of them which of course ended in disaster. I've been single ever since, reminded by women almost daily of what a horror they truly have become. Now, I thank my lucky stars I got through it all relatively sane and safe, happily painting away in my studio every day. Others have not been so lucky.
Apparently, while "The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) is an international community with a vision for a better world where every citizen can prosper, contribute and flourish" (copied and pasted directly from their website), men don't qualify to be included in their vision. Peterson most likely wouldn't have been invited to speak if they thought he would rock the boat with the truth. Sad, but not unexpected.
theres something up with ARC. Im watching carefully. They seem to be well funded, and they are not woke, for sure, but they are playing footsie with BOTH Neo-Cons AND the "sane feminists".
It is probably true what he says about a certain type of psychopathic man taking advantage of the situation, but it is a tiny slice of the overall picture. Janice's observations are much more useful in correcting the problem.
This is the memo I have referred to elsewhere. While he back tracked a bit on dinging #MGTOW and Red Pill, he is still blithely ignoring the legal realities and honestly, what exactly are men supposed to do? Be subject to the "obligtatory marriage" his critics lost their shit over him purportedly advocating *for women*?
I am disappointed in his lapse here and wonder if the forces behind the scenes have advocated a certain silence on the general feminist derangement, hoping to aid in severing trans from it. it is a Hydra. Good luck with that.
Yes, I understand the fear. But it is extremely disappointing nonetheless; it makes it that much more difficult for everybody else to discuss these issues publicly. I think it also closes off a different set of people who would respect someone with the courage and truthfulness to say what they know to be true. It's the downside of fame: you become a slave to it.
Nov 14, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
One thing I deeply admire about you, and wish to emulate, is the precision and clarity of your output. No- one is ever left in any doubt what you mean. Consequently, we can trust you, even if we have a different opinion.
You can make a coherent, well- evidenced case in twenty minutes, I suspect that the clarity of your mind doesn't suit the pseudo- gladiatorial sport of mutual insult which passes for "clever" content in the mainstream. You don't need, as Peterson does, multiple two- hour podcasts and a TV interview every week. Your books are mines of useful information. Peterson's books? Bibles for the closed- minded, busy- body know - it - all.
Let him be famous. Let him be rich. Fame and riches are neither happiness nor noble pursuits. Being right matters. Being popular really, really doesn't.
Jordan has a weakness for virtue-signalling, which often vies with the course of the ship he's otherwise steering like some kind of Noah/Ahab through "Woke" waters.
Things aren't looking so good for correcting this mess. Girls don't want to be girls, and boys don't want to be boys due a toxic narrative and culture that encourages self-hatred depending on what "gender" you are. Men are increasingly hesitant to have children with women who'll run off at the slightest provocation with his kids and half his income. Women glorify abortion.
If I've said it once, I'll say it again. This matriarchy will be the death of us.
Women don't need any provocation to destroy a man's life, the passing fancy for something different is enough.
All men need to understand is that there is far more to life for a man than throwing it away for a woman. Who cares what happens to the human race and why is that the responsibility of men and not women?
We have one life and one life only, and there is no afterlife. Men should spend theirs thinking only of themselves, as women do.
Oh please. Just say that you can't find a date on Tinder (which is 76% male) and call it a day. Unf*ckable males and their whining online--wow, I wonder why you can't get a date???
Explain your troubles to the girls in Afghanistan who get beaten for trying to go to school. I'm sure they'll be bowled over with your intense suffering.
Nobody cares about your inability to get a date. Get a life.
I don't think the issue is dating. The issue is the male preference to read data and make rational choices.
The data could not be clearer. Dating and marriage are high risk options for men in Western nations.
As for the girls in Afghanistan. I seem to recall it was fit healthy young men who lost their lives in that country trying to improve it. It wasn't an army of young women who went in.
It ended in disaster thanks to political decisions. But those who risked their lives were not women and they certainly were not feminists.
You are demonstrating the ignorance that is driving young men to question everything and ultimately reassert their place in society. Even living a pampered existence as you do you still find some way to hassle men, this time by choosing an extreme culture then using it to condemn all men.
This inability to accurately assess information is characteristic of the female mind and has parallels in the recent trajectory of women. Give them free choice and they choose badly leading to their destruction. The cat food industry thanks you for your shortsightedness 😜
Western men have never mistreated women as the Taliban do. Bodicea the British queen ruled almost two thousand years ago in a society that is the direct descendant of America. We have always treated women well even to the point of accepting them as heads of state.
Basically, you think like a teenage girl. And more men are now realizing you can't reliably run anything without whining and blaming men when it goes wrong. The emergence of what you would consider sexism among teenage boys, visible online, is an inevitable consequence of this.
The technique of picking extremist foreign societies we spent blood and treasure trying to improve to insist this reflects all male behavior is tedious and reflects the growing awareness among men that women lack critical thinking skills. If that is the case why are we letting them run anything?
I get the angst. This feminist era is clearly coming to an end. It failed. As the article outlined even now, with women unhappier than ever, there is no accountability and no real analysis. Men bad, women hapless victims even when they make all the choices.
As to your own comment. What has changed is younger men are no longer pursuing women, a first in history. Possibly a civilization ender. If I were a woman it would worry me. Those young men dropping out are retreating from society, including the necessary role of protecting women. So dating is the least of our worries. It is the abandonment of women that will probably trigger a reset and it will likely be driven by women begging men to come back.
I agree 100 %. The cat food industry definitely thanks me: I have four, equal to the number of children my mother had. I have none and regret following the Feminist Pied Piper off the cliff, to my detriment.
Kat, you're welcome to make reasoned arguments as appropriate on my Substack, but not to respond with jeers, personal insults, and harassment to nearly every commenter. Shame on you.
The female reliance on shaming language is one of the traits young men are learning about. Just one aspect of their ongoing education. Once it is pointed out to them it is like a superpower and a great source of enjoyment to men, lol.
I note the emphasis on dating, Tinder, being picked. That is another thing the young men are learning, that women are solipsistic, much more so than men. One aspect of that is projection. Women readily project fears on to others, and betray their inner turmoil. The fear of not being chosen, of being undesirable to men. These are female preoccupations not male ones. Men have the option to make themselves more desirable to female in ways closed to women. Men can go to the gym, work at a career or start a business. They can do so over years and improve over time. The ladies are judged harshly and quickly lose their desirability beyond their twenties. Another harsh truth the young men learn.
As for your litany of stats. Read more. It is precisely these that characterize growing female unhappiness. Aren't you reading the surveys about female discontent? They are even making it into the mainstream who cannot ignore record levels of female unhappiness.
By their fifties and sixties virtually no women state education or career as drivers in their life. Almost all state relationships, especially their children and grandchildren, as their main source of happiness. This is almost universal across cultures and even includes women who strongly focused on career. It all becomes meaningless after a while.
The obverse is also true. The most unhappy women, those who take the most prescription antidepressants, are childless women in their 40s who are borderline suicidal no matter how impressive their career is. This is even being discussed by feminists as those women tend to be bitter and vocal about the failures of feminism. Most blame men mind you.
I am not condemning you. But if you are even remotely typical you yourself won't care about college or career as life trundles forward.
LOL I wish men could feel shame. The world would be a different place if men could feel shame. Men have no shame, this is the problem.
You clearly don't know what "solipsistic" means. Nothing sadder than when a dumb male tries to use a word he doesn't understand. I point out that Tinder is 76% male to prove a point--who is chasing whom? Who is upset about not getting a date? That's not solipsistic, you dolt.
Stop talking about women's happiness. It's obvious men don't give two f*cks about women's happiness and never did, so it's a moot point. You just sound stupid. Be quiet.
The Bs are really clustering in this one aren't they. I am only able to read her posts in Josh Slocum's 'narcissistic bitch' voice. Indeed, I thought the first one was a parody. Intellectually vacant, ignorant, shrieking, projecting ball of femfluff.
Wow, the word salad spewed by Kat Highsmith is a wonder to behold. And while denigrating the intelligence of others! YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE.
Look at the logic:
"You people are irrational. Janice fans are sub 80 IQ tards. You think Western men can brag because they don't throw acid at girls walking to school? The bar is in hell."
I've looked through your hysterical outbursts, Kat, and I suspect that if they are typical of your 'dating' profiles it is you who cannot find a 'date' on Tinder, or any other contact site. I'm married and 67 so long past the age when I could be bothered with all the nonsense demanded by insane toxic narcissists with vaginas, like you, simply for the honour of wining and dining them at my expense. I have never been to Tinder, try another bitter and twisted projection.
As for the, certainly few and perhaps wholly apocryphal, 'girls in Afghanistan who get (sic) beaten for trying to go to school'; that somewhere in the world some women can't have just what they want just when they want and are held to account when they break the rules, however justified you may feel they are in doing so, does not mean that women everywhere are oppressed, enslaved and subject to gross indignities and appalling brutality.
I can't see that any rational person reading my comment could interpret it as a tale of my own 'intense suffering'. I think that is a product of your fervid and puerile imagination, a response you've had cued up and been longing to use for some time and can resist using no longer. Unfortunately, you silly girl, in shooting from the lip you've shot yourself in the metaphorical foot. Have another go but do pause to take careful aim first, and make sure you hit your target and not yourself. I can mansplain how to do it if you find it difficult.
Nobody cares about muslim shit holes Kat. Only intersectional bed shitting morons like you, that seem to think you can join with the most hateful, anti human rights, anti-female ideology on earth.
You trying are insane aren’t you Jezebel? How does it feel being the most toxic and hated commenter here? Are you still crying? Let’s hope so, for you deserved every unhappiness and more.
We just marry women from overseas rather than date cunters like you. We leave women like you to pick up the dregs that are left. And for sport we laugh watching middle age women crying on youTube because they regret divorce.
My friend set up an entire channeling laughing at delusional old cunters just like you! Here’s a sample.
You have no clue what's going on. The "trans" agenda is a funded agenda by subversive billionaires. Abortions have been performed for thousands of years. The most common result of divorce is men abandoning and not paying, and women just accepting it because it's easier.
Everyone who comments here is literally delusional. You live in a dream world where the FeMiNaZiS are the cause of your ugliness and failures. This is hysterical male stupidity and it's pathetic. Nobody is "glorifying" abortion, you sad, porn addicted fool. Women have been forced to carry unviable fetuses for weeks because it's been denied.
I sense a miserable old drunk cat lady. I bet if anything you're the ugly, fat unfuckable one, it would explain the fact you hate men and refuse to consider any of their sufferings. What makes you think you're so much more desirable than anyone here, and therefore have the right to insult them on their physical appearance, as if they would want you anyways?
Wow, mentioning cats and calling a woman old as the best insult. Such intelligence, such eloquence, such original thinking. I'm young. What if I was 85 years old? Then what? You'd feel better about crying online about teenage girls, men who can't get laid, and porn?
Like I said, people who like Janice are low IQ morons. You people couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. Like I'm impressed with cat lady comments. Same old misogynist BS, and you think it sounds smart. Your life is a waste. Antifeminist losers are pathetic.
the autonomic nervous system is very powerful. however, I am a clairvoyant and can tell you the last time she had an orgasm was in 1975, by accident, she had to look it up in a book to find out what had happened
I have a maxim (annotated in parentheses for this exemplar):
FIRST comes the insanity
SECOND comes the "theories"
THIRD comes the genocide.
While you aregue the SECOND (feminism) with the FIRST (Kat) they commit the THIRD (grave dancing in public over men's deaths and normalizing this behavior to young female readers, in a way that influences public sentiment and policy).
Casual jokes about suicide. This kind of behavior speaks volumes. Personal insults are one thing, but callousness is a trait that damages all of society.
You were quick to claim I didn't care about female happiness, despite no evidence to support this claim. I care enough to read up on the subject and to find declining female happiness troublesome and a problem worthy of attention despite being a man.
Suicide is a symptom of a broken society no matter whether it is women or men killing themselves.
Tragically, this level of bitterness is something even some feminist scholars are beginning to notice. Western society is becoming more difficult for women, and much of it is related to changes driven by feminists. It is doubtful your own grandmother was this bitter despite the narrative she was oppressed. An interesting turn of events.
No one is glorifying abortion? "You have no clue what's going on." Seriously. You have no clue. What's your address? I'll send you the bright pink sweatshirt with the word "Abortion" brandished across the front in red letters that I saw on display in front of a shop in Brooklyn.
It's feminists who were the ones supporting the T in the LGBT back in 90s and the 00s. Who told you to support them and shut down men for "transphobia"?
Good to read this passionate response to the constant whining about the failed sexual revolution, Janice. I too am infuriated by Louise Perry's pronouncements about how it has been so damaging for women. What drives me crazy is she never addresses the fact that the real shift in sexual power that has occurred since then has been married/partnered women deciding they are within their rights to refuse sex if they don't feel like it - women always have the right to say no! Even if that means leaving their partners begging for sex for year after year. These women are so two-faced.
These same moids then cry how women don't want to marry anymore. Why would any women want to marry such an irrational, angry, idiotic man? You're the perfect example of why women are walking away. So shut up.
Get off the computer. You're not entitled to women's time, attention, money, or anything else. Nobody cares, and the universe owes you nothing.
You must care a little bit. You've put a lot of effort into your insults. Is there a reason you're reduced to doing this rather than being strong and independent?
No, I mean nobody cares that ugly men can't get a date, that's the primary driver of "antifeminism." If you weren't a loser, you wouldn't have to describe yourself that way. Only failed males who have been rejected speak this way. Get a life. No one cares about you.
Guys I know, a bit older, can get any amount of dates they care to go on. When younger women have more attention than they care for, and men have not enough. At some point the shoe is on the other foot. This ‘you can’t get a date...’ is silly. It gets easier and easier for men. And from what I can see, harder and harder for women.
You really are a hoot Kat; your unthinking reactionary projection of incessantly rehearsed female concerns on to men, in defiance of reality and sanity, is the funniest thing about you.
Lol I'll translate from malespeak to English--"I can't get laid and it's not my fault women reject me, so I'm happy when others make excuses for the fact that I'm ugly/uninteresting/fat/unf*ckable"
Get back to Call of Duty, dude. Nobody hates you. We just don't care, and you're not entitled to anything. Pure male narcissism and irrational ego.
I DIDN'T SAY YOU SAID SOMETHING--That's a sarcastic statement because it's a typical, overused insult that's already been used. "Say something" is a command here.
Can any of you idiots read? Do you understand how language works? Why do all of the males here have the reading and logic skills of a dead raccoon? I keep getting surprised that you dolts are actually getting dumber. You have no clue how words work. Stop embarrassing yourself. AND IT'S YOU'RE, NOT YOUR. You imbecile.
You unveil so much about yourself with these delusional invectives. Why are you so angry at the world? Our views are utterly marginal in our gynocentric society. You won long ago. You ARE the majority, mainstream view. We have lived in the matriarchy for decades now. What’s the problem?
Ha! Drunk again Jezebel? Everyone is laughing at you and SINCERELY HOPE you fall off the face of the earth. How does it feel being the most toxic and vile commenter on the entire internet? Still crying??? That’s nice-
Why do you disgusting women have to make everything about sex? Oh, right... It's because nowadays that's literally all you have to offer men. Except women aren't even useful for that anymore because they've completely undermined our court systems for accusations of sexual crimes. As a young man living with several other young men, and all of us being single and wanting nothing to do with potential girlfriends/wives, I find your sexual/attraction shaming to be pretty humorous. It's like I'm observing someone punching air. Have at it.
Janice, I admire all your writings and videos, and I don't think I've ever read a better piece from you than this new one. I was so pleased when you accepted my invitation to be the keynote speaker at the next International Conference on Men's Issues, to be held next August in Budapest, Hungary. The speaker list link is below, speakers include for the first time in the 10-year history of ICMIs two elected politicians, the Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Esther McVey, a married couple.
Lol "laughingatfeminists" --at least we go to university LOL
You want justice? Stop watching porn and playing video games, and get a job. You're entitled to nothing, and nobody feels sorry for you because you can't get laid.
Hi Kat. Thanks for your deranged response to the existence of a website, I can only assume you're a feminist. I would recommend you watch one of the 155 videos from the related comedy channel, "Hitler reacts to radical feminist Julie Bindel" (4:00). Enjoy:
Just watch it and you'll see a "smart" critique of a prominent feminist "journalist" who wouldn't be able to find work as a "journalist" if a partiarchy existed in her country (the UK).
Yeah, that's it. Men are so smart they made university simpler so they couldn't do it anymore! The porn-damaged, video game-damaged modern male brain on display, right here.
Your father should be forced to apologize for this.
You’re thick Kat! But because we had to lower standards to the level of a snake’s arsehole we have given millions of ugly feminist donkeys a false sense of their own intelligence. You’re all soi disant faux intellectuals that crumble on the slightest of line of enquiry.
I keep warm at night and sleep well knowing there are miserable old hags like you so angry and bitter at life. Please feel free to comeback so I can have some further laughs!
Shit stains and BIG BRAINS! YOOO Kat is back!! So strong and independent™ Never has her hysteria been so WILD and FREE like a GODDESS in the wilderness. Mother GAIA bring us peace on earth and a perfect utopia so KAT's diarrhea mouth goes away PLEASE thank you.
Hey Jezebel! Your birth certificate is an apology letter from the condom factory! Plus you are stupid, ugly, fat, and even your 30 cats hate your ugly face!
Hi D101. We explored inviting him to speak at the 2018 conference in London but the cost was prohibitive (and surely will be for the foreseeable future). I'm a big admirer of JP, as are many MRAs, but despair of him at times in relation to a number of areas including feminism and women's responsibility for their actions and inactions. Janice's article is a great illustration of JP's problem.
Have you ever seen his British GQ interview with Helen Lewis? I watch it every few months just to see him absolutely dismantle her notions of patriarchy, social construction, etc.
I still need to watch the panel this article is based on but, as far as I can remember I've never seen him express anything but contempt for academic feminism, campus rape courts, intersectional theory, etc.
Trust me. He fucking destroys her. If you can't stand her you'll enjoy the shit out of watching him dismantle her bullshit and humiliate her for over an hour and a half straight. I watch it again and again.
You need to understand the elaborate information war we're in here, Juden Peterstien is an agent of zion, If you don't understand he makes over 10mil a year shilling for the world dictatorship ran out of Jerselum you're out of the loop...
Where, BTW, is "Jerselum?" And is "Peterstien" supposed to be 'Peterstein', as in a typical Jewish name like 'Weinstein' or 'Epstein'? Somewhere between spell check and the ever present dilemma of judging between sarcasm and congenital mental retardation lies the truth.
I was very sorry to hear that Peterson presided over a discussion that skewed this way. I would have expected better of him. Your summary of the discussion shows that only one sex matters and that women's happiness is paramount. Women must be given what they want. If it turns out that they get what they want but then want something else, they must be seen as victims (even though they are the victims of a movement they themselves promoted). The idea is that nothing social is ever good for women; women are always being short-changed, always deserving of special assistance and compensation. One could be forgiven for saying that, like some demanding children who are never, ever satisfied, what such people really want is attention. Victims get attention, which then itself becomes a victimizing force creating the need for more attention. That said, l wish you had been there to tell these pundits, as you call them, what you thought of their charade.
With respect. I'm surprised that you are surprised. Peterson and his peers in the self described 'intellectual dark web' promote this drivel. Never forget that Peterson described men who avoid their abusers (MGTOW) as weasels. They are not intellectually honest and are therefore not our friends. Nor for that matter are they truthfully friends of women.
I gave Peterson points for going after Trudeau during the lock downs and the rest. I did not know about the weasels comment or other things I've heard about him. Thanks for your note.
He's about five minutes away from having another meltdown and stuffing himself with Xanax again, since he's a strong, rational, male leader with great self-control. Thank goodness he's not chaotic, like irrational, weak women are (like his wife dealing with her cancer while he's being dragged to rehabs in Russia).
Nov 10, 2023·edited Nov 11, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Anita Hill established the playbook for disingenuous sexual harassment allegations in her testimony which included the fact that she worked for Thomas a second time after the alleged harassment by Thomas. If she was so offended, why work for him a second time? The beat goes on…
I fondly recall a younger Joe Biden helming the proceedings with his combover, amusingly expressing DEEP interest in the potentially erotic minutiae of Ms. Hill's allegations.
"Please explain for us in more detail, Ms. Hill, about the pubic hair on the Coke can..."
LOL, Kat's still here showing everyone what truly toxic ideology feminism is. Keep making fool of you self. So I can grab more screen shots to post on X.
Pure lunacy. The same old insults against men. Citing ugliness and lack of sexual prowess as the reasons behind women leaving men. Not realizing that the same could happen to attractive sexually skilled ones. Telling me to stop defending people who hate me. Apparently she's never grown up in a family with a loving father and therefore thinks no man is capable of loving. All the admiration of the female, in both religious, aesthetic, societal/political realms evades her. A psychotic full of irrational hate who spills it out on people who never once said they hated her. No one here hates women, they merely dislike feminists because of their male oppression. She however, hates men to the core. Apparently every man is the devil in her mind.
Inconvenient facts my ass. You pointed out nothing other than the exact same insults. Just out of curiosity Kat, do you hate ever single man out there? You might as well tell so we can see just who is the unhinged extremist.
Post this story and talk about toxicity: "AI-generated pornographic images of female students at a New Jersey high school were circulated by male classmates, sparking parent uproar and a police investigation, according a report."
Again out of interest, is there any distinction in your feminism between images generated the old- fashioned way, (using a camera to photograh a live model,) and an image generated without a model, by computer?
Because I remember that feminism has long complained that taking photos of entirely consenting, well- paid, professional models is exploitive and harmful. So wouldn't it make sense for you to welcome the advent of model- free erotic imagery?
Cherry picked. Most girls sexualize themselves. I would know I see them everywhere. I'm one of the few to not have ever done so. And not because I'm ugly, although I'm sure you will pick that route, even though I'm almost certain you are far uglier, fatter, and older than me.
CHERRY PICKED? This is literally a news story from something that happened. Do you even understand the words that you're using? That's irrational.
I knew Janice fans are f*cking idiots who hate themselves and women in general, but this is getting out of hand. You people are the bottom of the barrel of humanity, and you sound like you're obsessed with hating on teen girls because you think they deserve abuse. You're trash. Literal trash. Indicative of the low IQ human trash around here. Shut up.
You still haven't answered my question. Do you or do you not hate all men? And telling me to shut up. I hop you understand that we're not in the Middle East here. Freedom of speech very well exists. You sound like a fascist megalomaniac. I'll say as I please, especially since I am dismantling all of your arguments with reason and logic, unlike yourself. If you hate this substack so much, why are you here in the first place. Go back to bitching about transgenders taking over female spaces, as if it wasn't feminist supported queer theory that established the notion of gender being performative.
Nov 10, 2023·edited Nov 10, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
As you say there is nothing surprising about this gynocentric view. One that pervades our supposedly patriarchal society. I was reminded of this the other day, a friend had been on a guided walk round my city at the site of the medieval "ducking pool" a plaque informed him women were "ducked" for crimes such as false weights and measures, fraud and adultery, what it didn't say was that men would lose a finger or two or even be hanged for the same. In the same way as the much quoted "rule of thumb" is from a treatise that uses that rule to limit the severity of discipline on female household members compared to the much more brutal treatment advised for recalcitrant males. By only focussing on women means missing the fact that, certainly in western Europe, it males who have always been most closely controlled, or attempted to be so, because they are responsible, for the continuation of the tribe, family, nation and cannot be left to do their own thing. In many respects the current concern of "feminists" and traditionalists looks like a return to Victorian era with the return of campaigns by an alliance of bourgeois women and the Church to ensure males did their duty and were not distracted by the "needs of the flesh". "Breach of promise", making Male relatives guarantors of loans, civil recording of marriages, legislation against prostitution (including that against male prostitutes which got Oscar Wilde , a recent law he seemed unaware that his use of "rent boys" had become a crime) strict protocols for "courting", the "Birkenhead Drill", licencing laws on alcohol and gambling and temperance even prohibition in some then all the US. All about the concern to cement in Male responsibility in the begatting and looking after children and their mothers. It seems that all of these to be brought back, old wine in new bottles. So of course the feminist championing of sexual liberation has to be skipped past because it turns out Germaine Greer's assertion that free love would bring in socialism "willy nilly" was tosh.
Overall the confused and contradictory nature of feminism makes little sense unless one sees that it is simply riding on a deep deep social wave of gynocentricism, itself a reflection of the different part each sex play in reproduction and the survival of of our species. As Elon Musk recently pointed out fewer and fewer babies simply means fewer and fewer humans. It's not rocket science.
The following sentence/paragraph will be lengthy. Prepare to take a deep breath.
Given the combined knowledge and experiences gathered by the readership of Janice's blog concerning both men's and women's issues, and, feminism, I propose that there has been an avoidance of responsible citizenship from the ARC panel by not only omitting half the world's population with their own unique station in life, but also by not exhibiting due corroboration, or process, to feminist claims.
By now we've all heard that one refrain, "Meet the new boss, same as......".
Peterson, and others, have stated publicly that there is no one coming to our (humanity's) rescue. In practical terms, we as individuals have to be the change. How can that be done when nearly every bull-horn has been captured by the most foul spirits imaginable? By supporting this fine blog is my first answer. As we've seen - friends are hard to come by.
Incredible article Janice. This has been precisely my view when I’ve listened to podcasts by Jordan, Mary on this topic. However you’ve articulated it so much more clearly, well done.
One additional point nobody mentions is that young men have also lost enormously from the sexual revolution, with the % of men under 30 who are virgins or long-term single skyrocketing since 2008.
This dynamic is further supercharged by the rise of social media and dating apps, where men swipe right on 64% of female profiles where women swipe right on 5% of profiles - resulting in a defacto polygamy whereby the top 5-10% of men have unlimited access to multiple partners but the bottom 50% (ranked by physical attraction) of men are essentially locked out of the dating game entirely.
This is an elephant nobody dares mention, and Jordan would no doubt chide these men for needing to grow up and take responsibility. Still, the long term social impacts of this will be enormous.
Seriously, if someone wants to assess the effects of a sexual revolution, shouldn't they at least, as a first step, look at who is now able to *have* sex?
On the flip side, there was that memorable moment (I think on Piers Morgan) when Jordan broke down in tears when he was articulating the plight of young men whose minds have been molested by our prevailing woke culture to the point of traumatizing their ability to grow into healthy masculinity. As far as I recall, while he did allude to feminism in that context, it may have been somewhat elliptical and not as robust as Janice may expect.
Absolutely brilliant analysis. Thank you, Janice. The damage to both men and women is so widespread, and yet hardly acknowledged. Meanwhile, the statistics of loneliness, depression, Bumbling for a partner, and single-parent children continues to cause widespread psychological distress.
I just read your two shit substack pieces. Say a lot about how retarded you are. Utterly non sensical. Did your Dad drop you on your head as a baby or something?
Both the approach and the findings of this panel are emblematic of the intellectual impoverishment, disingenuousness, and paradoxical nature of the feminist agenda. Given that one of feminism's primary goals has always been to control the semiotics of victimhood, to shore up its political cogency, and to ensure that it's reserved for women, declaring women the victims of the sexual revolution or even of feminism itself is both a ridiculous proclamation of triumph and an admission of the sort of intellectual fraud that feminism has been attempting to perpetrate. Has there ever been a moment where feminism has wanted to define women as anything other than victims? This has been feminism's tried and true pathway to political power for several decades; and of course, it has also been remarkably effective in preventing men from acquiring a language to accurately and authentically speak about their experiences, which would necessarily involve acknowledging victimhood as an aspect of the male experience.
Something I have been thinking about recently is the growth or escalation in punishing men for being heterosexual.
Recently the narrative of "Rape Culture" even though it is a myth is gaining a lot of traction and the desire to punish more and more men.
"Enthusiastic Consent" is also gaining more traction and consent needs to be obtained by the male at every step.
The narrative that "women didn't know that they were sexually assaulted" and the push to convince more and more women that the sexual activities that they engage in, is actually sexual assault. Even though they participated willingly, it was sexual assault.
Daphne Patai in her book "Heterophobia" explores how the domain of the problem is continually expanded. So the classification of what consists of being sexual harassment is continually being modified so that almost all male interactions with females can be classified as harassment.
Katie Rophie in her book "The Morning After" pointed to pivotal changes in research methodology, where the researcher reclassified the answers of the female respondents. The question related to the consumption of drugs or alcohol. Even though the female respondents did not have an issue with consuming drugs or alcohol before sexual activity, the researcher classified this as sexual assault.
Since then, there have been slow but steady changes in the relevant sexual assault laws with one aim only, and that is to prosecute and punish as many men as possible.
Rape culture is no myth. Adult, female-on-male rape isn't classified as a crime in almost every Western country, and is almost never prosecuted where it is. Also included in this category are the consequences of men being raped (violating a man's sexual agency). These consequences include pregnancy entrapment (violation of reproductive agency), violation of his parental capacity, and violation of his financial agency. Women aren't forced to face any of these consequences when they are raped. So female-on-male rape is far worse morally and criminally speaking, than male-on-female rape. Rape culture is extremely prevalent, to the same degree that false accusation culture is.
Also, if a life destroying crime, "X," is not even classified as a crime, then obviously we have an "X culture." And you should then consider a person capable of committing it as a potential "X-ist" or "X-er." Hence, it is rational to consider all women as potential rapists as well as potential false rape accusers.
And don't even get me started on the male genital mutilation culture established by Victorian-Era women.
"Rape Culture" what is your interpretation? How are you interpreting it?
Is this concept only being applied to heterosexual sex?
I see this claim of "Rape Culture" as an expansion of the work of Andrea Dworkin, and Catharine McKinnon. They claimed all heterosexual sex was rape and that women were unable to give valid consent because of society's indoctrination.
The use of "Rape Culture" is not only alarmist, but the mantra is a bit like "Reds under the bed".
"Rape Culture" encompasses a very broad range of human behaviour, behaviour in the courtship and seduction dance. These are now being seen as sexual harassment and sexual assault.
If you are saying that rape or sexual assault is accepted by our society, it is not accepted at all.
Perpetrators who are found guilty in a court of law are punished and research shows if a male is on trial for sexual assault, the conviction rate is much higher than for other crimes.
Tom Goldman in his discussion with Carrie Grass, pointed out how when something bad happens to a woman, rather than concentrating that it was perpetrated by a bad person, it gets amplified to being a cultural problem, even when 95% of the population would not do bad things to a woman.
In a world where an (ostensibly) serious public figure can stand in front of a microphone and declare that women have always been “the primary victims of war,” it should come as no surprise that a group of (ostensibly) serious intellectuals can sit in front of a microphone and declare that women have been the primary victims of feminism.
If people are so blindly ignorant and devoid of perspective to let the first claim pass unchallenged, the second one is practically a lay-up.
For all of his wisdom and virtues, Jordan Peterson is one of the worst when it comes to the issue of failing to hold women fully accountable for their misdeeds and failings (although he may be gradually moving in the right direction). Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that his own daughter, a single mother by choice who practically rode his coattails to public prominence and wealth, is a rather stark embodiment of the criticisms commonly made of modern women by individuals in this space.
This all goes back to the theme of “conservatives” just being the opposite side of the modern gynocentric coin (with feminists being the other). As “based” and “red-pilled” as these individuals can be on a whole host of controversial topics, they all slam on the proverbial brakes when it comes to anything vaguely resembling full accountability and equality for female behavior.
On a podcast with Michael Shermer about 5 years ago, Heather Mac Donald, a woman who is/would be labeled a conservative by any definition, claimed that men, while rarely being guilty of actual rape, “certainly are acting as boorishly as possible” when discussing the issue of campus rape hysteria and the fear of false accusations.
Even if I were to willing to wholeheartedly grant her premise (and I wouldn’t be), that’s a profoundly obtuse observation to make about the modern world unless you immediately follow it with:
“...and women certainly are acting as whorishly as possible.”
Feminism is societal cancer. Women most affected.
I agree about the failure to hold women accountable. That was a standard line of Heather Mac Donald's (a woman whose erudition and eloquence I deeply admire in general) in a series of interviews about campus rape hysteria. There is a wonderful moment in an interview with Bettina Arndt when Mac Donald lectured men that if they want to avoid false accusations, they should simply behave like gentlemen. Arndt's eyes widened momentarily as she pointed out that men could be (and were) accused when they didn't even *know* their accuser, and there was a moment of silence. Mac Donald seemed not to have considered that. We are always quick to believe in male bad behavior; always ready with an excuse for women.
And a lot of people who have never met a man can jump in and make it seem real. And some who know him well can reverse their personal knowledge. None of this is about the "behavior" of men. That's a projection screen.
https://planetwaves.net/pdf/191218-wojehowski-final.pdf
After writing my original post, I went back and listened to the portion of the podcast I was referring to. I didn’t get the quote completely accurate initially, so I went back and edited.
Mac Donald was actually considerably more fairly balanced than my initial criticism may have led one to believe, however, as you alluded to, she (like many others) seems to have a tendency to pull back on full, equal criticism of women as a group.
For all of her positive qualities (and there are a great many) with regard to shining a light on and discussing controversial issues without bias, she strikes me as someone who probably wouldn’t hesitate to tell a man to “keep it in your pants,” but would stop well short of telling a woman to “keep your legs closed.”
She readily acknowledged the disparity in libido/sex drive between men and women, as well as noting that women (not men) are the primary agents in their own sexualization, and that chastity (probably) wouldn’t kill them.
However, her analysis took a turn toward the 19th century when she implored men to embrace chivalry, kiss their dates on the cheek at the end of the evening, and write them love poetry (!).
Speaking of love poetry, I think it might be a good exercise to encourage women to write love poetry to and about men. Over the summer, my husband & I had a discussion about the vast amount of Western literature, and well as modern classic rock & roll lyrics, are men expressing their love, appreciation of and desire to be close to women.
Not only is there no parallel tradition of women writing about the virtues and delights of men, there's growing trend that's worse than the imbalance in love poetry production. Contemporary young women often have a list of all the qualities a man must have (physical, financial, intellectual, emotional). Girls didn't have such lists in my youth. There's a TedX video by a woman in her late 30s, unhappily single, discussing how she'd recently removed certain items from her want list (one item dropped: Owning a boat!)
This is a rather hilarious (and correct) observation.
Years ago, Chris Rock did a bit in a stand up special “Bigger & Blacker” where he opined on the litany of songs on the radio dedicated to and extolling the virtues of moms. He followed it with:
“What’s the ‘daddy’ song? PAPA WAS A ROLLING STONE!”
As you pointed out, there’s a pretty pronounced dearth of songs where women demonstrate genuine, wholesome love and affection for the men in their lives. To the extent that they do, it’s usually some thinly-veiled psychosis that essentially distills to, “If you ever left me, I’d go crazy and kill myself (or, more likely, just you).”
Taylor Swift has, in no small part, become vastly wealthy off of writing songs deriding her ex-boyfriends. One wonders if Travis Kelce can anticipate some of the lyrics that will be written about him when that relationship reaches its end.
Years ago, Amy Lee (of the band “Evanescence”) released a song entitled “Call Me When You’re Sober” that was a not-so-subtle shot at Shaun Morgan, a former boyfriend and lead singer of the band “Seether.” Morgan, while (like anyone in any relationship - failed or otherwise) probably not completely free of blame, had lapsed into alcoholism following his brother’s suicide. He recounted how fans of Lee would gather outside his hotel and blare the song, as if he had committed some evil against her (and by extension them, to some degree).
Don’t get me wrong, “You Oughta Know” by Alanis Morrisette is one of my favorite songs ever, and may be the best “jilted lover” song of all-time, but you’d have a hard(er) time finding a gender-reversed equivalent that goes as hard and raw as that song does.
Thanks for this!
I'm wondering if Travis Kelce will be the one boyfriend worth marrying. I do wonder what the heck he's thinking.
I don’t wish him pain or misery, but, at this point, a man willingly involving himself in a relationship with Taylor Swift is an ever so slight half-step above the man who willingly accepts an invitation to a sleepover at Lorena Bobbitt’s house.
As far as I’m concerned, signing up to be Taylor Swift’s boyfriend is like signing up to be Leonardo DiCaprio’s girlfriend:
Don’t act like you didn’t know what you were signing up for.
Country music has some lyrics that talk of love from a woman to her man.
Thanks for pointing this out. I should make a point of listening to more country music (i grew up more of a hard rock/punk fan)
Did Heather get the new memo on how we are once again going to expect (perhaps we should? No, but dammit worth asking if they are going to frame it) the highest standards of men while abrogating female responsibility.
The more feminism runs, the more longhouse it gets and we can now see the "Radical Lesbian Feminist" not even as the revolutionary figure she seeks to portray herself as but a regressive, revanchist defender of the oldest and worst stereotypes of women as deranged, mercenary, repressive and lacking agency.
The observation that Janice makes about the intense interest in the unhappiness of women and your quote "men have never behaved more boorishly" suggest to me that men are still held responsible for everything. No wonder they are retreating from marriage and going their own way.
Yes I think responsibility is the key to understanding this. At it's most extreme its shown in the teenage boys who become responsible for their mothers, sisters and grandparents should their father die in one of the many conflicts in the "middle east". But a pervasive presumption it seems through the"'west" also, one even some feminists identify in "benign sexism" or "denying agency" where it is obvious women are excused or presumed not responsible for their own actions. One mis understood example of this was the law in England that required a woman to have a Male guarantor for any large loan. Brought in by lobbying by Charkes Dickens and the Church in the mid Victorian era it was to prevent women from being imprisoned for debt. Of course in a society with no real welfare or notion of bankruptcy someone had to be held responsible should the debt not be paid, and it seemed civilised to make men (relatives usually) formally responsible for the debt(and take the risk of imprisonment).. And of course this idea of Male responsibility, and punishment of "irresponsible men", pervades many of the campaigns of the 19th and early 20th century, and by default amplifies the absence of responsibility that women have for themselves.
Well said.
"Charkes Dickens and the Church in the mid Victorian era it was to prevent women from being imprisoned for debt."
I did not know that, thank you for that piece of history that so often gets left out.
Could you please supply the reference, I tried searching for it, but don't seem to be able to find it.
It was part of a general movement to protect women. For instance in excluding them from dangerous industries such as mining, iron and steel works etc. So seen as progressive at the time. Due to the growth in upper middle classes and consequently the numbers of leisured women there was a huge increase in women's societies often linked to Churches. These had huge resources and influence with their husbands. I studied this in the late 70s because I learned my mother had had difficulties sorting the mortgage when my father died suddenly in the mid 60s Just when the guarantor law had been repealed. I learned that almost all the "sexist" laws repealed in the lat 60s and early 70s in the UK were in fact at most 100 years old and most were the result of "progressives" and "philanthropists" protecting women. Rather than some milllenia old patriarchal plot.
It is interesting or intriguing how Feminist academics leave aspects of history out, such as the;
The Factories Act limited the amount of hours women and children could work.
Mines and Collieries Act removed women and children from the mines.
Married men were paid a higher wage than single men under some industrial awards.
The old complaint of feminists that married women couldn't even get a credit card unless their husbands signed for it stems from the same concern. Of course the husbands had to agree, since it was the husbands who would be ultimately responsible for paying off the card if necessary. I hate that this is always presented as the ultimate insult to women when in fact it stemmed from protectiveness. Our whole family court system still operates on a similar principle, but you don't hear many feminists complaining that it is insulting for a woman to be able to live on her husband's income even years after she has left him and provides no services whatsoever in return.
Married men were responsible for supporting their families. Obviously some did not do this well and others abandoned them. However, married women had no obligation to support their husbands. How come I learned this history at school in the 1960's in Ireland but younger people don't seem to know anything about it?
The early writings of Melanie Philips for instance. Much of what I learned was from the research of self declared "feminists". Many, like Philips, are now seen as not feminists or "anti". It was "feminist" academics who high lighted these sort of things as "benign sexism". Their contention being that doing things like treating women as influenced by men or mad rather than responsible for their own actions "denied their agency". The generous treatment of women in criminal justice was one such big issue at the time. Their were protests here "up north", by women, at the Acts you refer to as in the Mill Towns and Mining Towns where the mills and mines were practically the only source of employment, these Acts cut off or curtailed earnings for families. Paradoxically creating the dependance on the male wage earner! Engels in his writings about Manchester observed the fact that both men and women worked, and childcare relied on relatives. In fact he was appalled that women took only a couple of weeks off to give birth and then were back in the Mills! As the economist Catherine Hakim pointed out in her work it wasn't until the comparative affluence of the 1960s that the woman at home man at work model of family life became more widespread with the levels of female economic activity in 1990 being the same as in 1890. As I know from my own genealogy research the absence of welfare etc. required people to work to earn a living. Modern feminists appear to believe that in everyone in the 19th Century were gentry able to enjoy the "season" as in Austin novels.
Though this is a personal comment; When I was 8 my father died suddenly. At the get together following his funeral a number of adults told me I was now the "man of the house" and should look after my mother and brother (he was 4). This made a big impression on me. However I just accepted it, it wasn't until I had my own children and they reached such an age that it seemed an odd thing to say to a child. I'm sure my uncle and other relatives thought this was a helpful thing but in today's world I'm sure it would be regarded as giving a big burden to a grieving child. I hope so.
I really don't know its origins. Its still widely used locally but more often to late teenage males as a reason to get a job and behave responsibly. I suspect there is a social class element to this. A presumption that as soon as possible a young man should get a job or trade and "settle down" and become a "family man" (though these days the latter does not necessarily include formal marriage). Women still refer to "hubby" and men "the wife" even though frequently not actually married. I live in one of Manchester's most affluent suburbs but right on the border of "the biggest council estate in europe" the difference in social mores and behaviors is quite stark.
As you say it was difficult to work out what I was supposed to do. It is only in retrospect that i realised that I interpreted this to be as "sensible" as possible and indulge my brother as I had to look after him a lot as my mother worked. I reflected on this some years ago when an old friend opined "you were always middle aged!". But then perhaps that's just my personality, who knows?
I wish more people would realize what a profoundly conservative movement feminism is. Sure, they want to change the rights of women to match those of (the most privileged) men and do away with the responsibilities of women but that isn't a prescription for a bold new society. It would, rather, bring us back to ye olden days when most power was inherited and the inheritor was as likely to be a she as a he.
It is certainly no coincidence that existing centers of power--political, economic, even most religious sects--have had no problem with feminism whatsoever.
You could argue that feminism was a reaction against the inevitable shift towards a more gender equal society brought about by new technology. The home was being filled up with mod cons and the workplace (office / factory) was becoming much more women-friendly with indoor plumbing, electric lighting, central heating, safe public transport links etc.
As gender roles became less clearly defined, feminism (patriarchy theory) ensured women retained their monopoly on being society's default fragile/ victim class in everyone's minds (and the law).
Feminism arose in the culture where, ironically women had the most rights in world history. Even if you roll in the mediterranean in general, Egyptian women had a lot of property and familial rights, Romans granted women extensive rights, including herbal abortions and even infanticide for poor post-natal health (the woman has the right until age one, the father after that for severe moral infractions, even if not often exercised), Jewish culture allowed divorce, and norther European cultures writ large gave women more rights than they currently enjoy in many poarts of the world.
Nice one!
Not that I had that much respect for Mr. Peterson before, but whatever amount I had for him just dropped significantly. How can he and the others be blatantly ignorant? Or are they just stupid, or incompetent? I'm of the age that witnessed the start of the downfall: beginning with the JFK murder when I was 13, society has been going downhill ever since, and I was there during the entire sixties insanity, which included the women who would be candidates for a life partner who drank the feminist Kool-Aid. I unfortunately married one of them which of course ended in disaster. I've been single ever since, reminded by women almost daily of what a horror they truly have become. Now, I thank my lucky stars I got through it all relatively sane and safe, happily painting away in my studio every day. Others have not been so lucky.
I am sure that Jordan Peterson is fully aware of these realities; he has simply decided not to say.
Apparently, while "The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) is an international community with a vision for a better world where every citizen can prosper, contribute and flourish" (copied and pasted directly from their website), men don't qualify to be included in their vision. Peterson most likely wouldn't have been invited to speak if they thought he would rock the boat with the truth. Sad, but not unexpected.
theres something up with ARC. Im watching carefully. They seem to be well funded, and they are not woke, for sure, but they are playing footsie with BOTH Neo-Cons AND the "sane feminists".
It is probably true what he says about a certain type of psychopathic man taking advantage of the situation, but it is a tiny slice of the overall picture. Janice's observations are much more useful in correcting the problem.
His focus has been men. That is his real interest.
This is the memo I have referred to elsewhere. While he back tracked a bit on dinging #MGTOW and Red Pill, he is still blithely ignoring the legal realities and honestly, what exactly are men supposed to do? Be subject to the "obligtatory marriage" his critics lost their shit over him purportedly advocating *for women*?
I am disappointed in his lapse here and wonder if the forces behind the scenes have advocated a certain silence on the general feminist derangement, hoping to aid in severing trans from it. it is a Hydra. Good luck with that.
Yes, I understand the fear. But it is extremely disappointing nonetheless; it makes it that much more difficult for everybody else to discuss these issues publicly. I think it also closes off a different set of people who would respect someone with the courage and truthfulness to say what they know to be true. It's the downside of fame: you become a slave to it.
You haven't become a slave to it Janice.
Thank you. But I'm not famous! or only in our circle (MRA)
One thing I deeply admire about you, and wish to emulate, is the precision and clarity of your output. No- one is ever left in any doubt what you mean. Consequently, we can trust you, even if we have a different opinion.
You can make a coherent, well- evidenced case in twenty minutes, I suspect that the clarity of your mind doesn't suit the pseudo- gladiatorial sport of mutual insult which passes for "clever" content in the mainstream. You don't need, as Peterson does, multiple two- hour podcasts and a TV interview every week. Your books are mines of useful information. Peterson's books? Bibles for the closed- minded, busy- body know - it - all.
Let him be famous. Let him be rich. Fame and riches are neither happiness nor noble pursuits. Being right matters. Being popular really, really doesn't.
I would be very surprised if that were true and in certain circles I'm sure you're infamous.
Jordan has a weakness for virtue-signalling, which often vies with the course of the ship he's otherwise steering like some kind of Noah/Ahab through "Woke" waters.
I think where he is good he is really good. He has helped a lot of young men. When he strays from his real beat though he is not always great.
"ARC" JBP of all people understands Jungian imagery and subconscious signaling.
Things aren't looking so good for correcting this mess. Girls don't want to be girls, and boys don't want to be boys due a toxic narrative and culture that encourages self-hatred depending on what "gender" you are. Men are increasingly hesitant to have children with women who'll run off at the slightest provocation with his kids and half his income. Women glorify abortion.
If I've said it once, I'll say it again. This matriarchy will be the death of us.
Women don't need any provocation to destroy a man's life, the passing fancy for something different is enough.
All men need to understand is that there is far more to life for a man than throwing it away for a woman. Who cares what happens to the human race and why is that the responsibility of men and not women?
We have one life and one life only, and there is no afterlife. Men should spend theirs thinking only of themselves, as women do.
Oh please. Just say that you can't find a date on Tinder (which is 76% male) and call it a day. Unf*ckable males and their whining online--wow, I wonder why you can't get a date???
Explain your troubles to the girls in Afghanistan who get beaten for trying to go to school. I'm sure they'll be bowled over with your intense suffering.
Nobody cares about your inability to get a date. Get a life.
I don't think the issue is dating. The issue is the male preference to read data and make rational choices.
The data could not be clearer. Dating and marriage are high risk options for men in Western nations.
As for the girls in Afghanistan. I seem to recall it was fit healthy young men who lost their lives in that country trying to improve it. It wasn't an army of young women who went in.
It ended in disaster thanks to political decisions. But those who risked their lives were not women and they certainly were not feminists.
You are demonstrating the ignorance that is driving young men to question everything and ultimately reassert their place in society. Even living a pampered existence as you do you still find some way to hassle men, this time by choosing an extreme culture then using it to condemn all men.
This inability to accurately assess information is characteristic of the female mind and has parallels in the recent trajectory of women. Give them free choice and they choose badly leading to their destruction. The cat food industry thanks you for your shortsightedness 😜
Western men have never mistreated women as the Taliban do. Bodicea the British queen ruled almost two thousand years ago in a society that is the direct descendant of America. We have always treated women well even to the point of accepting them as heads of state.
Basically, you think like a teenage girl. And more men are now realizing you can't reliably run anything without whining and blaming men when it goes wrong. The emergence of what you would consider sexism among teenage boys, visible online, is an inevitable consequence of this.
The technique of picking extremist foreign societies we spent blood and treasure trying to improve to insist this reflects all male behavior is tedious and reflects the growing awareness among men that women lack critical thinking skills. If that is the case why are we letting them run anything?
I get the angst. This feminist era is clearly coming to an end. It failed. As the article outlined even now, with women unhappier than ever, there is no accountability and no real analysis. Men bad, women hapless victims even when they make all the choices.
As to your own comment. What has changed is younger men are no longer pursuing women, a first in history. Possibly a civilization ender. If I were a woman it would worry me. Those young men dropping out are retreating from society, including the necessary role of protecting women. So dating is the least of our worries. It is the abandonment of women that will probably trigger a reset and it will likely be driven by women begging men to come back.
I agree 100 %. The cat food industry definitely thanks me: I have four, equal to the number of children my mother had. I have none and regret following the Feminist Pied Piper off the cliff, to my detriment.
Sadly many are in that position. I mean, what is the point of life? It can't be to consume.
Kat, you're welcome to make reasoned arguments as appropriate on my Substack, but not to respond with jeers, personal insults, and harassment to nearly every commenter. Shame on you.
Kudos for banning AND allowing the comment to stand for us to read if we choose.
The female reliance on shaming language is one of the traits young men are learning about. Just one aspect of their ongoing education. Once it is pointed out to them it is like a superpower and a great source of enjoyment to men, lol.
I note the emphasis on dating, Tinder, being picked. That is another thing the young men are learning, that women are solipsistic, much more so than men. One aspect of that is projection. Women readily project fears on to others, and betray their inner turmoil. The fear of not being chosen, of being undesirable to men. These are female preoccupations not male ones. Men have the option to make themselves more desirable to female in ways closed to women. Men can go to the gym, work at a career or start a business. They can do so over years and improve over time. The ladies are judged harshly and quickly lose their desirability beyond their twenties. Another harsh truth the young men learn.
As for your litany of stats. Read more. It is precisely these that characterize growing female unhappiness. Aren't you reading the surveys about female discontent? They are even making it into the mainstream who cannot ignore record levels of female unhappiness.
By their fifties and sixties virtually no women state education or career as drivers in their life. Almost all state relationships, especially their children and grandchildren, as their main source of happiness. This is almost universal across cultures and even includes women who strongly focused on career. It all becomes meaningless after a while.
The obverse is also true. The most unhappy women, those who take the most prescription antidepressants, are childless women in their 40s who are borderline suicidal no matter how impressive their career is. This is even being discussed by feminists as those women tend to be bitter and vocal about the failures of feminism. Most blame men mind you.
I am not condemning you. But if you are even remotely typical you yourself won't care about college or career as life trundles forward.
"This is even being discussed by feminists as those women tend to be bitter and vocal about the failures of feminism. Most blame men mind you."
One of many political truisms springs to mind...in any conflict among women all sides will point the finger at men.
LOL I wish men could feel shame. The world would be a different place if men could feel shame. Men have no shame, this is the problem.
You clearly don't know what "solipsistic" means. Nothing sadder than when a dumb male tries to use a word he doesn't understand. I point out that Tinder is 76% male to prove a point--who is chasing whom? Who is upset about not getting a date? That's not solipsistic, you dolt.
Stop talking about women's happiness. It's obvious men don't give two f*cks about women's happiness and never did, so it's a moot point. You just sound stupid. Be quiet.
Kat Highsmith <- the same old toxic feminist false tropes, ho-hum.
The Bs are really clustering in this one aren't they. I am only able to read her posts in Josh Slocum's 'narcissistic bitch' voice. Indeed, I thought the first one was a parody. Intellectually vacant, ignorant, shrieking, projecting ball of femfluff.
Yeah, I take this seriously, after hearing responses that are just accusations of being "old," "fat," "ugly," "cats," LOL.
Nothing I say is untrue. Janice and her fans are delusional. Literally no comprehension of history or reality.
Wow, the word salad spewed by Kat Highsmith is a wonder to behold. And while denigrating the intelligence of others! YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE.
Look at the logic:
"You people are irrational. Janice fans are sub 80 IQ tards. You think Western men can brag because they don't throw acid at girls walking to school? The bar is in hell."
AND THEN THE BEST LINE:
"It proves my point."
Haahhhhaaahhhhaaahhhhaaa
What a TERRIBLE writer.
Thank you for proving our point you miserable toxic feminist!
Didn’t you forget to mention penis size?
"No matches on Tinder"
I have a maxim: "All wokeness (at its root) is psychosexual"
Even the racial stuff contains a strong dose of sexual intrafeminine jealously.
I've looked through your hysterical outbursts, Kat, and I suspect that if they are typical of your 'dating' profiles it is you who cannot find a 'date' on Tinder, or any other contact site. I'm married and 67 so long past the age when I could be bothered with all the nonsense demanded by insane toxic narcissists with vaginas, like you, simply for the honour of wining and dining them at my expense. I have never been to Tinder, try another bitter and twisted projection.
As for the, certainly few and perhaps wholly apocryphal, 'girls in Afghanistan who get (sic) beaten for trying to go to school'; that somewhere in the world some women can't have just what they want just when they want and are held to account when they break the rules, however justified you may feel they are in doing so, does not mean that women everywhere are oppressed, enslaved and subject to gross indignities and appalling brutality.
I can't see that any rational person reading my comment could interpret it as a tale of my own 'intense suffering'. I think that is a product of your fervid and puerile imagination, a response you've had cued up and been longing to use for some time and can resist using no longer. Unfortunately, you silly girl, in shooting from the lip you've shot yourself in the metaphorical foot. Have another go but do pause to take careful aim first, and make sure you hit your target and not yourself. I can mansplain how to do it if you find it difficult.
Nobody cares about muslim shit holes Kat. Only intersectional bed shitting morons like you, that seem to think you can join with the most hateful, anti human rights, anti-female ideology on earth.
You trying are insane aren’t you Jezebel? How does it feel being the most toxic and hated commenter here? Are you still crying? Let’s hope so, for you deserved every unhappiness and more.
We just marry women from overseas rather than date cunters like you. We leave women like you to pick up the dregs that are left. And for sport we laugh watching middle age women crying on youTube because they regret divorce.
My friend set up an entire channeling laughing at delusional old cunters just like you! Here’s a sample.
https://youtu.be/Jr_g8XNkAOs?si=0VeuaHxWvk6SVhfp
You have no clue what's going on. The "trans" agenda is a funded agenda by subversive billionaires. Abortions have been performed for thousands of years. The most common result of divorce is men abandoning and not paying, and women just accepting it because it's easier.
Everyone who comments here is literally delusional. You live in a dream world where the FeMiNaZiS are the cause of your ugliness and failures. This is hysterical male stupidity and it's pathetic. Nobody is "glorifying" abortion, you sad, porn addicted fool. Women have been forced to carry unviable fetuses for weeks because it's been denied.
Men are crazy.
I sense a miserable old drunk cat lady. I bet if anything you're the ugly, fat unfuckable one, it would explain the fact you hate men and refuse to consider any of their sufferings. What makes you think you're so much more desirable than anyone here, and therefore have the right to insult them on their physical appearance, as if they would want you anyways?
I have to agree. Lots of misery inside this mind.
Wow, mentioning cats and calling a woman old as the best insult. Such intelligence, such eloquence, such original thinking. I'm young. What if I was 85 years old? Then what? You'd feel better about crying online about teenage girls, men who can't get laid, and porn?
Like I said, people who like Janice are low IQ morons. You people couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. Like I'm impressed with cat lady comments. Same old misogynist BS, and you think it sounds smart. Your life is a waste. Antifeminist losers are pathetic.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
I don't think you even know what "hypocrisy" means, sir. This is a low IQ convention over here.
Any non-ad hominem comments? There are arguments to be made, but insulting everyone is not an argument.
And yet here you are complaining about insults, while insulting everyone. LOL
The people who tolerate you on a daily basis are the real heroes. Why are you still breathing?
the autonomic nervous system is very powerful. however, I am a clairvoyant and can tell you the last time she had an orgasm was in 1975, by accident, she had to look it up in a book to find out what had happened
I hope you are 85. Anyway being a cunt knows no age or gender.
Then we're supposed to care about male suicide rates LOL--they're too low.
Go make it higher.
I have a maxim (annotated in parentheses for this exemplar):
FIRST comes the insanity
SECOND comes the "theories"
THIRD comes the genocide.
While you aregue the SECOND (feminism) with the FIRST (Kat) they commit the THIRD (grave dancing in public over men's deaths and normalizing this behavior to young female readers, in a way that influences public sentiment and policy).
Casual jokes about suicide. This kind of behavior speaks volumes. Personal insults are one thing, but callousness is a trait that damages all of society.
You were quick to claim I didn't care about female happiness, despite no evidence to support this claim. I care enough to read up on the subject and to find declining female happiness troublesome and a problem worthy of attention despite being a man.
Suicide is a symptom of a broken society no matter whether it is women or men killing themselves.
Tragically, this level of bitterness is something even some feminist scholars are beginning to notice. Western society is becoming more difficult for women, and much of it is related to changes driven by feminists. It is doubtful your own grandmother was this bitter despite the narrative she was oppressed. An interesting turn of events.
Blood thirsty little rodent aren't ya... lol MUHH PUSSY!! LOL Go back to the HR department you run.... POS
Misandry does not exist, yes?
Since you know it all, you should know when to shut up you miserable toxic witch! How does it feel being the most stupid and hated commenter here?
I find myself reading your comments and feeling very sad for you.
Kat Highsmith <- the same old toxic feminist tropes, ho-hum.
What is happening here is that thick women like Kat have realized that feminism has run out of track.
They cannot argue against the trans movement because the trans movement is using exactly the same arguments as feminism.
Presented with such a dilemma they only have their whining emotions left. It is for such reasons I am a massive trans supporter!
Women glorify abortion: half of them have had a couple already by the time they have another. It’s called female irresponsibility
who glorifies abortion? I work with women and most consider it a tragedy
Some might, but I am a woman and I hate it.
No one is glorifying abortion? "You have no clue what's going on." Seriously. You have no clue. What's your address? I'll send you the bright pink sweatshirt with the word "Abortion" brandished across the front in red letters that I saw on display in front of a shop in Brooklyn.
I don't watch porn, you "sad" presumptuous fool.
It's feminists who were the ones supporting the T in the LGBT back in 90s and the 00s. Who told you to support them and shut down men for "transphobia"?
You abuse, you lose!
The bottom line is
First respect yourself.
Then respect the other.
No one is a perfect "10" but they do attract each other.
Perhaps a good "7" match would last longer.
Good to read this passionate response to the constant whining about the failed sexual revolution, Janice. I too am infuriated by Louise Perry's pronouncements about how it has been so damaging for women. What drives me crazy is she never addresses the fact that the real shift in sexual power that has occurred since then has been married/partnered women deciding they are within their rights to refuse sex if they don't feel like it - women always have the right to say no! Even if that means leaving their partners begging for sex for year after year. These women are so two-faced.
Thanks, Bettina. An excellent point.
A woman who refuses her husband sex should have no right to divorce him if he seeks it elsewhere.
These same moids then cry how women don't want to marry anymore. Why would any women want to marry such an irrational, angry, idiotic man? You're the perfect example of why women are walking away. So shut up.
Get off the computer. You're not entitled to women's time, attention, money, or anything else. Nobody cares, and the universe owes you nothing.
You must care a little bit. You've put a lot of effort into your insults. Is there a reason you're reduced to doing this rather than being strong and independent?
No, I mean nobody cares that ugly men can't get a date, that's the primary driver of "antifeminism." If you weren't a loser, you wouldn't have to describe yourself that way. Only failed males who have been rejected speak this way. Get a life. No one cares about you.
Oh. You don't care about me, so that's why you are spending your time insulting me. I see.
It makes sense in the deranged female brain.
Guys I know, a bit older, can get any amount of dates they care to go on. When younger women have more attention than they care for, and men have not enough. At some point the shoe is on the other foot. This ‘you can’t get a date...’ is silly. It gets easier and easier for men. And from what I can see, harder and harder for women.
You really are a hoot Kat; your unthinking reactionary projection of incessantly rehearsed female concerns on to men, in defiance of reality and sanity, is the funniest thing about you.
But women do still want to marry you ignorant pile of dog faeces! At least do some homework before you come here with your head full of shit.
Thank you for your empathy towards the marginalized and alienated men who struggle through a culture dominated by female hate.
Yes, indeed!
Lol I'll translate from malespeak to English--"I can't get laid and it's not my fault women reject me, so I'm happy when others make excuses for the fact that I'm ugly/uninteresting/fat/unf*ckable"
Get back to Call of Duty, dude. Nobody hates you. We just don't care, and you're not entitled to anything. Pure male narcissism and irrational ego.
Kat Highsmith <- the old toxic feminist.
Say something about cats, really use that one brain cell you borrowed from Janice.
Most of this stems from male sexual failure. That's what "men's rights" is for.
I borrowed my one braincell from Janice AND I REFUSE TO GIVE IT BACK. She will have to come after me for it.
I said nothing about cats, your projecting.
I’m so sad Kat blocked me from her shit substack!
Can someone send some Kkeenex please.
she blocked me too! so mean!
Yep I'm blocked too lol
I DIDN'T SAY YOU SAID SOMETHING--That's a sarcastic statement because it's a typical, overused insult that's already been used. "Say something" is a command here.
Can any of you idiots read? Do you understand how language works? Why do all of the males here have the reading and logic skills of a dead raccoon? I keep getting surprised that you dolts are actually getting dumber. You have no clue how words work. Stop embarrassing yourself. AND IT'S YOU'RE, NOT YOUR. You imbecile.
You unveil so much about yourself with these delusional invectives. Why are you so angry at the world? Our views are utterly marginal in our gynocentric society. You won long ago. You ARE the majority, mainstream view. We have lived in the matriarchy for decades now. What’s the problem?
Another rant, thx Kat.
Ha! Drunk again Jezebel? Everyone is laughing at you and SINCERELY HOPE you fall off the face of the earth. How does it feel being the most toxic and vile commenter on the entire internet? Still crying??? That’s nice-
Why do you disgusting women have to make everything about sex? Oh, right... It's because nowadays that's literally all you have to offer men. Except women aren't even useful for that anymore because they've completely undermined our court systems for accusations of sexual crimes. As a young man living with several other young men, and all of us being single and wanting nothing to do with potential girlfriends/wives, I find your sexual/attraction shaming to be pretty humorous. It's like I'm observing someone punching air. Have at it.
Were you born this stupid or did you
take lessons? You really should come with a warning label you toxic witch! EVEN YOUR CATS HATE YOU!!!!
Janice, I admire all your writings and videos, and I don't think I've ever read a better piece from you than this new one. I was so pleased when you accepted my invitation to be the keynote speaker at the next International Conference on Men's Issues, to be held next August in Budapest, Hungary. The speaker list link is below, speakers include for the first time in the 10-year history of ICMIs two elected politicians, the Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Esther McVey, a married couple.
https://icmi2024.icmi.info/?page_id=21
Keep up the awesome work!
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS
http://laughingatfeminists.com
Lol "laughingatfeminists" --at least we go to university LOL
You want justice? Stop watching porn and playing video games, and get a job. You're entitled to nothing, and nobody feels sorry for you because you can't get laid.
Hi Kat. Thanks for your deranged response to the existence of a website, I can only assume you're a feminist. I would recommend you watch one of the 155 videos from the related comedy channel, "Hitler reacts to radical feminist Julie Bindel" (4:00). Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjcPaBrGqI&list=PL9TSgIKqzJEP1qC4AoC_0rvVsTSqNEW81&index=142
This is a really good argument; smart people usually bring up Hitler like this.
Just watch it and you'll see a "smart" critique of a prominent feminist "journalist" who wouldn't be able to find work as a "journalist" if a partiarchy existed in her country (the UK).
Thanks Clayton, likewise Julie Bindel and many other parasites, of course.
Get a job
I have a job https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Buchanan_(politician)
We made university simpler so thick moronic women like you could attend you delusional old dish cloth
Yeah, that's it. Men are so smart they made university simpler so they couldn't do it anymore! The porn-damaged, video game-damaged modern male brain on display, right here.
Your father should be forced to apologize for this.
You’re thick Kat! But because we had to lower standards to the level of a snake’s arsehole we have given millions of ugly feminist donkeys a false sense of their own intelligence. You’re all soi disant faux intellectuals that crumble on the slightest of line of enquiry.
I keep warm at night and sleep well knowing there are miserable old hags like you so angry and bitter at life. Please feel free to comeback so I can have some further laughs!
Shit stains and BIG BRAINS! YOOO Kat is back!! So strong and independent™ Never has her hysteria been so WILD and FREE like a GODDESS in the wilderness. Mother GAIA bring us peace on earth and a perfect utopia so KAT's diarrhea mouth goes away PLEASE thank you.
Hey Jezebel! Your birth certificate is an apology letter from the condom factory! Plus you are stupid, ugly, fat, and even your 30 cats hate your ugly face!
Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever invited Jordan Peterson to speak at an ICMI? Or would he not be someone you would consider?
Hi D101. We explored inviting him to speak at the 2018 conference in London but the cost was prohibitive (and surely will be for the foreseeable future). I'm a big admirer of JP, as are many MRAs, but despair of him at times in relation to a number of areas including feminism and women's responsibility for their actions and inactions. Janice's article is a great illustration of JP's problem.
Have you ever seen his British GQ interview with Helen Lewis? I watch it every few months just to see him absolutely dismantle her notions of patriarchy, social construction, etc.
I still need to watch the panel this article is based on but, as far as I can remember I've never seen him express anything but contempt for academic feminism, campus rape courts, intersectional theory, etc.
Thanks - no, I can't stand watching Helen Lewis. Dreadful women. But I guess I should watch it to catch JP's contributions.
Trust me. He fucking destroys her. If you can't stand her you'll enjoy the shit out of watching him dismantle her bullshit and humiliate her for over an hour and a half straight. I watch it again and again.
Thanks, I'll put it on my list to catch.
You need to understand the elaborate information war we're in here, Juden Peterstien is an agent of zion, If you don't understand he makes over 10mil a year shilling for the world dictatorship ran out of Jerselum you're out of the loop...
Where, BTW, is "Jerselum?" And is "Peterstien" supposed to be 'Peterstein', as in a typical Jewish name like 'Weinstein' or 'Epstein'? Somewhere between spell check and the ever present dilemma of judging between sarcasm and congenital mental retardation lies the truth.
congenital mental retardation! wow lol nah i just don't give a fuck about looking smart or editing comments
Better "out of the loop" than loopy.
I was very sorry to hear that Peterson presided over a discussion that skewed this way. I would have expected better of him. Your summary of the discussion shows that only one sex matters and that women's happiness is paramount. Women must be given what they want. If it turns out that they get what they want but then want something else, they must be seen as victims (even though they are the victims of a movement they themselves promoted). The idea is that nothing social is ever good for women; women are always being short-changed, always deserving of special assistance and compensation. One could be forgiven for saying that, like some demanding children who are never, ever satisfied, what such people really want is attention. Victims get attention, which then itself becomes a victimizing force creating the need for more attention. That said, l wish you had been there to tell these pundits, as you call them, what you thought of their charade.
With respect. I'm surprised that you are surprised. Peterson and his peers in the self described 'intellectual dark web' promote this drivel. Never forget that Peterson described men who avoid their abusers (MGTOW) as weasels. They are not intellectually honest and are therefore not our friends. Nor for that matter are they truthfully friends of women.
I gave Peterson points for going after Trudeau during the lock downs and the rest. I did not know about the weasels comment or other things I've heard about him. Thanks for your note.
Hear hear. Peterson is highly skilled in the art saying whatever sells most books.
Oh good another screen grab, thankyou.
He's about five minutes away from having another meltdown and stuffing himself with Xanax again, since he's a strong, rational, male leader with great self-control. Thank goodness he's not chaotic, like irrational, weak women are (like his wife dealing with her cancer while he's being dragged to rehabs in Russia).
Great representative for male rationality. LOL
Anita Hill established the playbook for disingenuous sexual harassment allegations in her testimony which included the fact that she worked for Thomas a second time after the alleged harassment by Thomas. If she was so offended, why work for him a second time? The beat goes on…
I fondly recall a younger Joe Biden helming the proceedings with his combover, amusingly expressing DEEP interest in the potentially erotic minutiae of Ms. Hill's allegations.
"Please explain for us in more detail, Ms. Hill, about the pubic hair on the Coke can..."
Second verse
Same as the first
And he still got the job and he's still working--WTF ARE YOU DOLTS CRYING ABOUT
And yet you state "Do you understand how language works"
You should have been on the panel.
She's not smart enough. And her fans are sub 80 IQ drooling tards.
LOL, Kat's still here showing everyone what truly toxic ideology feminism is. Keep making fool of you self. So I can grab more screen shots to post on X.
Pure lunacy. The same old insults against men. Citing ugliness and lack of sexual prowess as the reasons behind women leaving men. Not realizing that the same could happen to attractive sexually skilled ones. Telling me to stop defending people who hate me. Apparently she's never grown up in a family with a loving father and therefore thinks no man is capable of loving. All the admiration of the female, in both religious, aesthetic, societal/political realms evades her. A psychotic full of irrational hate who spills it out on people who never once said they hated her. No one here hates women, they merely dislike feminists because of their male oppression. She however, hates men to the core. Apparently every man is the devil in her mind.
LOL this from someone who tried "ugly," "fat," "old," and "catlady" when I point out inconvenient facts. Original insults!
You people are clueless.
Inconvenient facts my ass. You pointed out nothing other than the exact same insults. Just out of curiosity Kat, do you hate ever single man out there? You might as well tell so we can see just who is the unhinged extremist.
Post this story and talk about toxicity: "AI-generated pornographic images of female students at a New Jersey high school were circulated by male classmates, sparking parent uproar and a police investigation, according a report."
https://nypost.com/2023/11/02/news/ai-generated-nudes-of-girls-at-nj-high-school-trigger-police-probe/
Again out of interest, is there any distinction in your feminism between images generated the old- fashioned way, (using a camera to photograh a live model,) and an image generated without a model, by computer?
Because I remember that feminism has long complained that taking photos of entirely consenting, well- paid, professional models is exploitive and harmful. So wouldn't it make sense for you to welcome the advent of model- free erotic imagery?
LOL keep them coming Kat.
Cherry picked. Most girls sexualize themselves. I would know I see them everywhere. I'm one of the few to not have ever done so. And not because I'm ugly, although I'm sure you will pick that route, even though I'm almost certain you are far uglier, fatter, and older than me.
Huh?
CHERRY PICKED? This is literally a news story from something that happened. Do you even understand the words that you're using? That's irrational.
I knew Janice fans are f*cking idiots who hate themselves and women in general, but this is getting out of hand. You people are the bottom of the barrel of humanity, and you sound like you're obsessed with hating on teen girls because you think they deserve abuse. You're trash. Literal trash. Indicative of the low IQ human trash around here. Shut up.
You still haven't answered my question. Do you or do you not hate all men? And telling me to shut up. I hop you understand that we're not in the Middle East here. Freedom of speech very well exists. You sound like a fascist megalomaniac. I'll say as I please, especially since I am dismantling all of your arguments with reason and logic, unlike yourself. If you hate this substack so much, why are you here in the first place. Go back to bitching about transgenders taking over female spaces, as if it wasn't feminist supported queer theory that established the notion of gender being performative.
I just got called a sub 80 IQ drooling tard.
As you say there is nothing surprising about this gynocentric view. One that pervades our supposedly patriarchal society. I was reminded of this the other day, a friend had been on a guided walk round my city at the site of the medieval "ducking pool" a plaque informed him women were "ducked" for crimes such as false weights and measures, fraud and adultery, what it didn't say was that men would lose a finger or two or even be hanged for the same. In the same way as the much quoted "rule of thumb" is from a treatise that uses that rule to limit the severity of discipline on female household members compared to the much more brutal treatment advised for recalcitrant males. By only focussing on women means missing the fact that, certainly in western Europe, it males who have always been most closely controlled, or attempted to be so, because they are responsible, for the continuation of the tribe, family, nation and cannot be left to do their own thing. In many respects the current concern of "feminists" and traditionalists looks like a return to Victorian era with the return of campaigns by an alliance of bourgeois women and the Church to ensure males did their duty and were not distracted by the "needs of the flesh". "Breach of promise", making Male relatives guarantors of loans, civil recording of marriages, legislation against prostitution (including that against male prostitutes which got Oscar Wilde , a recent law he seemed unaware that his use of "rent boys" had become a crime) strict protocols for "courting", the "Birkenhead Drill", licencing laws on alcohol and gambling and temperance even prohibition in some then all the US. All about the concern to cement in Male responsibility in the begatting and looking after children and their mothers. It seems that all of these to be brought back, old wine in new bottles. So of course the feminist championing of sexual liberation has to be skipped past because it turns out Germaine Greer's assertion that free love would bring in socialism "willy nilly" was tosh.
Overall the confused and contradictory nature of feminism makes little sense unless one sees that it is simply riding on a deep deep social wave of gynocentricism, itself a reflection of the different part each sex play in reproduction and the survival of of our species. As Elon Musk recently pointed out fewer and fewer babies simply means fewer and fewer humans. It's not rocket science.
Germaine Greer: a stupid woman with a clever tongue.
And publisher of child porn.
"there is nothing surprising about this gynocentric view. One that pervades our supposedly patriarchal society. "
There are other similar paradoxes:
Anti-white racism pervades our supposedly "systemically" anti-black racist society
Rampant privilege & promotion of LGBTQ values pervades our supposedly "homophobic" society
Anti-religious agnosticism/atheism pervades our supposedly "repressive religious" society
Philosemitism pervades our supposedly "anti-Semitic" society.
No doubt I left out a couple of paradoxes.
The following sentence/paragraph will be lengthy. Prepare to take a deep breath.
Given the combined knowledge and experiences gathered by the readership of Janice's blog concerning both men's and women's issues, and, feminism, I propose that there has been an avoidance of responsible citizenship from the ARC panel by not only omitting half the world's population with their own unique station in life, but also by not exhibiting due corroboration, or process, to feminist claims.
By now we've all heard that one refrain, "Meet the new boss, same as......".
Peterson, and others, have stated publicly that there is no one coming to our (humanity's) rescue. In practical terms, we as individuals have to be the change. How can that be done when nearly every bull-horn has been captured by the most foul spirits imaginable? By supporting this fine blog is my first answer. As we've seen - friends are hard to come by.
Incredible article Janice. This has been precisely my view when I’ve listened to podcasts by Jordan, Mary on this topic. However you’ve articulated it so much more clearly, well done.
One additional point nobody mentions is that young men have also lost enormously from the sexual revolution, with the % of men under 30 who are virgins or long-term single skyrocketing since 2008.
This dynamic is further supercharged by the rise of social media and dating apps, where men swipe right on 64% of female profiles where women swipe right on 5% of profiles - resulting in a defacto polygamy whereby the top 5-10% of men have unlimited access to multiple partners but the bottom 50% (ranked by physical attraction) of men are essentially locked out of the dating game entirely.
This is an elephant nobody dares mention, and Jordan would no doubt chide these men for needing to grow up and take responsibility. Still, the long term social impacts of this will be enormous.
Seriously, if someone wants to assess the effects of a sexual revolution, shouldn't they at least, as a first step, look at who is now able to *have* sex?
On the flip side, there was that memorable moment (I think on Piers Morgan) when Jordan broke down in tears when he was articulating the plight of young men whose minds have been molested by our prevailing woke culture to the point of traumatizing their ability to grow into healthy masculinity. As far as I recall, while he did allude to feminism in that context, it may have been somewhat elliptical and not as robust as Janice may expect.
Absolutely brilliant analysis. Thank you, Janice. The damage to both men and women is so widespread, and yet hardly acknowledged. Meanwhile, the statistics of loneliness, depression, Bumbling for a partner, and single-parent children continues to cause widespread psychological distress.
Janice fans are the biggest morons on the internet. It's a low IQ extravaganza over here.
I just read your two shit substack pieces. Say a lot about how retarded you are. Utterly non sensical. Did your Dad drop you on your head as a baby or something?
YAWN. They're too advanced for dumb males with shitty reading comprehension skills. Stick to pornhub and Minecraft
Both the approach and the findings of this panel are emblematic of the intellectual impoverishment, disingenuousness, and paradoxical nature of the feminist agenda. Given that one of feminism's primary goals has always been to control the semiotics of victimhood, to shore up its political cogency, and to ensure that it's reserved for women, declaring women the victims of the sexual revolution or even of feminism itself is both a ridiculous proclamation of triumph and an admission of the sort of intellectual fraud that feminism has been attempting to perpetrate. Has there ever been a moment where feminism has wanted to define women as anything other than victims? This has been feminism's tried and true pathway to political power for several decades; and of course, it has also been remarkably effective in preventing men from acquiring a language to accurately and authentically speak about their experiences, which would necessarily involve acknowledging victimhood as an aspect of the male experience.
A masterful comment.
Something I have been thinking about recently is the growth or escalation in punishing men for being heterosexual.
Recently the narrative of "Rape Culture" even though it is a myth is gaining a lot of traction and the desire to punish more and more men.
"Enthusiastic Consent" is also gaining more traction and consent needs to be obtained by the male at every step.
The narrative that "women didn't know that they were sexually assaulted" and the push to convince more and more women that the sexual activities that they engage in, is actually sexual assault. Even though they participated willingly, it was sexual assault.
Daphne Patai in her book "Heterophobia" explores how the domain of the problem is continually expanded. So the classification of what consists of being sexual harassment is continually being modified so that almost all male interactions with females can be classified as harassment.
Katie Rophie in her book "The Morning After" pointed to pivotal changes in research methodology, where the researcher reclassified the answers of the female respondents. The question related to the consumption of drugs or alcohol. Even though the female respondents did not have an issue with consuming drugs or alcohol before sexual activity, the researcher classified this as sexual assault.
Since then, there have been slow but steady changes in the relevant sexual assault laws with one aim only, and that is to prosecute and punish as many men as possible.
Rape culture is no myth. Adult, female-on-male rape isn't classified as a crime in almost every Western country, and is almost never prosecuted where it is. Also included in this category are the consequences of men being raped (violating a man's sexual agency). These consequences include pregnancy entrapment (violation of reproductive agency), violation of his parental capacity, and violation of his financial agency. Women aren't forced to face any of these consequences when they are raped. So female-on-male rape is far worse morally and criminally speaking, than male-on-female rape. Rape culture is extremely prevalent, to the same degree that false accusation culture is.
Also, if a life destroying crime, "X," is not even classified as a crime, then obviously we have an "X culture." And you should then consider a person capable of committing it as a potential "X-ist" or "X-er." Hence, it is rational to consider all women as potential rapists as well as potential false rape accusers.
And don't even get me started on the male genital mutilation culture established by Victorian-Era women.
Richie McMullen's book "Male Rape, breaking the silence on the last taboo," ( GMP, 1990) is well worth a read.
"Rape Culture" what is your interpretation? How are you interpreting it?
Is this concept only being applied to heterosexual sex?
I see this claim of "Rape Culture" as an expansion of the work of Andrea Dworkin, and Catharine McKinnon. They claimed all heterosexual sex was rape and that women were unable to give valid consent because of society's indoctrination.
The use of "Rape Culture" is not only alarmist, but the mantra is a bit like "Reds under the bed".
"Rape Culture" encompasses a very broad range of human behaviour, behaviour in the courtship and seduction dance. These are now being seen as sexual harassment and sexual assault.
I defined rape culture in my comment: "if a life destroying crime, 'X,' is not even classified as a crime, then obviously we have an 'X culture.'"
The next thing is our society has rules of behaviour in regards to sexual relationships.
If you are saying that rape or sexual assault is accepted by our society, it is not accepted at all.
Perpetrators who are found guilty in a court of law are punished and research shows if a male is on trial for sexual assault, the conviction rate is much higher than for other crimes.
That makes no sense.
Tom Goldman in his discussion with Carrie Grass, pointed out how when something bad happens to a woman, rather than concentrating that it was perpetrated by a bad person, it gets amplified to being a cultural problem, even when 95% of the population would not do bad things to a woman.
Fantastic to see Janice give Peterson mugging.